All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E50: Crypto investing deep dive, Facebook's whistleblower fallout, Chappelle's new special & more

Starting point is 00:00:00 Our daughter's head is dropped because the our doctor she she felt the head and she was like yeah It's it's H. Moth whose head has gotten bigger. Yours are your daughters What do you mean don't quit your day job sex? Yes, I'm not quite Lance He's trying out material Total flop we are not in rhythm. You know why? It's mercury retrograde.

Starting point is 00:00:27 Our 50th episode is gonna suck because of this. Here we go. Three, two. We open source into the fans and they've just got the reason. Love you guys. I'm queen of Kenwa. I'm going crazy. All right, the Facebook whistle blower hearings occurred

Starting point is 00:00:52 and Facebook, um, do we, we're just gonna hear everybody. Hey, everybody, everybody. Hi, everybody. Three, two, hey, everybody wants to another episode of the All in Podcast episode 50. We made it to 50. 50, 50. Nobody expected us to 50. What the, Chiang Quanta. Nobody expected us to make it.

Starting point is 00:01:06 Here we are. We've made it and everybody is thrilled to be here with you. And thank you for the support over the first 50 episodes. One episode, one episode closer to getting canceled. One episode closer. Man, how great would it be to be canceled and never have to work again?

Starting point is 00:01:22 Oh, that would be wonderful. Okay, so Francis Houghin revealed herself on Sunday night, on 60 minutes, and then appeared before we get our own personal intro. So, or no, we're done. Oh, you're unbelievable. Does the audience get us? Retrograde, mercury, retro.

Starting point is 00:01:40 There's mercury retro, I'm gonna fuck that up. Doesn't the audience know us by now after 50 episodes? Everybody loves the intro. Three, two, all right. What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What? What and I'm your boy, J. Cal. Saks, I gotta say, I think your AUM is positively correlated with the bags under your eyes. You're mean it's getting bigger, you're correct. I mean, they're heavy. You're heavy, dragging you down.

Starting point is 00:02:16 That's where you're hiding all that salana in your fucking under your eyes. Jesus. You better clear that salana position. What's your lockup, 24 months? Fuck no, he's trying to sell it to me on text messages. Yeah, of course the go to we're negotiating discounts. I just had the FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Everything is a discount. Everything's discounted. You want to clear that position in an LLC? Are you saying I got a billion dollars to Savannah? No, bro, I'm saying I have one. But you know, I brought it to the discount.

Starting point is 00:02:49 But you're holding, correct? Ish. Yes, okay. Yeah, me too. Fish. Well, I mean, if something appreciates, at what point is the appreciation and an asset that you've invested in early,

Starting point is 00:03:02 something you need to, you know, at least clear a position of and walk in a win, I mean, what's enough? 100x, 500x? You got to, at some point, bank a win, right? Well, I think you have to put things in a bucket of, like, is it an investment or is it something that represents an idea that you love so much?

Starting point is 00:03:20 If it's the latter, you should never so. If it's the former, yeah, you got a manager, it's gonna be a better, you know, is it a trade or is it something you want to own? Anyway, let me just clean this up because what it's a lot of was not a direct investment for us. What we did is we invested in a crypto venture firm called Multicoin Capital. This is back in 2017. We realized like crypto is becoming like a full-time job for us as a total rabbit hole. And we were like, we don't have time to figure out this like 24-7 trading stuff,

Starting point is 00:03:51 but we met Kyle and Tushar, who were these two young guys. We met him through Vinny Lingam actually, and they were creating multi-coin capital. And we actually invested, we gave him a million bucks at a 20 cap to help set up their firm. And then we invested in their, they had, both a venture fund and a hedge fund. And they were like the first money into Salana. So that fund, I mean, it's like a hundred X fund. It's just like bonkers crazy. And so as a result of that, we are indirect beneficiaries of this huge increase in slanta. It will end up being about $1 billion of,

Starting point is 00:04:27 I think, slanta for us in terms of returns, but the multi-quin case can determine the trading decisions on that. Yeah, and so people who don't know, slanta is a programmable Ethereum competitor, I guess, and it's at $50 billion, so market cap, it was trading at a dollar not long ago, and now it's at 164. It's an Ethereum competitor, basically, for a smart contract platform, and

Starting point is 00:04:52 there's a lot of people, I'd say smart money, and Silicon Valley, who are betting on a flippening, where Salana could ultimately overtake Ethereum as the preferred platform. But even if it doesn't overtake Ethereum, it's the number eight cryptocurrency right now. There's a lot of people betting it'll go to number three or what have you. Additionally, it is a fraction of a penny for a transaction and it can do many more traction actions than Ethereum. So it's technically, should be much cheaper

Starting point is 00:05:26 if you're buying NFTs right now. You're probably spending tens of dollars in fees on Ethereum, whereas if you did those same NFTs, which some people are starting to do on Solana, they would cost a fraction of a penny, corrective? Or is it true? Yeah, I think the platform is known for being a faster, cheaper blockchain.

Starting point is 00:05:47 Really, really congratulations. And if Vinny Langham's Instagram is any indication, he did pretty well because his Instagram suddenly turned into a world tour on private jets. Like, which island should I buy? And well, like Vinny was sort of like a, I don't think he's full time in multi-coin, but he was sort of a venture partner to Kyle and Tushar and he helped set them up. This is back in 2017. He helped bring us in as the first investors.

Starting point is 00:06:14 And I mean for us, it was sort of a founder bet combined with a, like a team, like sort of a space bet. Like we knew the cryptocurrencies were starting to be traded 24, 7. We knew it required more of like a hedge fund skill set than what we had. And so we made, you know, we made a bet on those guys and man has a good way to pay it off. Strategies, right, SACs is if you are LPing in new fund managers, which I've done a couple of times now, you get to learn from them and basically dive into a data set of a new market, right? I mean, it's like one of the nice things about being an LP in a fund is you can place a small

Starting point is 00:06:54 bet, whether it's 50K or 500K or 5 million, whatever it is, you get like this meta education of an entire sector, correct? Yeah, but I think, you know, we didn't do it to learn from them, although we have. It's more that we realized that crypto was, like I said, becoming such a rabbit hole, like it. We realized we would either need to do crypto full time as a fund, or we would need to like partner

Starting point is 00:07:17 with people who actually did. And you see that with like a lot of VC firms now, is there creating like specialized crypto funds, or at least they have specialized crypto partners? There's so much to know about the crypto world. It's a hard thing to invest in unless you're totally focused on it. I've struggled with that.

Starting point is 00:07:32 I've tried to go deep on a couple of topics and I realized, holy shit, I've been in this for four to six hours just trying to learn this stuff and I'm not there. And then I feel uncertain about making any decisions. I totally get it. I mean, you gotta have folks like working on this. And the pace is changing so rapidly.

Starting point is 00:07:50 You really need to kind of be up to date on what's next. It's really challenging. It's really challenging. When you look at crypto, people use the word crypto as if it's like, that's all there is. Totally. Crypto is like, that's like, to be internet.

Starting point is 00:08:01 To be in a computing. E-Cache, cryptography, you know, financial modeling or building new economic systems, Tremoth. There's business model innovation, there's technology innovation, there's economic innovation, it's distributed computing innovation. Yeah, infrastructure, infrastructure hardware. I mean, there's quite a lot of layers of activity. Tremoth, are you spending time in crypto yourself or do you have people doing it for you or how are you kind of, we have, look, we have, we have a lot of layers of activity. Chamoth, are you spending time in crypto yourself or do you have people doing it for you

Starting point is 00:08:26 or how are you kind of, we have a lot of it. A lot of a lot of everything. So yeah, we have things. But do you go deep yourself, Chamoth? Like how do you spend enough time to really get up to speed on all the goings on? I cherry pick and I snipe and opportunities where I get intellectually curious and jump in, but a lot of the credit goes to my team.

Starting point is 00:08:55 There's a couple folks that spend a lot of their time in it. And we've had a couple people do extremely well for us. You know, similar to David's story, back in the day, you know, I invested in Barry Silver and DCG. That's a market Barry Silver. Yeah, and DCG is now, I don't know, I'm guessing a $20 billion company. Maybe more, I don't know.

Starting point is 00:09:24 So how does it mechanically work with your team? They are investigating opportunities, and then they come to you and bring you, hey, we'll do a meeting, and I'm gonna share four with you, and then you say, I'm eating the phone with that guy. Do you basically go deep when something shows up, Shema?

Starting point is 00:09:37 No, so basically what happens is, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, and what they're typically doing is, they're working with entrepreneurs to seed projects and to get projects off the ground. And then at some point when those projects become deep, large enough, then they'll issue tokens and we'll get a certain allocation of those tokens. And so we've done that for, call it, I don't know, some number of projects that we think are valuable. Then along the way, they'll have certain views on Bitcoin, they'll have certain views on Ethereum, they'll have

Starting point is 00:10:09 certain views on Solana, and we'll make capital allocation decisions. They tend to have the ability to do whatever they want. And then what I tend to do is just think about when it gets above, to me, I need to see the chance to make at least, you know, in the rough justice around, you know, $500 to a billion, and then I'll get involved. But otherwise, they just kind of run the whole thing. Let me ask you guys a question here. You know, when you look at the market caps of these projects, it seems like things are changing.

Starting point is 00:10:40 Cardona or Cardona is number three now. And Tether still remains number five, XRP is still number six. But so a lot of I would encourage people to not look at it like that. I think looking at it as a rank list betrays what it is. So you know, I'll give you a simple example. Let's like compare the fate of two projects or actually right now there's a distributed form of discord that's being built discord the chat app Yeah, I'm completely completely distributed way with an integrated crypto wallet because if you look at discord It's really two cohorts of people. There's gaming and there's crypto, right? So the two big ones. Yeah, so you know

Starting point is 00:11:20 That's an example of a really interesting Product that has some real potential. Then if you look at something like DISO, DISO is a decentralized, social programming framework, then if you look at something like Helium, that's completely about building a large distributed, you know, connection of on-ramps to the internet, so internet connectivity. So those are three completely different ideas with three completely different paths to success. If to invest in those tokens, you have to believe in three

Starting point is 00:11:56 totally different sets of things. So to look at it on a rank list and just buy something because it's cheap is stupid. Yeah, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no last three or four years. Because they're different, no, no, but you're talking about confusing. Again, that's what I mean. Those are layer one protocols, right? Meaning they are at the core substrate of how all of crypto is going to work. Then you have these other projects that build on top of these things in different ways or build around them.

Starting point is 00:12:38 So my point is, if you don't have, if you don't want to take the time to understand which layer two's you want to own which layer to's you want to own and which layer ones you want to own and why, I think you're much better off. I understand your point. My point is, I need ETF for something else because there are ways to own these things.

Starting point is 00:12:56 So for example, David, Solana is does not need Ethereum to exist. So my point is, do we see a day when this, you know, the past decade has been about Bitcoin and Ethereum? Do we see a day when maybe people stop buying those and start buying these new ones? Anything's possible, but here's the evolution of our thinking. I mean, the first step was realizing, okay, we need to own Bitcoin. Why? Because, you know, there's not enough evidence where what like a decade and we're more than a decade into this

Starting point is 00:13:27 Nobody has been able to essentially counterfeit a Bitcoin. It is you know new money. It is it is better money So if you but it's a I'm not gonna convince people right now of the argument for Bitcoin But if you believe in it that's sort of the first step is you realize you really need to have one to two percent of your portfolio believe in it, that's sort of the first step is you realize you really need to have one to two percent of your portfolio in Bitcoin in the event that fiat money sort of becomes debased and eventually moved to crypto. Then you realize, well wait a second, Bitcoin is just one application of blockchain, so there's a bunch of applications of blockchains, so maybe we need to own not just sort of digital money, but we also need to own the underlying blockchain platform and that leads you to

Starting point is 00:14:03 Ethereum. Then you realize that there's a bunch of competitors to Ethereum, and it's still very early days, and one of those guys might ultimately displace Ethereum as a blockchain platform. Then you realize that there's all these applications atop of all these blockchains. And so, you know, the conclusion I come to after all of that is I can't figure all this out. Well, maybe I could, if I was willing to go back to school and like make this a full-time job, which I just don't want to do. I mean, I'm lazy and that's why I focus on sats. Like, that's what I know.

Starting point is 00:14:31 You're telling the investor. Yeah. Like, I'm not going to reinvent myself. It's like you playing Holdum versus PLN. Right. Right. Right. Exactly. So, but this is why we partner with multi-coin capital. So what I would just say is like the idea that you as an individual investor are going to like, you know, pick off the one cryptocurrency here or there to invest in, I mean, that's going to be a lottery. I would, I would find a manager basically who is really good, who is a track record who understands this stuff.

Starting point is 00:14:56 Our approach is to hire very young, extremely technical computer scientists and mathematicians to basically do the work. That's working. Yeah, and one of the things that I think these guys do and the reason why it is very helpful for the computer scientists is these are all open source projects. So they go look at the repose. Just go look at it, go look at what? You can actually see the changes being made.

Starting point is 00:15:20 And this is like, do you realize there's only 12 people who are actively working on Salana in the... But you need to, you need to look at all the code check-ins. And seven of them work for Salana. You need to look at all the code check-ins. You need to look at the velocity of the code check-ins. Yeah. So you can see like how many projects are being created on these platforms. The white papers are also really exceptional. Like if you, if you read these white papers, they are, they're, they're,

Starting point is 00:15:41 they're really incredibly thoughtful and, and well written. And you can really understand what their goals are. And you can make some informed decisions there. But again, if you're not going to be in the business of being in this ecosystem, because I think David's right, everything is moving so fast. What's successful today could be just a dog tomorrow and vice versa that I think speculating in this market will not only will it be super volatile, but more than likely you're going to lose all your money. So I would encourage people to not speculate in crypto.

Starting point is 00:16:12 I would encourage you to figure out an elegant way of having an abstracted bet if to the extent you care about it. And by the way, in the UK, for example, there are ways where you can own publicly traded mutual funds that give you exposure to this. It's just simple. Yes. Yeah. But there are mutual funds of credit. Do the work. Find these mutual funds. Just own those things and let somebody else do the hard work because it is too hard. Some of the other investments we made back in 2017, 2018, time frame. One was a company called Bitwise, which was creating an ETF for crypto.

Starting point is 00:16:47 So it's a monthly rebalance portfolio of, I think, the top 10 cryptocurrencies. And you could buy it, they finally got approved by the SEC and you can buy it with a ticker symbol from your E-trade account. I didn't rob an E-trade. Exactly. So that was pretty incredible to see the progress they've made. And then the other big bet we made was just institutional custody. Back in 2017, we invested in BICCO. Actually, Bill Lee helped found that company many years ago. And then that became last year Galaxy announced a deal to acquire them for thing 1.2 billion largest crypto acquisition to date. The thesis there was just that crypto would go more institutional. And I think we're

Starting point is 00:17:28 starting to see that now where endowments and so on are realizing they need to have some portion, maybe one or two percent of the portfolio in crypto. And so, you know, it's unrealistic. Look, we have two almost $3 trillion of market cap in crypto. It's unrealistic for folks to expect people to be able to be living in discord channels and doing all of this work. I think what that means is that the SEC is going to be asked increasingly more often to approve simpler on ramps for this stuff. And now, in the last week, by the way, we had a pretty important two things happen, both Jerome Powell and Gary Gensner basically said, crypto is here to stay and we're not going to ban this stuff.

Starting point is 00:18:06 And so hopefully what it means is that you get some ETFs passed in the United States. You know, great scale is one, there could be more. And I think that stuff makes it much easier for folks to own this stuff. Well, a clear regulation would be a great thing for the industry, for people to buy into it and removing some of the, let's call them, I don't wanna say bad actors, but people who are maybe questionable like Tether, you know, I don't know if you saw the Bloomberg story yesterday,

Starting point is 00:18:34 but you know, a Bloomberg reporter basically found out that Tether, he got the list of what Tether owns with their stablecoin, and it looks like they're giving a lot of loans to other crypto projects and own a lot of Chinese paper in that they are basically making the float on $69 billion sweeping it, which then incentivizes them to take risky bets because they get paid on them. And it's anything but a stablecoin if you think about it from that regard. It's, I don't know the details on tether. I won't speak to that, but I'll say that any stable coin,

Starting point is 00:19:07 if it's not 100% backed by dollars, if that's a currency that's going in and out, or other hard currency, that's not a stable coin. You know, a stable coin is supposed to be a service, it's not supposed to be a speculator's currency, it's basically just supposed to be a mechanism by at the on-ramps and off-ramps to the crypto ecosystem, you can convert your dollars

Starting point is 00:19:31 into a temporary, again, stable coin that will hold its value. So you can, a progarchip that you can use to then buy Bitcoin or Ethereum or whatever. Yeah, USDC, USDC, Jeremy Lair's competitor from circle just said that he would switch to 100% to what you're saying cash cash equivalents. Guys, this has always been a money market fund. It should be treated like a money market fund and it should be regulated and managed like a money market. Which was to have this original vision and then they flipped the script because I think they got greedy. And now they on I think

Starting point is 00:20:05 And because they were regulated by by the way by the way, it's feats to the role of regulation Like you know a lot of people have trust in faith because they make some claim But there's no regulator actually checking on their claims the only people that want regulation are two ends of the spectrum So young and so disruptive where they want rails to operate legally and so big and so over the top that they want to basically entrench themselves for the rest of their lives. That's it. No, everybody in the middle doesn't really want regulation. Well, what's a, what's a way to create a company or if you're big tech, you both want regulation. Well, but there are some narrow cases, like again, you know, if a stable coin is going to say that we are just a money market fund, we're 100%

Starting point is 00:20:45 dollar reserve, it is really nice to have a regulator. Somebody we trust to go in there and put the stand approval on it. We can trust it. That is a valid role, I think, for a regulator. In traditional financial markets, you have these self-regulating bodies. I think it's fit, it's a self-regulating body, right? And so, you know, some of these self-regulating body, right? And so, you know, somebody self-regulating bodies should be formed in the crypto community. I don't know if they're

Starting point is 00:21:08 doing this. I'm so naive in this space, but certainly would make sense to have an SRO form that does self-policing effectively within the community rather than trying to bring in a government regulator. Here's the thing, if you police yourself, you can really define the execution and the ramifications of that policing. If you have 30 call it competitors and cooperators in the market space doing this together, it can be a highly effective model for creating a system of trust and reliability and not having to bring in, call it outside incompetence to overseeing the rules and rights. Yeah, another area we need standards is around

Starting point is 00:21:45 the token cap tables for these projects, right? So how much of the token cap table goes to the founders? What are the rules around them selling? What are those investing periods? And what are the disclosures around them selling? In public markets, we have 10B5. So if you're an insider who runs these companies, you have to disclose when you're selling,

Starting point is 00:22:04 there's no similar rule for crypto. I think there probably should be, right? If you own the token and you run this project and it's publicly traded and the public can buy it, you should really probably have to disclose your sales. And maybe, it's very strange because they're running foundations and I had a crypto person on from a music crypto project.

Starting point is 00:22:26 And he said they had like three or 400 million in this project in Panama. I was like, who's on the board of that? And he's like, I can't say. I don't know why can't you say? And he said security reasons. I was like, well, anybody who's on a public board has to be public.

Starting point is 00:22:38 And of course they have secure, you know, people who are on the board of GE or IBM or Amazon, they have security issues. Like they deal with their security issues. That doesn't mean they don't disclose where they are. I'm not comfortable saying who they are. And it's like, okay, well, they sold three or four hundred million. I was like, how do they give that money out? I'm like, he's like, I'm not sure I'm not on it. I'm like, what? Like there's some organization in Panama. That's, it was really weird.

Starting point is 00:22:59 And I think one thing that I'll say positively about these crypto founders is that they will never allow a single venture investor to clog up their cap table. Number one, they do a great job of creating these large broad syndicates of participation when they seed their projects. And then, you know, a lot of it goes into treasury where then they issue coins as needed. And I think that that strategy actually is very pro employee and pro ecosystem. So when we see these projects, all these companies tend to raise three, four, five million bucks.

Starting point is 00:23:33 It all tends to be at like 30 million pre and it all tends to be distributed. So it's us and Dresan Sequoia and it's like we put in 200 grand each, or 400 grand each, you know, that's why you're forced then go into the market if you believe in a project and then spend hundreds of millions of dollars

Starting point is 00:23:50 to buy into it after the fact. And I think that that's very, very powerful. It's a really important dynamic that if it comes back to traditional venture could be really disruptive. Why? Well, could you imagine a SaaS founder that basically all of a sudden

Starting point is 00:24:05 says, all right, you know what, I'm raising a $6 million series A, you know, craft can take 500K. Sequoia, you can have 500K, you know, blobody blob folks, and then you raise 6 million bucks that way and you never allow anybody to have more than call it, you know, a few percent of a company. So the fact that it's like a mini IPO, it's like a private IPO on Sandhole Road. Yeah, and then your board construction looks entirely different. And then as a result, you know,

Starting point is 00:24:31 founder protections probably go way up. Employee protections probably go way up. It's actually, it goes way down. No. I actually think what'll happen is you're less likely in a round like that to be okay with some dork, dingleberry joining your fucking board. You're going to actually point to some industry expert and say, this

Starting point is 00:24:49 person is joining my board, she does XYZ job at such and such a startup. And then the investor say, well, that's a pretty great advocate for the business. Go ahead and do that. Another thing I learned about this whole token space was when I talked to Anatoli from Solana, when they sold their 300 or 400 million tokens to fund the company because they consider them utility tokens not shares, they paid taxes on it. So the IRS is getting massive amounts of tax revenue. Well, think about it, they're selling the token. It's supposed to be for utility, with the Air Force a taxable event.

Starting point is 00:25:24 That actually was really smart. That is showing, I think, some wisdom because there selling the token. It's supposed to be for utility, with therefore, as a taxable event. That actually was really smart. That is showing, I think, some wisdom, because there's a lot of founders who want to have their cake and eat it too, which is to say, they want to say that these are utility tokens, and they don't pay tax, and then when they later get traded, they want to say they're not, you know, they're not securities, but, so when does the tax get paid?

Starting point is 00:25:42 I think it's really smart to pay the tax up front to establish that this is a corporate sale. They're basically paying the corporate tax, right? Yes. That is what it's, because this is the problem is if you wait until they're traded publicly and then say no, no, no, no, no, they're utility tokens, not security tokens,

Starting point is 00:25:59 the government's gonna ask you, well, why didn't you pay corporate income tax when you sold them, right? So that is actually showing some perspicacity, I think. Could somebody look that word up for me? You want to work? Forced-in-this, Jake Hell. Okay, great.

Starting point is 00:26:15 Awesome. It's so great that you have the two producers on either side of you right now feeding you vocabulary words. Well done. So here's another question with this. If the majority of people sacks, just put your legal hat on for a second. If the majority of people who bought a token in a project will call it the, you know, Acme crypto project, they buy Acme coins. If they're buying them and they have absolutely no interest in using them for the utility.

Starting point is 00:26:45 And they say, I bought these as a speculative device and the founder says they're utility tokens, but let's say 70% of the people who bought them said, I didn't buy them for that reason. They just came out right and said, I bought this to speculate on the price. What should the government do? Should they deem them a security or should they deem them a utility token? I think that's a complicated question, but I think that there should be an opportunity for these cryptocurrencies to establish themselves as utility tokens,

Starting point is 00:27:13 because they do serve a purpose. They are designed to be part of a system, right? They're not just objects of speculation, and by the way, even if they were, we don't treat baseball cards as objects of speculation. And by the way, even if they were, we don't treat baseball cards as security. So it wouldn't necessarily make them a security just because they're speculated on. They actually do serve a function in a designed computer system. So I think what's important here is that there's a safe harbor where these crypto companies know what the rules are.

Starting point is 00:27:43 And if they can basically meet the criteria, such as by paying corporate income tax when they sell the tokens and other things like that, that they won't later be deemed to be engaged in an unlawful sale of securities. I think the important thing is just that entrepreneurs, founders know what the rules are, so they can abide by them and not be surprised.

Starting point is 00:28:03 And they don't get surprised right now. Well, so they don't get surprised now. Well, they don't get surprised later. They don't get whammyed, but with basically, you know, because they are building something legitimate here, you know. Right. But it would seem to the sniff test if the people buying the tokens have no idea, have never written a line of code, have no use for them.

Starting point is 00:28:22 I don't see why that's relevant. I don't see why that's relevant. I don't see why that's relevant. Well, because they're profiting off of them as if they're shares. And unlike baseball cards, which you can't sell a thousand baseball cards for an increasingly in a very instantaneous way, you would have to put them in auction. You can't. There'd be a lot of friction. There'd be a lot of friction.

Starting point is 00:28:42 You could sell a physical card. You can trade it certainly like. Yeah. Yeah, it could be a lot of friction. There'd be a lot of friction. You could sell physical coins. You could sell physical coins. Yeah, Freeberg, what do you think? If the majority of people buying a token are doing it to speculate, can the founder say it's utility token and then those people who are trading it like either baseball cards, minted coins,

Starting point is 00:28:57 whatever analogy shares you want to use are in it for the increase in the value, should it be a security, and should they have to play by the rules we play at in the traditional venture startup game? I mean, the question is what's the utility? So, I mean, if you can demonstrate some utility, then maybe that's the,

Starting point is 00:29:18 and this will probably be litigated at some point, right? I'm sure there'll be enough capital sloshing around here that someone will say, you know what we believe strong. I mean, we're seeing this happen with ripple already. But someone will litigate this and we'll get some clearer definition on, you know, what statutes are going to be referenced and what those statutes might say with respect to the, how this ties to the definition of utility and then that'll become hopefully a standard that people can kind of look to to guide them in the future But it's definitely the Wild West right now and the reason I bring it up is because Gensler was sort of

Starting point is 00:29:52 Floating this argument. Tremoth. What do you think? I? Think that you can't wipe three trillion dollars of value out of the world and so so prank So, it's so pragmatically hard to do, got it? So it's here to stay. And it's too institutionalized now. So there's just way too many organized pools of capital that are now speculating inside of this entire ecosystem. I saw a tweet today, there's a firm I think called Jump Trading or something. It's like a high speed frequency trading organization,

Starting point is 00:30:27 and they tweeted out some pictures where they hired a bunch of folks to start a jump, and they did a coding bootcap on Solana. That was their onboarding, as an example. So when you have people in high finance, really vested in this thing, and you have $3 trillion of value that'll go to $6 trillion and then go to $10 trillion.

Starting point is 00:30:47 This can't go away. So that's why I think Powell and Gensler had to say some version of that on the record, which is we're not gonna band this stuff because they know it's not possible. So I think David's right, you have to create some rules, make folks and let folks pay their taxes. You know, I remember, for example, like I did this Bitcoin transaction in 2014 or something. I bought some land. I used BitPay. I transferred some Bitcoin, bought the land, blah, blah, blah.

Starting point is 00:31:13 I was like, you know, whatever. But whatever. I mean, I left, I mean, I owned a lot of the time, so it wasn't that big of a deal. But my point is finding a way for me to pay my taxes was a huge deal, I remember. And, you know, we filed the tax return and we tried to make sure that we paid our taxes. These are very complicated, even if you want to be conformant to the government, it's impossible right now. So they just need to create some rules where folks can say, here's what I own, here's what it's worth. Tell me how much I owe you, and we're all willing to pay, or maybe we're on an I'm on I am,

Starting point is 00:31:47 because I just think it's like, make sure that we can trade around it, hedge it, structure it, do the things that we would normally do with any other risk assets. Right now, that's very hard. And when you own lots of this stuff, it sits in your balance sheet

Starting point is 00:32:01 and you just take these enormous swings and you're just like, God, you can't do anything around this stuff. And that's not a viable financial market. That doesn't... Yeah. To be specific about what Gensler said, I just looked it up here. He compared utility tokens with, you know, laundry mat tokens or tickets to the opera

Starting point is 00:32:20 and he said entrepreneurs are choosing to perceive their tokens as utility to sidestep regulation. And that here's the quote, they are a highly speculative investment tokens for people who are trying to save or speculate for their future. And that's why I think it's appropriate to bring them inside the investor protection perimeter. I agree with him. I also agree with you, Chimath. This is a can of worms that I don't know how you put the G. E. back in G and the bottom. He's partially right. I mean, he is partially right on some tokens, but he's not completely accurate on some other tokens.

Starting point is 00:32:50 I think it's on a case-by-case basis and it depends. Listen, I think anybody who is buying these tokens right now knows that they're engaged in financial speculation, this idea that people in middle America are gonna blow their retirement savings on crypto. I just don't know why. If they know if they're doing speculation, then it should be a security. No, no, no, David, I think you're totally wrong.

Starting point is 00:33:10 I totally buy it. Look at the quarterly returns, the filings of earnings from companies like Robinhood and how much and square and how much money they make from crypto and look at their audience. That's totally not true. But don't you think that audience skews really young and they're getting their like COVID stimulus check and they're yoloing it into meme stocks or crypto. What does that have to do with? Well, because you're making a sound like they're going to blow their retirement savings. Okay, well, if you're talking about a 25 year old, you've got $5,000 of retirement savings. Maybe,

Starting point is 00:33:39 but they still got, you know, they still got 40 years of work ahead of them. Hold on a second. Wait, no, they don't. This is going to be the least hardworking generation of our lifetime. Why? No, no, not because they're not hardworking. Why? There's $70 trillion that boomers have that they are about to pass down to these folks on average between two and three trillion a year for the next 30 years.

Starting point is 00:34:02 Also, they know how to do gig work. Like, they're so smart this generation. They know how to do projects for 5 grand and float themselves. You're gonna take one entire turn of the world's GDP and give it to 100 million people in America over the next 20 to 30 years. That is what is actually going to happen.

Starting point is 00:34:20 So. Yeah. Look, I think, of course they're gonna keep you allowing this stuff. Yeah, look, I think we're gonna get- Of course they're going to keep you allowing this stuff. Yeah, look, I think we're going to get off on like a little bit of attention here. A good point. My point is not that there shouldn't be investor protections, but rather that I think we also need to balance another important objective, which is to create a hospitable environment for

Starting point is 00:34:40 innovation. And the fact of the matter is that you've got a lot of brilliant young entrepreneurs, computer scientists building this financial infrastructure of the future with crypto. It's not just speculation. There is a lot of code being written. It has functionality. There's a purpose to it. We don't want to interfere with that too.

Starting point is 00:34:59 To the point where we provide it. Well, every store has to do their securities, though, David. All the other startups that are not in crypto are playing by the rules. So it's crypto people get a pass, it's unfair. I agree with J. Cal. People make this claim and I just think it's so species. Do you think that you would have made a single professional decision in your life

Starting point is 00:35:15 based on tax rate? Have you ever made a single like, I'm gonna start this company, I'm gonna make this product, you know, I'm gonna change this job. I just think that most people... I'm not talking about paying taxes. I think it was smart for, for example, Slonna to pay corporate taxes on their token sale.

Starting point is 00:35:30 I think everyone should pay their taxes. That's not what we're talking about here. And I'm not saying that Gensel should prescribe regulations. I think that part of the process regulations should be to give entrepreneurs predictability to be able to give them a safe harbor so they can build what they want to build. Let me make one final point. I'm just saying from my perspective, I just think that if you have clear

Starting point is 00:35:49 sensible taxation, that's 90% of what this industry needs. And I don't think it will change anybody's real motivation to work inside this ecosystem. Just like entrepreneurship doesn't change when capital rates, capital gains. Look, I pay taxes on all my crypto sales like it was in any other investments since the beginning. That's not the issue. The issue is when you're a company and you're raising money, should you be allowed to not follow security's law because you say it's a token, freedberg. When you look at this, an NFT company came out last this past week that was selling shadow shares in startups. And anyone in the world could buy a shadow share in a private company like

Starting point is 00:36:32 Stripe, et cetera, and this fantasy football league, they wound up shutting it down or changing it because they didn't want to trade on other people's intellectual property. They were concerned about that. But just looking at it, the public in America, 96% of them who are not accredited cannot buy shares of Stripe in the secondary market, but you can buy NFTs in it and speculate on the NFTs, which are accelerating from, you know, $1,000 to $500,000 in these different clubs. How is it fair that crypto companies get to not obey basic securities laws? Friedberg. Well, it's not a security. There's no underlying asset. Okay. It's a collectible and NFT is clearly a collectible, J-Kell.

Starting point is 00:37:13 Okay. I don't have a new, I don't have an illegal auction of them and have a marketplace for people to sell them and they're appreciating. I mean, I do agree. Something different. Sounds like art to me. Yeah, you could go draw a piece of picture of Stripe and put it on a piece of paper and go down to downtown, wherever and stand in front of the burrito shop and try and sell it to people. It's qualitatively different than a security, but they're acting as securities

Starting point is 00:37:34 in relation to the fundraising of these projects. So I think that's the job. Not everything is a security. Yeah, there's no secured interest. You don't have any secured interest. It's literally just a, like an image of figure. I was just offered a jokametti sculpture, but I turned it down.

Starting point is 00:37:49 How much? 60 million? Isn't that what's going to comment on the price? Yeah, I had to say no. Was Stephen Cohen selling it? Not commenting on the seller. I bet Stephen Cohen was selling it. That was the record deal.

Starting point is 00:38:00 Stephen Cohen bought that jokametti sculpture a few years ago. It was like the highest price ever paid at auction for piece of art in the US What can I just tell you my problem with it? I took the price and I divided it by the height in centimeters and it just tilted me Is price per square inch a metric in that it is in my head In 2016 Stephen Cohen paid $141 million for the Jacques Mettys sculpture. L'homme au dole au doigt.

Starting point is 00:38:31 It is pretty incredible. And I think you're right. It's about 12 inches tall or something. That's what I'm talking about. Totally. If you look at culture, it looks like it was done by a 12 year old. Oh my God. Stop.

Starting point is 00:38:44 J. Cal. J. Cal. You're a God year old. Oh my God. Oh, J.K.L. J.K.L. You're a God at the stop. Yeah, J.K.L. This is a billionaire equivalent of crypto and NFTs, right? Totally. Totally. I don't know what scam this guy has run in, but that looks like anyone can raise their

Starting point is 00:38:57 hand and say, I have an independent objective assessment of the value of anything in the world. And you can look at it from high to low. And this is all effectively objective. It looks like it was a powerful, powerful, that was in a giant fire. And that somebody pulled out of the ashes. It's a beautiful piece. If you want to read a little bit of art history, yeah, you can understand a little bit about Yacht Committee's work,

Starting point is 00:39:21 but it's, it's a 70 inch piece, not 12 inches. Sorry. And yeah, his work is all about-inch piece, not 12 inches, sorry. And yeah, his work is all about how do you capture the essence of the form. Anyway, this is a super ridiculous tangent. It looks like somebody made something out of mine. You should have done something. You should have done something. I have a very funny Stevie Cohen story.

Starting point is 00:39:39 So this is like 10 years ago at Art Basel in Miami. And the day before the Art Fair opens, it's called the Fernicide. Which people? And so it's like a day where you can go and see the stuff, the day in advance, and you can kind of buy stuff or whatever. And it's very funny. It's kind of like when Walmart does a black Friday thing,

Starting point is 00:40:01 like everybody lines up, and then they open the doors, and we all run in, and I was standing side by side. We were right at the front of the line. And I noticed that he had these, and this was my first time there, and he had new balance running shoes on. And I thought, what is he doing? But then when the doors went open,

Starting point is 00:40:15 they just took off and started running, and I was walking, wearing normal loafers, and then I realized I should have been wearing running shoes. You'd own normal loafers, you were wearing Italian loafers. I missed that on every shoe. I like the balloon dog guy. It's like the running of the bulls. I missed that on everything.

Starting point is 00:40:29 It was the running of the bulls. I missed that on everything. Running of the billionaires. I got to the things after, and I was like, oh, sorry, I sold it to Stevie Cohen. I sold it to Stevie Cohen. I got, I got, Jesus Christ. I had blisters on my feet, it was brutal.

Starting point is 00:40:40 Do you guys know we haven't even started our agenda? No. So 50 hours. So 50 is the prayer. I'm moderating this. Three, two. All right. It's been so glad. It's occurred. Yadda Yadda. Everybody, everybody. Welcome to the online program. Cheers. All right. Let's see all in bug. Yeah. Let's start our show. I'm sure everybody by now has seen Francis Hagen on 60 minutes and testifying. She seemed incredibly credible, well spoken, and had very common sense, non-extreme views about what should be happened,

Starting point is 00:41:14 what should happen with the research that Facebook has been funding. That shows, like other media forums, Instagram and Facebook have a really terrible effect on young people, specifically young girls and body dysmorphia, which seems to be the one thing that is landing pretty well. Her suggestions were not to break up Facebook. Her's was to have a regulatory body and to do soft interventions if you don't know soft interventions. Her suggestions were worse than breaking up Facebook. While soft interventions, let's get to that. Include things like, hey, in order to retweet the story on Twitter, you probably should read it first. She thinks she wants to reform, or she's an advocate for reforming section 230 in relation, I think, to the algorithms.

Starting point is 00:41:58 And the idea here would be that the algorithms are making an actual editorial decision, which is something that I remember in the YouTube early days. They said, we will not feature your videos that you're making, but we will have the algorithm pick them because that keeps our safe harbor. Zuckerberg came back and wrote a spirited defense basically saying, why would we do this research if we didn't care? The people at this company care, a ton, sacks, and the entire Peter Tiel cobble of, you know, acolytes and friends are coming on strong as pro Facebook. I'll have him talk about that. He thinks it's a Facebook. It's laughable that people are addicted to Facebook,

Starting point is 00:42:47 Yadayata. So who wants to go first? You trim off or sex? Well, look, let me say a couple things. I think that I think the title of Zux, internal company post could have been titled Na-A, which basically is what you say, this is ridiculous and I don't believe it. The thing that she asked for in substance is a little different than what the DOJ did with Microsoft in 2000, but in form is actually quite similar, which basically is like gumming up how the internal product development would work inside the company. And, you know, the most damaging thing you already saw, which is that they had a bunch of planned product releases, and then they put them on ice.

Starting point is 00:43:33 And I think this is really where, unfortunately, the most damage gets done, because engineers won't really tolerate that for some amount of time, right? They'll put up with it initially, but you know, you've had, I don't know, I think like a 20% reduction in stock price, so you had, you know, you lost $200 billion of market cap. There's probably going to be more turbulence in the company. You can sustain and get through all of it as long as the engineers hold the line. But if you basically slow down and put a pin in their ability to generate code and to put out features, on the margins enough people, I think we'll get frustrated and leave. And I think the way

Starting point is 00:44:17 that she, you know, what she is asking for was tantamount to that. And I think that's the really destructive part of what could go on here. So they need to get this pinned down quickly, get in front of regulators, get some laws passed, whether it's section 230 or whatever, that's the path to salvation for Facebook. Sex, what do you think I see? You are basically saying this is like ridiculous

Starting point is 00:44:41 and silly on Twitter, Mike Salana saying that, obviously Peter Teales on the board of Facebook and I'm pretty happy. You're gonna have to give me time to unpack this, Jake, how about getting hysterical? Because there's a lot to go over here. No, no hysterical, I'm getting literally throwing it to you in a non-historical way.

Starting point is 00:44:56 You think that this is, there's nothing to this and you think it's ridiculous. Let's understand what this really was. Okay, you have this so-called whistleblower who is working with the staff at the Senate Judiciary Committee giving documents to the Wall Street Journal. And then it appears on 60 minutes in this great unveiling.

Starting point is 00:45:14 36 hours later, she's testifying on Capitol Hill. That does not happen. The Senate committees do not operate that fast. This was coordinated. She's got a Democratic, well-known Democratic operative named Bill Burton working for her. She's got a team of lawyers. She's got a Democrat, well known Democratic operative named Bill Burton working for her. She's got a team of lawyers. She's got a PR team. This is a coordinated hit okay by anti-Facebook forces starting with the Senate Judiciary Committee who want to regulate.

Starting point is 00:45:39 Who? She's working with the staff. Jason stopped. You're interrupting. Jason stopped. Matthew, you said she's working with somebody. I just you're interrupting Jason. All right, you who you said you working with I just want to know it is just let him make these argument and then just stop let I want to hear what he has to say Okay, what is the purpose of this testimony? First of all we can go over the details of what she said. I don't think there's anything you hear this was all the same arguments We've been hearing from these same sort of forces who want to regulate Facebook whether it's the Whether it's the senators on the committee who've hauled up Zuckerberg, no fewer than four times, to lecture him about the need for more censorship,

Starting point is 00:46:11 or it's these forces of the media who basically want Facebook to, it's all about having more censorship. But in any event, there was nothing really new there. What this really was was cooperation and of the same talking points we've been hearing for years and Where and what it's all leading up to is there's a very important part of her testimony Which is this is really the crux of it is that they that she proposed and what Blumethal one sees the chairman of the Senator's District Committee is a dedicated Oversight body. This is in this clip. Okay. With a power to oversee social media platforms.

Starting point is 00:46:47 So what we have here is the government is now gonna have a new agency. They're saying like the FTC, then she said a regulatory home where somebody like me could do a tour of duty after working at a place like this. And Hogan said right now, the only people in the world are trained

Starting point is 00:47:04 to analyze these experiments to understand what's happening inside of Facebook are people who grew up inside of Facebook or Pinterest or another social media company. Basically, people with her experience. I mean, I have to admire the Hutzba. I mean, she's basically proposing that she be made Zuckerberg's boss, okay, that a new oversight board be created by that government, which she would be appointed to, which he presumably would run. And this board is now going to prescribe regulations and rules for social networks in terms of how their newsfeed is going to run. That is what was proposed on Capitol Hill. That is what this operation is all about. So it's about her getting a job and

Starting point is 00:47:40 being lording over Facebook as your claim. No, I think the purpose of all of this is to create new regulatory oversight of social networks. I simply would note that she has proposed herself as somebody who would be on the sport, which is pretty amazing. But what this is really about is that new oversight power. And is that a Republican or a... Are you insinuating its Democrats who want to regulate this or all politicians want to regulate this because they're scared of Facebook having too much power, which I think we all agreed Facebook has too much power.

Starting point is 00:48:12 In, in the public. You've had the leaders, you've had the leaders on the Senate Judiciary Committee now for months, calling up Zuckerberg and or see another social media leaders and basically lecturing them on the need to censor more, to take down more material. That is their objective. This is not a conspiracy theory on my part. This is expressly what they've said. Okay. Now, until now, is it... Is it left or right or both? Let me come to that. I think the Republicans are a little bit confused on this issue, but let me get to that. So what you've heard until now is that is is a tax on the supply side of the platform. What they've advocated is de-platforming people with heterodox views, dissenting voices, and they have been de-platformed in large numbers.

Starting point is 00:48:56 Obviously it started even before Trump, but certainly the sitting President of the United States was de-platformed. YouTube just took down a million COVID videos because they disagree with official position on COVID. Until now, the censorship has been on the supply side of the platform. YouTube just took down a million COVID videos because they disagree with official position on COVID. So until now, the censorship has been on the supply side of the platform. What they're advocating for now is censorship on the demand side of the platform, which is we're going to rewrite these newsfeed rules. Okay, we're going to rewrite them because we can't give people what they want. They're making these algorithms sound like they're these incredibly evil sinister things. All the algorithms do at the end of the day is give the user more of what they're looking for.

Starting point is 00:49:28 Okay. Well, hold on a second. That is not good enough for these politicians. They want to rewrite those rules. That's not actually what they said. They want to rewrite these rules to determine what people see. No, no. What they said about the algorithms was that the algorithm had a multiplier on it and that this multiplier of people resharing it, re-engaging the content, would lead people, and this was statistically proven in Facebook's own research, that things that were either misinformation or that were supercharged, polarizing issues, they would rise quicker, which then gave people not what they wanted in their feed, they gave people what would increase the length of a stay on Facebook or on YouTube or on Twitter for that matter.

Starting point is 00:50:08 And they think the antidote for this is to maybe not allow things in the algorithm to go viral because what you're doing is saying things that are either misinformation or polarizing or cool, make things go to the top of the list. And maybe we don't want that as a society. Let me intervene with a point of view on this because I think your head, your head down a path that, to me, I don't think actually speaks

Starting point is 00:50:34 to what's really going on. It sounds like there's some sinister architecture here that's driving this outcome. If you understand that. Well, I mean, it's implied because it's like, oh, well, they're multiplying sinister stuff. What they say, they're just care about length of stay on the site.

Starting point is 00:50:51 My belief is they just want to take care of a revenue. Yeah, that's exactly my point, Shama. They care about what consumers want to consume and consumers demand what they want to consume. So think about media in the old days, right? We used to have books that an author would put out every year and so the author would get feedback on the book And so it would be one year on that feedback cycle then magazines would come out magazines would come out every month And so every month the magazine would get feedback on what sales were and they would make decisions editorial decisions

Starting point is 00:51:17 And they would iterate TV shows came out every week newspapers came out every day Cable TV came out every hour and they could adjust their content accordingly. In the internet age, the media is getting a much more kind of instantaneous feedback cycle. And the call it publisher or editor or curator of that media ultimately ends up putting in front of the consumer more and more of what they want as a function of what they're choosing to watch. And what we're calling these algorithms, quote unquote, are really just the same thing that editors and publishers and others have done in the past, which is looking at what the consumer votes by what they choose, making decisions to put more of the things that they want in front of them. The consumer consumes

Starting point is 00:51:57 more of that. And here's what's messed up. We're getting a very ugly look in the mirror and what humanity and what citizens and what individuals actually want to consume and choose to consume and get turned on by. And that is what's making this also ugly. And when we see that, we don't like to accept the fact that maybe that is just what humans are attracted to and what humans want to consume at scale. And we end up wanting to blame someone. And I could argue and I think others could argue that these algorithms that are effectively

Starting point is 00:52:24 just recursive optimization functions. They're recursively trying to figure out what do people want to consume and then giving them more of what they want? You keep saying what? You keep saying what? Solving for those very specific needs and use cases. And I don't think it will tell more than this. Go ahead, Tramoth. Why is it not want?

Starting point is 00:52:40 I'm interested in that unpacking it. No, everything freeberg says is absolutely right, but it's not the word want, it's not what they want, it's what they will react to the most. And sometimes what they react to the most. Most subconsciously want. I don't know, but my point is that there's a, I guess I don't use Facebook,

Starting point is 00:52:58 but they went from thumbs up and thumbs down when I was there to like this nuance, like there's likes, there's tears, there's angry shares. But there's also analytics. And there's data on engagement, right? Like on how long someone's watching a video or. What I saw in there was that there was an amplification of things that were more extreme emotional reactions.

Starting point is 00:53:16 Right. Now, and the point is that I think everything you said is absolutely right. The algorithms are amplifying. I think all I would say is I would restate what you're saying is these algorithms tend to amplify the things that are the most extreme and elicit a reaction. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:53:31 Those reactions aren't necessarily the things that you want. Those are the things that you will react to the most. And that, by the way, the algorithm wants to serve you. That's why you see that the top 10 things that are reshared the most often tends to be very extreme, Right? Fundamental emotional responses are typically associated with things that I think we call hedonism. And the things that you can ignore your emotional responses and take another course of action,

Starting point is 00:53:55 we typically call altruism or what have you. This is a kind of a common reason why people would want to watch a comedy or watch a horror film because there's some emotional response. It's not a universal response. And people aren't rushing to the theater to watch documentaries. They're not rushing to the movie theater to be like, oh, I want to be informed and educated on something that's factual and interesting. They want to go and have emotional experiences. And that's how humans are biologically wired. And the same is happening in these short forms of media, these little tweets, or even to understand that they won't show murders and porn on Facebook.

Starting point is 00:54:28 So the making an editorial decision to say, hey, we're not going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to.

Starting point is 00:54:38 We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We're going to. We corporate profit-making machine that tries to get more reach, more ratings by fueling polarization and division. And I'm thinking, is she talking about cable

Starting point is 00:54:51 news? That's what she's talking about, isn't she? Is she talking about the New York Times? Is she talking about the traditional media? Because every single thing she said about how social media fuels polarization and division applies to the media. And yet those same voice in the traditional media are the first ones howling about Facebook and calling for its regulation. It is completely hypocritical because the real purpose here is not to reduce divisiveness or polarization or society. The regulations on Facebook will not do that. It is to seize control and influence over the machinery of social networking. Why? Because the newsfeed now controls the flow

Starting point is 00:55:29 of information in our society. Don't you think the damage has been done though, meaning in the sense that if you cripple Facebook's product velocity, and you shrink the surface area of the areas in which they can operate. Isn't that more damaging than any regulation? No, people will just stop using it and then they will find another place to get that thing to use the most of the air. I've already stopped using

Starting point is 00:55:54 Facebook. Okay. I don't find it compelling at all and I'm not really on Instagram either. I do find Twitter rather compelling and I'm probably more dix is that than other things. Yeah, exactly. Off the rails. Off the rails. Not very good for me. Okay. But here's the thing. I think all of us on this show right now, none of us find Facebook particularly addictive

Starting point is 00:56:14 in our own behavior. Okay. I think we understand in our own behavior that Facebook is sort of like a mildly diverting amusement that occasionally yields information, sometimes it's useful, okay? We understand that it's sort of like a news for you with a lot of noise, okay? In our own usage, but somehow we've bought into this larger narrative that in everybody else's usage, that somehow this is a brainwashing machine that is pumping people full of disinformation

Starting point is 00:56:41 and warping their thinking. In other words, there's a sharp dichotomy between how we perceive our own usage and other people's usage. And what I would submit is our own usage is what we know and what we know to be true. And what we believe about other people's usage is simply a narrative that's been fed to us over and over again by the traditional media who hate Facebook because it's disermediating them. That is what's really going on here. You may be right. I'm saying something different,

Starting point is 00:57:07 which is getting apart from all of that stuff, what's happening practically on the ground right now is that it's a company who has to now slow way down. And what I'm saying is that's not dissimilar to what Microsoft had to do, which was there was this 10 year period at Microsoft where they really couldn't innovate. And that's really how the government solved the Microsoft problem.

Starting point is 00:57:29 Yeah, they made them less aggressive, right? They gummed up the internal machinery so that Microsoft couldn't really be there for the next few major, so for example, we just spent 40 minutes talking about crypto. What do you think the chances are that Facebook now can land a really compelling crypto project? Right, they got totally shut down with Libra, right? I mean, they went after it and the regulators stepped in. It's too bold for them to launch that after what happened. It's zero.

Starting point is 00:57:56 With their behavior and other arenas. I think that like Microsoft, back in the late 90s. I think there are real and legitimate concerns about the power of these big tech companies, about how big and powerful they've become about their ability to crush competitors. I think those are all legitimate and in a weird way, if this government scrutiny slows those companies down,

Starting point is 00:58:17 that's not an altogether bad thing. But I am concerned about, I'd say separately, just because these companies do deserve to be scrutinized more, I do think that we have to see that the people who are engaged in this really coordinated hit campaign against Facebook, they have another agenda and that is to control the flow of information online. It is to control online discourse. It's already been happening over the past year with censorship on the supply side of the newsfeed

Starting point is 00:58:46 and now they're trying to control the demand side. I think we have to be extremely wary about this. Well, David, isn't you, you've been on the other side of this because on previous podcast, you've talked about Facebook being too influential, having too many users. And now you're saying, well, these tiny little news networks that get a couple of low million users. Now he has a, he issue, Jason, with the way in which they're going after Facebook.

Starting point is 00:59:08 Okay, I get that. He thinks it's a coordinated hit. Fine. But you also have had an issue with Facebook having too much power to take somebody off the platform or to promote certain ideas. Yeah. So which is it? It seems like you're a little bit... Both can be true. No, it's perfectly consistent. I've expressed concerns about the way in which Facebook is de-platforming people. It's summarily silencing them and ghosting them. It's engaged in censorship.

Starting point is 00:59:39 I've expressed concern about that, but we should understand that the people in the Senate Judiciary Committee who hauled up, who had this hearing, who featured in Spotlight and Hogg and and turned her into this great hero, their agenda is even more censorship. They are complaining about the fact that Facebook is not censoring enough, and that is what their real agenda is. I do think it should have been disclosed that Hogan does stand to gain financially from whatever happens. I don't know that that's been confirmed that there is a whistleblower reward here, so we'll have to wait and see about that.

Starting point is 01:00:13 I haven't heard. There's no reward until there's a fine, but you're off this right that she qualifies, if she's a whistleblower, she qualifies for what, a 30% portion of, or some very large percentage of any kind. What would the fine B here, though? What would the fine be? How would that be framed? Jamal. This little thing is just getting started.

Starting point is 01:00:29 They're going to be there going to be government actions and there will be settlements from those government actions and the and Facebook as you all know will pay any kind of fine to put this behind. You're the one that said Jason they spent five billion just so that they wouldn't subpoena so can share all right. That's what you said last week. We talked about that last week. Yeah, so I mean, I think there's a fine coming But let's let's be honest. I do not think Lena Khan Or Gary Gensler or any of these other folks

Starting point is 01:00:55 Are going to be in the business of making a quick decision Nor the DOJ nor any of these other folks. They're going to want to really take their time to figure this out But what I'm saying is it's not the ultimate result of it, because again, I go back to like, if you look at what happened in 2000 in Microsoft, the substance of what Microsoft had to agree to was ultimately not as bad as the way in which it was implemented, which is that, you know, my understanding was like Microsoft had to submit feature reviews to lawyers at the DOJ who would then approve updates and upgrades to their code base for things like Windows. That's what caused them to miss an entire wave of compute.

Starting point is 01:01:35 And so this is the point, which is I think practically speaking, the beginning of what Microsoft went through Facebook is going to have to navigate. And so the faster they can try to say all right folks you're right you caught us. Let us tell us what to do maybe actually that the better path because it allows them to get past it because the longer this this this period of like gray stretches out I think is actually the worst outcome. Well let's let's go through what we each think would be a possible solution here to allowing free speech to occur on Facebook, but maybe not having the things that fake news, misinformation,

Starting point is 01:02:17 maybe lowering down the rhetoric and the charge nature of the algorithm. Freiburg, do you have any common sense solution here that might address both sides of the issue, freedom of speech, and maybe things being amplified to 100 million people that are fake and just simply not true. We've talked a lot about this notion of decentralized social networks. I mean, we haven't talked a lot. We've talked a little bit about it, but if you end up putting a regulatory hammer down on Facebook and Twitter and telling them what consumers, and remember, these guys aren't media creators.

Starting point is 01:02:53 They're platforms effectively for search, discovery, and access, so you as an individual can discover third party content on their platform. If they start putting the regulatory hammer down on these quote unquote platforms, telling them what they can and cannot make available to their users, there will be another platform that will emerge. And that platform may end up being in this kind of decentralized

Starting point is 01:03:13 model. And in that decentralized model, you're not going to have the same degree of regulatory oversight. And that system will end up solving the same use case. Eventually, consumers will get what they want, which is what you're off called this emotional response, eliciting this emotional reaction. They will consume it until they achieve one of their

Starting point is 01:03:33 seven deadly sins, objective, which is what's driving the emotion, underscoring their decisions on what to watch, what to consume, and there will be an alternative. So go ahead and play Wacomol. You'll play Wacomol for a few years, maybe a few decades, but at the end of the day, digital technology in a connected world will drive consumers

Starting point is 01:03:52 to exactly where they will naturally find themselves, which is consuming ever more of the things that create this emotional response in them. The consequences are unfortunate. I don't know what the right solution is. We've, to some some degree put a regulatory hammer down on things like smoking and in some places things like sugar, things that have kind of a obvious effect on our physical health. These other things that we're seeing

Starting point is 01:04:20 now are having an effect on our mental health. I think that there may be kind of an emerging regulatory regime around mental health standards and how much of things can be consumed. And I think what we're seeing is the leading indicator of this is what's gone on in China. Because China is the nation that I would say is probably at the forefront of research and understanding of what the consequences are of consuming more of more of media and content that causes an emotional response to you and what happens down the road. Isolation, loneliness, suicide rates go up, unhappiness, etc. It certainly is the consequence, but it's not a function of any individual company's

Starting point is 01:04:58 misconvance of content to consumers. It's just a function of where these systems end up going because of the way humans are biologically wired. And so I guess my first concern is maybe we end up in a decentralized system that ends up replacing all of these tools, and this just doesn't end. Or you end up having... Or you end up having these kind of regulatory regimes emerge. No, that would be better. A decentralized solution is actually...

Starting point is 01:05:22 No! A decentralized solution is actually better in one key way, which is that it's fundamentally harder to create the exact same network effect in density that you can have with one monolithic closed system. So you're much more likely to actually have a very fragmented ecosystem of hundreds of different solutions depending on what of the sins you want to feed or, you know, what of the feelings you want to feel at any one time. I think it's a big assumption that it would be a fragmented network. If you did replicate Facebook on a decentralized platform and then some piece of misinformation came out and it trended all the way to number one, like say the January 6th insurrection and there's not going to be much to that. There's not one network. There's not one.

Starting point is 01:06:03 I understand that. But if one network, hold on hold on. Let me finish my point. If one network became so large and there was nobody who could turn off something, what if people said, hey, there's a riot going on at the capital and more people showed up with more guns, right? You have nobody to sit there and say, hey, don't go to the capital,

Starting point is 01:06:17 turn those trending posts off, go ahead, sex. Okay, so let's talk about this problem of misinformation. Okay, I think there's an old Mark Twain quote saying that the alike and travel around the world faster than the truth can put on its shoes. Correct. There is a problem of falsehood spreading online. I agree with you there. The question is what you do about it.

Starting point is 01:06:39 And the problem we have right now is that truth is in that eye of the beholder. There is no truth API. And so at the end of the day, it's the people in power who get to decide what is true and what is false if you give them the power to sense or misinformation. Example, we just saw, we talked about in this program, the Rolling Stone, Iver Mechdenhoek's provenly false story. And yet Rachel Maddow still had it up on her post. She was not sanctioned by MSNBC.

Starting point is 01:07:07 Twitter never told her to take it down. And she was not fact-checked. However, the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, or story, which came out in the New York Post a couple weeks for the election, turned out to be a proof-of-the-truth story. And yet it was taken down by Facebook and Twitter. At the end of the day, this term of misinformation is just another vector

Starting point is 01:07:25 for partisan attack, and it will be used by whoever we give the power to to decide what misinformation is. So what is the answer then to this point of falsehood spreading online? Well, at the end of the day, the answer to Bats features more speech. You try to create a free marketplace of ideas to let the good speech ultimately drive out the best feature, prove that it's wrong. That's the best you can do. That's the best you can do in a free society. Yes, but this is the first time a free society has had social networks that can reach a

Starting point is 01:07:58 billion people instantly in an hour. So I think there's one differentiator there that we must think of. If somebody defames you on a social network, they are absolutely liable. I mean, you can sue them, okay? But I think, and you should. And I think we can, and I cancel culture people are destroyed before they even get their day in court.

Starting point is 01:08:16 I think that's being destroyed for some reason, different. I think if somebody, But it's because it trends. If it didn't, if it couldn't trend to so many people, it wouldn't leave lead to the cancellation and destruction of somebody's life. You've talked about that many times yourself. If somebody libles you, I think you should be able to sue them.

Starting point is 01:08:32 I think we could actually, we could have a libel regime more like the UK, where it's easier to prove these cases in court and people are much more careful about defaming other people. I would be very much in favor of that, okay? Because defamation is not free speech. But the question really is about, really we're talking about non-difamatory statements that somebody in a position of power as a cited is not true. Many of these statements are subjective. Dave Portnoy got labeled for his subjective opinion about AOC's dress. Why did that happen? And why is that kind

Starting point is 01:09:03 of labeling only used to protect one side of the political spectrum? So, I mean, that, that's what's really going on here. Let's end with this. Has anybody watched Shepelle's The Closer? I did. Incredible. I watched it. Pretty incredible. I mean, fearless. Fearless is a word. I was really, I think that he slightly missed it because I think he could have really actually called out cancel culture and wokas and more. I think he kind of left it a little bit to me where I was like a little, I don't know, I just didn't think there was good as his other ones and I felt like he didn't really

Starting point is 01:09:41 make the point he wanted to make. It was a little convoluted. Somebody who can actually stand up and actually, you know, be more satirical and tell the story of why all this cancel culture and defamatory statements and judging people. Doesn't make sense. But then he didn't, he didn't get the job done. I felt like, well, let me ask you this about the performance. Did he seem qualitatively different than you in that?

Starting point is 01:10:04 The other times he seemed very light on his feet, you know, having a good time being a comedian. And this time, it felt like he was personally hurt or he was- It wasn't comedy. It was less comedic. It felt less comedic. I agree.

Starting point is 01:10:15 It felt like he had an agenda. He was hurt. He wanted to get some stuff off his chest and there was some jokes in between, which is very different. Like the percentage of jokes in this is like 20% and the like heavy on max, max. And then the other ones were 80% jokes, 20% social commentary.

Starting point is 01:10:31 This felt like he was actually really hurt and like, I don't wanna say better, but just fed up maybe, frustrated, he had a chip, which made it interesting to me. You know, in the early 2000s, Chepell for me was really important because he was an advocate for minorities. And I felt seen and protected by Chepell.

Starting point is 01:10:54 And I thought that was really important. And then his comedy was just so sharp. Oh yeah. And I just think that it was a little bit of an opportunity loss. Yeah, I think if he had really actually taken the, you know, to its conclusion, he would have actually... There was just too many uncomfortable moments in that thing. It was super uncomfortable at times and...

Starting point is 01:11:22 I really would like to see it again, because, you know, if you just think about his career, And I really would like to see it again, because if you just think about his career, him talking about police brutality, him talking about race, very fearless, entertaining, but also informative way, and just being a truth teller. Yeah, this was so uncomfortable at times, I agree with that. I need to watch it again, and I need to let it sit, because I was taking it on Netflix.

Starting point is 01:11:47 It's the last in his long track. But yeah, I mean, this could be, I almost felt like he was trying to break Netflix, because he does seem to have a streak in him where he's like, okay, I'm gonna, I'm walking away from Comedy Central, and he does seem to burn the boats. It's felt like he was burning the boats with Netflix to me.

Starting point is 01:12:03 I don't know if you've that vibe where he was like, this is the last one I'm being canceled after this. Fuck y'all, I'm out. And he has that, I mean, he tortured it, sacks. I mean, you're gonna watch this thing. Oh, now I'm definitely watching it. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm definitely watching. I'll watch it tonight.

Starting point is 01:12:18 I give it a 50% chance that Netflix takes it down. Well, let's watch it quickly. Yeah, everybody was screaming for him to be deplatformed. Everybody was screaming. Well, then I like it even more. You know, one of the ironic things about these warning labels, I've noticed they've become a badge of honor where, you know, if, if the, if the hall monitors a Twitter are trying to label your tweet as,

Starting point is 01:12:40 as, you know, being in cindery, maybe it's just interesting, right? I mean, they're, by the bicycle. It's a, yeah it's just interesting, right? It's a bicycle. It's a, yeah, exactly. So, I was listening to Antonio Garcia Martinez interview Camille on call in and they labeled that. I mean, just the post about they were gonna have a conversation. You're saying the link to it was even flagged

Starting point is 01:13:03 as like, oh my lord. I think there needs to be a Netflix for a comedy where it's only subscription and it's owned by the comedians. Like if Dave Chappelle were to create his own Netflix, I think it gets 10 million paid subscribers for the first two years. Over night.

Starting point is 01:13:19 No, overnight. Over night. Okay, so wait a second. How do we wet our beaks on this? If we go to Chappelle and we say hey listen, here's $25 million, we'll set up the tech team. You said all us. I'll ask K heart. I'll ask them this weekend.

Starting point is 01:13:30 I think that yeah, you get K heart. You get Shepal. You get Seinfeld. You get, um, now do you get Louis, Louis CK in there or CK West's? They never found that guy funny. That guy never did it for me. Well, I mean, anyway, he's funny. You know, it's funny. Have you ever had this Asian guy, Ronnie Chang? He's on, there's a great Netflix special on him. He's fucking funny. And then Joe Koi, Joe Koi is very funny. Yeah, I think Ronnie Chang taped his own special.

Starting point is 01:13:58 Plus on Minhouch, that guy's very funny. Yeah, he's great. He's legit. But I mean, this would be a great way for them to just control their destiny and not have to worry about cancel culture Because I think a lot of the folks who are on well, they are probably the the last line of people that actually Will be the defenders of free speech. Yeah, it's pretty scary as much as I think Facebook should be more thoughtful about their algorithm You know back to you know circling Netflix and censorship back to the Facebook issues.

Starting point is 01:14:29 I just think Facebook should say, hey, listen, we've throttled the algorithm so that any one piece of content can only reach this many people over this period of time. And yeah, sure, that's gonna lower our time on site or whatever. But we want things to have a little bit of time to spread and get fact checked. Does anybody think that that's a good idea to say, just, you know, if you're trying to

Starting point is 01:14:49 cancel somebody, instead of it going to number one on trending topics before the process of trial, the algorithm would just take a little bit of time to propagate content. Here's what I can tell you conclusively. If Facebook wanted to solve these issues in the ways that the government expects in their head for these problems to be solved. Facebook market cap would be $250 billion, and they'd have a million people working there with the company. So this is not an issue of whether it's possible.

Starting point is 01:15:19 The question is, is it right and does it actually get it the solution or does it just, as Friedberg said, create whack-a-mole someplace else? And so, you know, I don't know what obliterating three quarters of a trillion dollars of market cap will do, but I suspect that the government is going to want to find out. So, actually, you think that throttling the velocity of the algorithm so that news doesn't spread as fast and violent, which could be misinformation, could be valid information. Do you think that's a possible solution? Like, I think that at the end of the day

Starting point is 01:15:50 with both- We're disclosing the algorithm, maybe. With both Facebook and Twitter, you only see stuff from people who you're following or your friends with. It's actually- Not true. What do you mean?

Starting point is 01:16:01 If things, they will insert stuff into your Twitter algorithm now that's adjacent to you and Facebook We'll do that. Well maybe maybe if people respond to someone who you're following but I've never seen anything my Twitter feed Other than an ad that's not from somebody I follow so you know what they're trending topics No, I mean not my feed you don't get the explore fee. Oh, okay. No, but you the floor feeds right there and they are Surfacing things in your feed now that are not people you follow But what they're really doing okay is there's a universe of people who you're following or your friends with and You could just see all that content in a reverse chronological feed But that would be too much to be overwhelming originally worked. Yeah, exactly and I get it and that was fine

Starting point is 01:16:39 I didn't I liked it. Okay, but as you're following thousands of people now There's too much content and so they will simply surface the tweets that you're following thousands of people now, there's too much content and so they will simply surface the tweets that you're most likely to want to interact with. I don't believe, by the way, that those tweets are necessarily the ones that make you angry. I think for some people it is clearly, but it's not certainly not the case in my case. What I would say is, it's more refined than that. It's the tweets that you think are interesting. It's the tweets that perhaps express a sense of outrage

Starting point is 01:17:09 that agrees with your sense of outrage. It's a little different than anger, but it's basically the subset of content that you through your reveal preferences have shown Facebook or Twitter that you care about the most. And that's basically what they're doing. They're giving the consumer more of what they want. I think that we've blown this thing so far out of proportion. Yeah, there's an analogy that is addictive, but I think that it's been blown so far

Starting point is 01:17:36 out of proportion. We've exaggerated the fear beyond any reasonable recognition. By the way, I think the reason that that tweet was flagged, I'm guessing, is that in the tweet, Kamela says he's going to talk about critical race theory, and that may be why Twitter said Twitter was linking to the all-twitter just said, this conversation like this can be intense. That's all I said. I think because he says the gloves are coming off, it looks like to people fighting or whatever. I just think it's sort of ridiculous.

Starting point is 01:18:09 You know, like this is where like the war in the picture. Oh, yes, it's a little condescending patronizing I think so. I think yeah, I'm done. I got the stories up here. I'm not done the It's a very paladron. You're gonna look out for me. You was my brother, so I'm finding a little like that. I don't think you know. Pandas, step up while I am. I'm smart. Not like they say. No, Tom. It's fucking good. You get your fucking change in your box.

Starting point is 01:18:37 Oh shit. Oh, good boys. I love you. Happy 50th episode. And what's going on with you, Freedberg and Sack, that you won't make the journey down to the poker game. Is this like some sort of David protest here? Why are you hoping you've been listening?

Starting point is 01:18:52 You've been listening. Sack's been listening to the city. I will come back. I will start playing again. If we get the game going on like a regular time, or is it because of? What the fuck is on your schedule? Why are you talking about going on?

Starting point is 01:19:03 You're talking about going on. Yeah, you have nothing going on, Sacks. All right, I'll start, you know, I'll start making I'll start making. Stop evading your family, stay in the city, come. See your fucking friends, play some cars, there's some money. We're not playing PLO.

Starting point is 01:19:18 Yeah, no PLO. I mean, we did at the end just to get Skye's money, but just to keep Skye there for another 30 minutes since he was flush and cash. Peter was on real good, Saksipooie. Peter went with Skyfall when you crumble. Actually, the new, I'm really excited to see the new Daniel Craig 007. I can't believe that.

Starting point is 01:19:36 Can you still rent a mint our movie theater for like 50 bucks? Yeah, 300 bucks. So yeah, it's basically not. It was 99 during the pandemic. It was awesome. It's 300 now and 300. I haven't, it's basically. It used to be not, it was 99 during the pandemic. It was awesome. I did it a few times. It's 300 now and 300. I haven't done it the last two times.

Starting point is 01:19:48 I went with the girls because it was first run movies and the theaters were pretty empty. But it's like 300. If you get like 10 of your friends to come, it's like basically something. Yeah, five of your friends to come, it's worth it. I mean, that's 60 bucks each and, I mean, it's 20 bucks a time.

Starting point is 01:19:59 It's 20 bucks a time. It's 20 bucks a time. It's 20 bucks a time. It's 20 bucks a time. It's 20 bucks a time. It's 20 bucks a time. It's 20 bucks a time. It's 20 bucks a time. It's 20 bucks a time.. He's got a taxis theater is better because you have a chef there who will make food But yeah, and for those of you asking about the all-in summit Saxony or leading the charge for a February or April we got a couple of locations. Thank you to everybody who sent us location ideas two days

Starting point is 01:20:18 250 people 200 paid tickets 50 by scholarship and You can go to the all and website. When we have information, we will post it there, but we're just in the planning phase right now. But we're thinking two days, right boys? Yeah. Two days for all in summit. And then five hours of content, some like that a day, we each interview people. Yeah. And then we're done. Okay. And Miami is the host city and we'll draw a high card for who picks the next city. Chimap, you said you're picking something in Italy. I'm gonna probably pick my own revenge. Romero Venice. something in Italy. I'm gonna probably pick my own preventus.

Starting point is 01:20:46 Rome or Venice, I'm gonna probably pick New York for mine or Austin and then Freeberg, where would you pick Napa or something? Marin County. Oh wow, where everybody wants to go. Great, go to anti-vaxxer town. Fuck, fuck you, Freeberg. Marin County.

Starting point is 01:21:01 Wow, what a destination. I'm kind of a free book. Where would you pick? Where would you pick? So who are we doing Miami first? Is that right? Miami's first and we draw a high card for the next city. Who gets to pick next city? Each bestie picks for four years,

Starting point is 01:21:14 each party picks one. If we go twice a year, even better. I mean, I'd probably split it between London and... Ooh, ooh, ooh. London and somewhere in Hawaii. Ooh, why? Good choice. Good choice.

Starting point is 01:21:29 Yeah. Hawaii's an inspired choice. Can you imagine 250 to generate? London's great. I caught a classic, but London would be, we would take it over. We would take over. Yeah, over. My amy is freaking out.

Starting point is 01:21:40 I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you.

Starting point is 01:21:47 I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you.

Starting point is 01:21:54 I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you.

Starting point is 01:22:01 I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I'm gonna show you. I must sit a private club. Yeah, all right. We'll see you all next time on the all in podcast. Here's to another 50 everybody. First 50 done. Love you guys. Let's get another 50 in the book. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Lumbi West, I speak clean of kinwa. I'm going all in. What, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, man, my hamlet is actually a meaty ass wood. We should all just get a room and just have one big hug or a cheek,

Starting point is 01:22:48 because they're all just like this like sexual tension, but we just need to release some pounds. What, you're the beef? What, you're the beer of beef? Beef, what? We need to get买 cheese already. I'm doing all this! I'm doing all it

Starting point is 01:23:09 I'm doing all it

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E50: Crypto investing deep dive, Facebook's whistleblower fallout, Chappelle's new special & more

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.