All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - The Stablecoin Future, Milei's Memecoin, DOGE for the DoD, Grok 3, Why Stripe Stays Private

Episode Date: February 21, 2025

(0:00) The Besties welcome John and Patrick Collison! (4:28) Stripe's business evolution: $1T in volume/year, stablecoins, challenging the Visa/Mastercard duopoly, publishing economic indicators (20:31) Jamie Dimon's leaked rant on remote work and bureaucracy (34:22) DOGE for Defense: Trump ordered the Pentagon to look at cutting the defense budget by 8%/year over the next five years (43:51) Crypto Corner: Milei's Memecoin embarrassment (1:00:18) John and Patrick break down the Arc Institute and its new Evo 2 AI model (1:18:04) Grok 3 takes the LLM lead, lessons learned from Elon's Colossus scale up (1:30:22) Science Corner: Asteroid update (1:35:42) Why Stripe hasn't gone public yet, despite great metrics Register for All-In at SXSW: https://allin.com/events Follow John: https://x.com/collision Follow Patrick: https://x.com/patrickc Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/23/stripes-1point1-billion-deal-for-bridge-marks-much-needed-win-for-vc.html https://x.com/Zigmanfreud/status/1890202488596492620 https://www.coworker.org/petitions/professional-dignity https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-03/shopify-ceo-tobi-lutke-tells-employees-to-just-say-no-to-meetings https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/19/trump-pentagon-budget-cuts https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316796883 https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/16/americas/argentina-milei-libra-cryptocurrency-impeachment-calls-intl-latam/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/18/americas/argentina-milei-defends-libra-crypto-tweet-intl-latam/index.html https://arcinstitute.org https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/evo-2-biomolecular-ai https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-3 https://x.com/GavinSBaker/status/1891721991444447343 https://www.amazon.com/Henry-J-Kaiser-Builder-American/dp/0292742266 https://x.com/AsteroidWatch/status/1892338055354159256 https://x.com/AsteroidWatch/status/1892631907646447746

All right, everybody, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. I am your host, Jason Calacanis. And with me again, couple of my besties, David Friedberg, you know him as our Sultan of science, lots to get into today, Sultan, how you doing? I'm keeping busy. Thank you. Keeping busy. Jamoth and I on Valentine's Day. We had a little trio we were on MK ultras podcast and it hit number four all in podcast of course number one. Reflections are Meg and Kelly are triumphant Meg and Kelly Valentine's spectacular.

I was fine. It was good. Okay, well, thanks. You're such a great performer giving me so much to work with Jamoth as always. You're such a great performer giving me so much to work with Chamath as always But it was a great great pod shout out to our friend and friend of the pod Megan Kelly and also We've got an incredible duo for the first time we've invited a duo to join us in the Red Throne David's access seat. He's busy saving the country, but we're really excited busy saving the country. But we're really excited. Colson brothers are with us. Thank you for having us. You guys want to hear a great loss porn story? John has one for you. The last time we met, Chamath was 18 years ago when we were working on our prior startup,

Octomatic with Harj and Kool Tagar. You were how old? They were 17, 18, 19. It was one of these San Francisco setups where it was like a two bedroom apartment. There was a few of us living there. I think maybe six people working out of there. And normal number. Exactly. Normal numbers to load up a two bed apartment with and then Shemath you came and visited. This is what's so brutal about this. Okay. I could have invested a dollar.

One single dollar. And I would have made a dollar. One single dollar. And I would have made a billion dollars. I remember meeting these guys and I was with Alan Morgan, who was my boss at the time. I was a junior principal at Mayfield. Shout out to Alan. And I think we tried to, guys, I don't know if you remember Patrick and John,

I think we tried to invest in the business or it didn't happen or then you ended up shutting it down, but right away you spun back up and started Stripe. And I just watched from the sidelines the whole way. It is such a, first of all, it's an amazing, it's an, well, no, it's an amazing place for Silicon Valley where you can like see these people just keep pushing the boundaries up and up and up, number one. Number two, the thing that is such a learning for me is like, why didn't I just pick up the phone and call them at any point in the last 17 years? What am I thinking? It's so brutal. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Lobby West is queen of Kin Wands. I'm going all in.

Oh my god. It's so brutal. Two things. One, first, you probably don't remember this, but I remember that meeting that we offered you, do you want something to drink? We did not have a broad selection. I think we had water or milk in the fridge and you asked for a glass of water. And so I went over to the sink and I realized that we hadn't really been on top of the washing up.

So I had to sort of gingerly wash a glass for you to get your glass of water, which I can't remember if you touched it over the course of that meeting. But then secondly, like when we started out with Stripe, like the FinTech sector basically didn't exist. I mean, the word hardly existed. And didn't exist. Yeah. People just didn't think that, I mean, you know, teenagers weren't actually teenagers at the time, but you know, people in the early 20s, college kids taking on PayPal or the incumbents or regulated financial services or whatever, you know, people just didn't think was a good idea. So I don't know, you, you, you, you certainly were like the vast majority of investors we spoke with in the first year or two of Stripe turned us down. So you were, you were not anomalous. John, tell us what that meeting was

like. And to just take you back to the moment. Here's a picture. Stop, stop. Here's a picture, no striking. Here's a picture of free, free nine figure Chema. Oh my god. And this is when he shopped at Macy's. Does that maybe that jogs some memories, John, when that guy walked in with his khakis and that light pink Brooks Brothers shirt, what did you think? I don't know. I think you can, you can go back and find historical photos of anyone and use them to like if that's the

worst historical photo you have, that's pretty, that's pretty lightweight stuff. Exactly. Jason, do you want to tell everyone in the audience what stripe is? I mean, do we have to Okay, stripe processes payments. This is a 10 plus year old startup that basically if you're a startup company and you want to do transactions, you use stripe. For example, the all in startup uses Stripe to pay for the tickets. And then we give these guys for some reason, a half million dollars every year, no discount.

They don't sponsor the event and they're making a fortune. They got 10,000 employees and the company changed the world. We've never been we've never been offered to sponsor the event. I didn't know this was this was an option. But it's up for a half million last year. I mean, maybe this year you can hit you up. That's broadly accurate. I would just fact check that it's nowadays not just startups, even though they run on the street, but also the world's largest enterprises, Hertz, Amazon, Ford, all these kind of companies. And so when we started out with Stripe, we thought it would only be for

startups. Like we thought those were the people who needed a problem solved. And we thought payments was broken for them. And as time went on, we just found out it was kind of broken for everyone. And so is it public how much volume you guys do a year? Do you guys talk about that? It's more than a trillion dollars a year. A trillion dollars a year is processed through your network. Yeah, which works out to global GDP is around 100 trillion years.

So it works out to around 1% of global GDP. Incredible. And you could say, well, GDP is final goods, and Stripe processes more than only final goods. So it's not exactly the right. No one says that kind of stuff. Only you say that. OK, well, look, you could say it's not exactly the right

or a fair comparison or something. But Stripe mostly is used to sell final goods. So I think it's reasonable. And the other thing I'd say is people reasonably think of Stripe as a payments company, because that is certainly what we started out doing. And it's certainly the largest line of our business. But the thing we realized a couple of years in is that

what business, the structural secular thing that's happening is that every kind of money movement is going from being manually orchestrated to being orchestrated by software. And there's, you know, some programs somewhere making the thing happen. And so because of that, like, just because of what we hear from customers and the the poll there, we're now helping with lending, we're helping with card issuance, we're helping with treasury and money storage, we're helping with cross border

money movement. Stablecoins, we've got to talk about stablecoins. There's got to be a stable. Why did you do a stablecoin? Stablecoins are finally happening, and they're really useful. We followed crypto for a long time. The Bitcoin white paper dropped in 2008, the year before we started working on Stripe. And so it's been funny where Stripe and crypto have grown up together.

And we tried to make Bitcoin happen as a payment method on Stripe. Just wasn't that good as a payment method. I mean, it's good as a store of value, as kind of a gold substitute. But transactions are slow. Transactions are expensive. You never know exactly how much you're going to get,

because it's not denominated in dollars. The stablecoins are now really good, if you look at something on an Ethereum L2 or Solana or something like that. And so we bought a company called Bridge late last year, who is building the stripe of stable coins. And so if you're, I mean, I think you guys have talked about them a little bit, but you know, people like SpaceX using them for treasury management, people using them to offer US

dollar services to people all around the world. Just stable coins are, I think, the first really big payments use case. And I think it's finally coming because the tech is good enough. Is there a moment guys where is it a regulatory event where you'll say the Visa MasterCard duopoly can get challenged? Is there a set of boundary conditions that you have written down where when you can check a few of these boxes, you know that it's time for those companies to get dismantled? The behavior we're seeing right now

is that stable coins are most interesting and seeing most adoption where there is some cross border component. And so you need to manage corporate treasury around the world. You want to send remittances to people in other countries. Often it's people in other countries want to hold dollar balances or things like that.

What we've always seen is that, I don't know, in the US things work pretty well the US, things work pretty well. In Europe, things work pretty well. We even see this pre-crypto where the way people pay for stuff has been radically changing. Your UPI in India, PICS in Brazil, you have all these designed by central banks, actually really good government-run Venmo solutions. Those have all happened in emerging markets broadly and not in the US and Europe. We certainly keep our eyes peeled for that changing at some point, but I think right now, I don't know, Padraig, would you characterize it that way that a lot of the interesting stuff we see is happening internationally?

Yes. So with respect to Visa and MasterCard, I think an important thing to keep in mind is that most of the interchange fees that are charged to merchants, and you mentioned what we charge the All In podcast, the vast majority of that flows right back to the issuing banks in the form of interchange. And almost all of that flows right back to the consumers in the form of the lending that the cards themselves represent,

but then also in card rewards. Card programs are not actually big profit pools for most of the major banks. And so I think any substitute you know, any substitute for, for Visa and MasterCard in that sense, you know, the sort of a question of, well, are the consumer rewards going to go down? Are the consumer protections going to go down? Would be extending less consumer credit and maybe other points in that space are viable. But, you know, it is a set of trade-offs and it's not as simple as this, this enormous rent extraction happening. John's totally right. I think the

interesting use of stable coins is cross border is outside the US. The big use case that's taking off right now is consumers in other countries seeking to hold dollars. We in the US here today, we obviously benefit from having to do that. The vast majority of people in the world are subject to a worse currency, worse in the sense that it's less stable, it's more inflationary, storing savings is much less favorable. If you look at the Naira, for example, there are a lot of people in Nigeria,

and the currency there has devalued by a factor of three or four over the last couple of years. And so that use case of consumers being able to store dollars is really exploding. And we think about this really as kind of an analogy to the euro dollar system, where the euro dollar system in the 70s and 80s, this was a way for companies to store dollars and to have something more stable and reliable and so forth.

But it was only accept. I mean, I think the minimum transaction size like a million dollars sent to this kind of a very high barrier to entry. Whereas with stable coins now you can be a consumer in Ecuador and you can have like a 10 US dollar balance. And that was just not a product that was accessible to you before. And so I think it's I think it's a really big deal, certainly for people in those countries.

And in some sense also for the US, because the dollar status as the world's reserve currency, I think is in the process of becoming much more deeply established. Yeah, that is the huge win for allowing stable coins and making them legal, giving them rails, putting aside tether and all the bands and fugazi stuff they've been doing, or have done and all the lawsuits that they've lost

and the bands in different countries, having USDC having yours and other ones in the United States means we can regulate them and they have to buy treasuries. And so okay, dollar supremacy continues. And that's fantastic. But right now, all in, just using the example, could accept payment in stable coin, correct? Which is right. We just check a button and we get stable coins. Okay, so then the next piece I have is we- We'll follow up with you afterwards to make sure we-

Exactly, get that going. You can turn that on. Well, I'm actually really excited that you guys are gonna be sponsoring the All In Summit this year. That's actually exciting. Stop both of you. I love it. No, FreeBarg going to be sponsoring the All In Summit this year. That's actually exciting. It's super exciting.

No, Freeburg is great at securing the back. The thing that's interesting though is if let's say we had a milli sitting in our Stripe account and then we had to pay a venue or pay other vendors and we're sitting there in your coins called Bridge. Is that what it's going to be called? Or is it called? Bridge is the company, it's the platform and, you know, that's like there are certain things that are orchestrated.

Correct. Correct. But you'll have a Stripe stable coin at some point. Yeah, like one has been already. Yeah, Bridge has a small stable coin. Great. But we don't need to get into details. But but Bridge is primarily set of software APIs. Got it. But you'll obviously have a Stripe stable coin. The point is, if you turn on stable coin acceptance with,

you know, for all day and today today that'll use USDC. Perfect. Now could we then go pay people from our stripe account, and then you could lower our fees if they were also doing stablecoins? Does that exist today? Or is that something coming next year? Look, you could pay people in stablecoins. but again, to the point of where you'll see adoption first, paying people via bank transfer in the US, like, yeah, it's not great. It's kind of slow, everything like that. But it's fine. It's not the biggest problem.

It's really cheap today. Yeah, exactly. Whereas the people who are using bridge, it's like scale AI is, you know, they have to pay the contractors all around the world. And when you want to get money to people in the Philippines, that starts to get really annoying and expensive and so just from our point of view, the like real hair on fire problem is the international stuff and domestic, I assume you're paying domestic suppliers, it'll come later.

I think you're answering narrowly to stable coins, I think everything you just said is right, but I will say, I think Jason, your intuition that man, it's really inefficient and annoying to engage in B2B transactions and to get these invoices paid and just like the whole system. And if you look at most companies, they're losing 1%, 2%, 3% of revenue to AP and AR. Now, some of that might be because of the transaction rails themselves.

A lot of it's just because of broke, inefficient processes where you have humans sending invoices, humans reconciling them. You're trying to line up transfers in your bank account statement and figure out you know what corresponds to what and so on. And that's super inefficient. And so we're separately I mean, simple comes to be part of the solution here. But but but there's more to it

is there separately, we're trying to solve that with a product called Stripe billing, which we actually announced last week has passed, you know, half a billion in in ARR. And so we can send an invoice to somebody with Stripe. Exactly, exactly. So that's like FreshBooks or whatever those other products are in the market are. Oh, it's amazing, all the back office.

Is there a version of a network effect inside of Stripe for their customers where if I just allowed you guys to just be integrated into my GL somehow, and you gave me some kind of phantom bank account, why isn't it just a ledger entry if I'm just making a payment from me to somebody else that's also on Stripe? The thing we really want to solve is all the calculation, the ID verification, the risk.

Those are the things that are actually expensive. If you look at this flow to where companies lose their money today, having said that, you're right. The fraction of money movement on Stripe for, you know, the two counterparties are both part of the Stripe network is obviously growing. And so I think that'll be another way we can reduce fees over time. Although, again, I actually think the biggest part of that is it's going to be because we reduce fraud, like both counterparts are known. And like I talked to a company, a payroll company recently,

and they were describing, you know, how big a deal it is for them that, you know, people sign to a company, a payroll company recently, and they were describing, you know, how big a deal it is for them that, you know, people sign up, you know, fraudulent companies, whatever, and you know, they can lose millions of dollars in a single attack. And so having some kind of trusted node rather than just routing an account number, that would be a really big deal for them. Look, you have a very good pulse. And what I would say is that as a subset of the economy, you probably reflect a large part of the global economy. Have you ever been approached or have you ever considered on a regular basis publishing some sort of economic sentiment? One of the big things that we've talked about is how many backward revisions there are to everything from nonfarm payrolls to GDP, that they've become so unreliable. And so it's very difficult for people that are transacting in market to know what to do. Have you guys ever thought about that? Because I'm sure that you have a much more

accurate sense of where the economy is than many other people. We have and I feel a bit rueful, you know, with you asking the question, because I feel like on some level, we should have done it. And the thing that makes it kind of tricky is because two things, one stripe is not like a full cross section of the economy, you know, we're more biased towards online, we should have done it. And the thing that makes it kind of tricky is because two things. One, Stripe is not like a full cross section of the economy. You know, we're more biased towards online, we're more biased towards innovative companies, you know, whatever. It's kind of net that out somehow. And you know, there can be these stories where, I mean, during COVID, like the online economy was doing great, the offline economy is sort

of a different story. So the interpretation can be a bit tricky. But then just the second thing is the Stripe business is growing so quickly and changing so fast that again, you know, it's not necessarily representative of the economy and even if stripe is way up year over year, you know, you have to be a bit hesitant to drawing conclusions from that. Having said that, I think in principle, you could draw some conclusions. And you know, one thing we did look at was just inflationary data over the last couple of years. And I think you can construct and the team did construct a pretty reliable kind of leading indicator for inflation. And so we would like to share that openly because you know, I think it's I think it's a public good for there to be better and more reliable economic data.

All right, free break before we get into the dock, you got any question for the boys here? If you were to kind of build the financial system from scratch today, we've got Swift, we've got banks that store assets, we have credit cards and these credit card networks, then we've got transaction service providers that sit on top of this. What's the right solution if we were to build a financial system for the world from scratch today? And can you guys see a world where we bridge away from the credit card networks, where we move out of some of these legacy systems, or are they so deeply ingrained in everything that it's going to continue to be this thing where we've got to build these complicated solutions into and around the legacy of financial infrastructure?

I'll give my few and then I'm curious what Patrick has. I would say, firstly, there is just general tech scalability. The finance industry has its version of the mine shafts, for sure, where everything should be highly scalable in real time. And I think in a way, stablecoins are solving something that you don't technically need full decentralization to do, but the ability to make kind of real time payments any hour of the day or night is a useful property. And again, some private systems have also built that. I think a big one for us is trust. And the fact that the

fraud problem hasn't really been solved in online payments. A big reason people come to stripe is basically we are a reputation network across the internet economy. And so when someone comes and buys something from a Stripe user, 93% of the time we have seen that card before. And so the merchant can know something and know that they can trust this end user. And it's gotten to the stage now where if someone comes along and buys with a credit card, if they're signing up with an email address or a phone or something that we haven't seen before,

that is just ipso facto suspicious because they are coming along and maybe trying to get a stolen credit card or something like that. And so a big part of what Stripe ends up doing is acting as a reputation network to keep fraud out of the system that maybe you would have wanted to design in from from day one Well in fairness Jamal told me I could use that credit card anytime I want I don't think you remember

I think you need to turn my account back on and free Berg. I just got news from Our CEO John Mastercard just canceled their sponsorship of all in summit So we're just costing us a fortune this podcast so far two things one To your point about just all these different networks and so forth, I think stablecoins are going to be a big part of the solution. I actually don't think that's going to supplant all the consumer-facing networks. I think we're going to see consumer-facing networks built upon and that substantially leverage these things, but I think stablecoins will probably be the common male. And then just secondly, I think part of what you're hearing is

most businesses lose more money to fraud than they do to the pure transaction cost themselves. You're hearing us talk a lot about fraud here, and that's because, one, it's just a huge economic cost for these businesses today. And there's even indirect costs where you make the consumer experience more hostile because you have to protect against possible fraud. Why do you have to type in all these numbers when you transact? Am I getting locked out of my bank account? Yeah. All this stuff, exactly. But then secondly, I think these we can just see it in the data. These fraud ones are actually getting worse and harder because, you know, ML, AI, globalization, everything. Yeah, exactly.

And so, like, you know, various fraud metrics across the industry and the ecosystem are way up over the last couple of years now and striped actually down by 80 percent. But it's really becoming an acute issue. All right. And we'll get into staying private longer. And when you guys are going to pull the IPO trigger later in the show, but we got to get through this docket. We got so many great topics to talk about. Let's get to our first story here. It's a kind of a fun one. Jamie Dimon went on a rant about remote work and zoom in a town hall. And here's a snippet.

A lot of you were on the zoom and you were doing the following. Okay. Look at your mail, And here's a snippet. does. Okay? And when I found out that people are doing that, you don't do that my goddamn meetings. You go to me with me, you got my attention, you got my focus, I don't bring my goddamn phone, I'm not sending texts to people. Okay? It simply doesn't work. The young generation is being damaged by this. That may or may not be on your particular staff, but they are being left behind. They're being left behind socially, ideas, meeting people. In fact, my guess is most you live in communities i have a lot less diverse than this room that's not how you run a great company we didn't build this great company by doing that i'm doing the same semi disease everybody else does call some brothers tell us about how you run stripe you remote this is resonate with you four years after we've come out of the pandemic. does this resonate with you for years after we've come out of the pandemic? I love listening to Jamie Dimon rants like I feel like that's business ASMR.

Business ASMR. That itself could be a great podcast. I was about to say I'm subscribing. That's an instant $10 a month subscription. But what do you think, Jen? Yeah, I don't know. People just said a lot of during the pandemic. Like, do you remember it's like, oh, handshakes are going to be over, business travel is going to be over, every company is going to be fully remote. I would say Stripe broadly is in a pretty similar spot to where it was beforehand, which is most people go into an office, like most people are, you know, part of our San Francisco

office or New York or Dublin or Singapore or wherever. And then we've a bunch of people also who work remotely. I think kind of obviously, you know, Jamie is right on some points. I think also working remotely has had a bunch of benefits where there's a way larger talent pool available to companies like Stripe. And there's a lot of people, you know,

you see kind of the two body problem where it allows a lot of couples where, you know, maybe one partner is assigned to some hospital in Idaho and like they don't get to choose what hospital necessarily they got assigned to and the other person gets to work a high paying tech job. And so I don't know, I think when like one of the theories for declining dynamism in the US and declining TFP is that allocative efficiency of people declined as women enter the workforce, because now you have, you know, what John describes this two body problem where you know, both people have to make coordinated switches. And remote work, exactly.

Yeah, free bird, you're running a company now you're the CEO of Ohala. Tell us, does this resonate with you? What do you think, especially by younger people his point and like, being rude or being focused being in the meeting and then like, maybe there's too many meetings where people are partially paying attention, maybe they should be half as many meetings and people should be paying attention. What do you think? Well, there's always room for optimization that we deal with

this too, too many meetings, too many people. I think what was most striking for me about the Jamie Diamond rant, and the resonance it seems to be having particularly in Silicon Valley and particularly with folks that are in leadership positions or on boards is that this is another example of what I think is kind of a different tenor for leaders in business right now, relative to where we were a few years ago, leaders are starting to step up and speak

their mind and speak more directly and lead from the front rather than lead from the back. I think the last couple of years, and I would say that the whole kind of transition away from wokeism and coddled employee workforces, which is something that a lot of folks talk about, I'm not trying to just characterize it. I'm just saying that's the characterization that's been placed on it, is that the employees made the decisions and then the leaders kind of said, okay, I'm subjugated to the employees wins and needs and look at what's gone on with suck. He said, you're with me, you're against me. Here's a buyout option.

Elon obviously was a exemplar of this at Twitter. Uh, we've now seen this become Coinbase, Brian and his letter. And we've now seen this become, I think a bit more of a standard in the kind of emergence in the post-COVID era that leaders can lead from the front, speak directly and say, this is the way things are going to be. My job is not to coddle my employees. My job is to lead my employees so that our organization,

our team wins and we achieve our mission. That's the objective. It's not to create a family workplace for everyone to be happy all the time. It's to help the organization succeed. And so I think I have heard from people individually, I've seen this tenor shift underway right now. And I think that Jamie Dimon is another kind of exemplar of this that seems to have some resonance. All right, Shamath, I want you to respond specifically to this next clip. Let's play the second clip about organizational bloat.

Every area should be looking to be 10% more efficient. If I was ready to department 100 people, I guarantee you if I wanted to, I could run it with 90 and be more efficient. I guarantee you I could do it. I could do it in my sleep. And the notion these bureaucracies, I need more people, I can't get it done. No, because you're, you're filling out requests that don't need be done. Your people are going to meetings they don't need to go to. Someone told me to approve some as wealth

management, that they had to go to 14 committees. I am dying to get the name of the 14 committees. And I feel like firing 14 chairman of committees. I can't stand it anymore. All right, schmuck, the bloated bureaucracy at big companies, your thoughts? Well, you know, there's that adage that says something akin to 50% of advertising is useless. We just don't know which 50%.

Yeah. I think it's probably true from most corporate structures in general, which is that a lot of the organizational bloat has evolved because of the way that people have responded to how you use technology. So meaning, if you look back 50 years ago, if you look at that famous picture of the Microsoft early team,

they didn't rely on software necessarily. There wasn't Salesforce, there wasn't Workday, there wasn't all of this infrastructure. And so instead, they probably organized by what they were good at, and they just tried to do things efficiently, Salesforce, there wasn't workday, there wasn't all of this infrastructure. And so instead, they probably organized by what they were good at, and they just tried to do things efficiently. And I suspect that many companies in the absence of technology found a way to just be very efficient. That started to change when you had these rigid demarcations of where one job

ended and another job started. And part of why that happened is because you had all this software that went in and convinced people, this will create efficiency, but in return, the chief marketing officer's job is X, Y, and Z, this is how the rules are defined, this is how people do it. And so I think that the reason why things have become so bureaucratic and bloated is that there is just this propensity to run towards software because you think it's a solution.

At best, it's a symptomatic aid. It doesn't address the root cause. And in fact, it promotes bureaucracy and it promotes the bloat that Jamie's talking about. And if you look at Jamie's P&L, he spends $16 billion a year on IT. And I suspect that if you streamline that, you'd actually have half as many people because they'd be

doing the job in a wholly different way. And by the way, the the counterfactual to it is if you look at companies like Facebook, or Google or Tesla or SpaceX, who designs and I'm sure Stripe is the same who designs a lot of stuff internally, that's custom built for their org. I think the way that you see this in the revenue per employee and a bunch of these other metrics in terms of the efficiency of those companies. So I think what he is talking about is that he is a victim of this push to productivity, because he would look like a Luddite if he didn't adopt technology.

But by adopting the off-the-shelf stuff, he introduces organizational bloat because these things are demarked very, very rigidly. Yeah, you got the marketing team, as you mentioned, using HubSpot, and then you got the sales team using, I don't know, sales force. Tool upon tool upon organizational bloat. The other thing I just want to say on the first topic, as I've mentioned this before, other than engineers who are naive but can be extremely productive from day one, there are very few other job types

where naivety is an asset. Most people early in their career are in a J curve where they are negatively contributing. And the whole goal is that- Yes, slowing everybody down. And the whole goal is that you invest in these people so that they come out of the J curve. There are probably other jobs that are like engineering,

but many, many are not. And so I think it's important to get the kind of mentoring you get by being in an office. And in the absence of that, I think these young people, like Jamie said, are totally lost. That's on them. But then for the company, they're completely unproductive and useless,

which is on us. Hey, John, Toby, I don't know if you know Toby from Shopify, but he did this like zero based budgeting kind of concept for meetings. He just purged all meetings at the beginning of the year, he just like deleted everybody's meetings from the top down. I'm curious how you think about bloat. And just all of these meetings and committees. Do you worry about that? It's right. We know Toby very well. And I don't know, I always feel like, yeah, we should, I'm tempted to take some of the ideas like we haven't done the meeting deletion one. And you just say, oh, the meetings

get recreated, but they measured it. And they didn't, it sounds like. And I do always enjoy Toby's perspective, which I think that, you know, many organizational problems are in fact, software problems. And you know, you just need to write a script to literally like, I think that many organizational problems are in fact software problems. And you just need to write a script to literally, like I think he wrote the script to the meetings from the Google Calendar instance. But there's kind of this purity that you're over intellectualizing your problems. I do agree with your math on the remote thing where it's very dangerous. One thing that can be dangerous with, as CEOs think about this stuff, is I think there is these unfair anecdotes

that feel unfair that get people really riled up. The quiet critters, the anti-work subreddit, all these talk of people working two jobs. And that generates a lot of energy with corporate leaders. But you don't want to design your policies around, like, the bottom 5% of the company. That would be a horrible mistake. Yeah, you want to design your policies around like the bottom 5% of the company. That would be a horrible mistake. Yeah, you want to design your policies against the top 10.

We have some like outrageously productive remote people and they're off. And again, the cabin, I know somewhere just, you know, coding up a storm. The thing that we have seen, and interestingly, we measured this before COVID, because we were doing a lot of remote hiring and we wanted to see, we wanted to see how much we should lean into it is that it is not good for early career people. We can actually measure it in our productivity data before the whole discussion about remote work happened during COVID. And it's bad from a work point of view. It's also just bad from a personal point of view where they go mad because they're 23 years old and they're not going to an office and there's no one to

And they're in solitary confinement. Exactly. It's literally solitary confinement. It's ridiculous. And by the way, breaking news here, Jamie Diamond now knows which 2000 or I'm sorry, 1739 employees to lay off first. There is a coworker.org petition to get Jamie to retract his statements. So the opt in has been created. If I know Jamie, I know he'll be retracting that statement right away. Absolutely. He will bend to the pressure of those 1700 mids. Patrick, how do you deal with

mids at Stripe? How do you deal with the mids? I'm not saying you have any, but maybe you've run into, because you've got over 10,000 employees. When somebody's average that must make you crazy, how do you deal with it? No, the median employee at stripe is awesome. The media employee at stripe employee at stripe is is not the median person in the population at large. Although I think the median person in the countries we you know, we put a lot of work into this team. Well, no, I was using the term mids. But mids are people who are just average people, not the above average stripe people who

opt into that. But how do you deal with low performance is kind of what I'm getting it. Well, look, you need to have an aggressive performance management culture and to stay on top of that. And look, it's not good for anyone to keep those people around because nobody likes feeling that they aren't succeeding. And so if those people are, their careers aren't advancing,

they're not getting positive feedback from their manager, from their peers, they aren't shipping things like whatever. This is just not a good equilibrium for anyone. So we really try to stay on top of that. We track it closely. The thing just on this discussion broadly to say is I think people very readily fall into a kind of normative, moralizing perspective

on this stuff of people should be in the office, they shouldn't be in the office. But there's a lot of should here. I think it's helpful to just, one, kind of as John referenced with some of the analysis, just be quite empirical and objective and just look at what the data says. And then second, just recognize there's

a lot of heterogeneity. As in people have different preferences. People have different abilities to work effectively when they're by themselves and some don't. Organizations are doing different kinds of work. NVIDIA, last I checked, is doing pretty damn well. And Jensen is on the record as saying, he doesn't give a shit about where you work.

Coinbase, Shopify, they're all these remote first companies. And then I was recently chatting to folks at Jane Street, and they really believe that being co-located and being able to share ideas on the trading floor and so forth is really important. But I don't think these pictures are necessary, or these worldviews are necessarily contradictory. They probably hire different kinds of people or in different kinds of businesses and so on. And so, I don't think these pictures are necessary, or these worldviews are necessarily contradictory. They probably hire different kinds of people are in different

kinds of businesses and so on. And so I don't know, I guess I'm just skeptical of flat shoulds in this space. And many paths to heaven. Yeah. Many paths to heaven. All right, so let's move on to our next story. Last, we should just keep in mind and labor productivity in the US is up like 20% in the last 10 years. And so just like, again, you just look at the data, just the median person in the economy, or the average person, is producing 20% on an inflation adjusted basis, more than they were 10 years ago. Yeah, and that's gonna keep ramping up with AI

and all these amazing tools that are coming out. We'll leave that on the side for now, because that would be an hour long rabbit hole we could jump down. But we gotta get back into Doge. The number, well, I've heard a couple of criticisms of Doge. One of them is it's one sided, we're only hearing about, you know, people on the left doing griffs and USAID. The other one is, hey, you're you're pointing out little tiny things like USAID, when are you going to get to defense, spending and

Social Security? Well, here we are. Washington Post is reporting that in between doing sets of 47 push ups, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has senior leadership at the Pentagon to develop a plan to cut 8% from the defense budget. Each of the next five years, that's compounding 8%. Here's a chart we're talking about close to 300 billion in savings over five years if they hit, which isn't a crazy target 8% a year, it's just crazy in our country where we haven't even been able to have our Defense Department pass a basic audit. If you've seen those type of reports, let's pause there and just talk about military spending Chema. I think that military spending needs to sit downstream from technology because if it doesn't,

you're sort of misappropriating the money. And what I mean is that we're inventing incredible capabilities in AI and autonomy. I think that you need to take those things first and figure out how to productize them because I think that builds the kind of modern war machine we need. Otherwise, what happens, I tweeted about this, Nick, maybe you can find it, but like the CBO red flagged a project where the Navy was about to appropriate $1.2 trillion to build frigates. Now, there's a body I think of military planning that says this is a projection of power and so you need to spend this kind of money because people want to see the big boats and the big iron in the water. Okay, and maybe there's something about that. But the reality is you can't be spending three or four billion dollars a boat and taking, you know, eight, nine, ten years to build these things. So this is not sustainable. And part of why they do that is it's

not coupled to what's actually happening with respect to innovation, where there are core pockets of companies. Saronic just announced a $600 million raise today. Sail Drone announced hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts with the Navy. Anderil is doing that with the army. So I think that military spending needs to happen downstream from what's actually happening in technology, broadly speaking, we don't have that. What you have instead, our system integrators with extremely deep connectivity that are able to contract well, not

necessarily to invent well. Freeberg, any thoughts there on cutting defense spending? Obviously, we have to Trimot's point, amazing founders, like my guy Palmer Lucky, cutting the cost of very important. He's not your guy. He hates it. That's my guy. He hates it. My bestie. Oh, no, we it's all a joke. Everybody calm down. We just have a little back and forth.

He literally hates you, Jason. No, I know all the board members. I got a personal relationship with him. He's gonna do everything he can to your ranch. He loves it. He loves it. He everybody needs a foil. It's all sorts of problems for the rest of us. When you go out and talk about people for no reason. Great. You talk about I never talked about stripe guys. You don't have any beef with your employees mids for no reason for no reason

You just like oh, what about your minutes a hypothetical? Yeah, okay. I did say that you guys pocketed 500 large look we can come to the summit and you know Palmer style Absolutely shout out to my guy Palmer lucky, but. But what do you think, Freeberg? For serious, let's get back on track here. Okay. So here's what I think. If you take the fence down to first principles, there was an excellent tweet that we were all texting about yesterday.

It may be observation that Trump's negotiations with Russia and China, where there's all of this hemming and hawing about those negotiations being complying with the wants and needs of dictators, may actually be a shift in strategy on the global relationship the United States has with other global powers. In particular, a shift from the objective being about US primacy and the US being kind of the sole great power on Earth to recognizing that that's no longer the case and that in a multipolar world, we no longer need to invest in wars, need to invest in conflicts, need to invest in defense with supposed allies

to try and build up our strength across the globe. And I'm not saying that this is necessarily the right strategy, but it was an observation that maybe the strategic imperative is now to have kind of a multipolar stance in the world rather than a stance of primacy. And in that framing, you then ask the question, okay, add, make that the case. Now, if we do agree that we are all going to settle into a new world where China, Russia, the United States are not necessarily equal powers, but shared powers across the globe.

In that context, do we need to have as much of an investment in global defense? Do we need to continue to pour dollars into building up arsenals and military bases and troops and stations and positions all around the world? Perhaps not. Perhaps the world gets divided peacefully and we open up global trade relationships and everyone benefits economically from the advances in technology and improvements in productivity and the world order is peaceful, but multipolar. Maybe that's the new era that we're entering.

And in that context, you don't need as much of a defense. And separately to Chimot's point, there's different technology that's now in play. We've seen it in the Ukraine, Russia context that a $10,000 drone can destroy a $10 million piece of equipment. China now has drone factories that can output millions of drones each month. If China develops this new type of arsenal with millions of autonomous flying systems that can go and attack troops and attack expensive pieces of equipment, do we really need aircraft carriers?

Do we really need tanks? And I think that's the whole Hegseth-led, Trump-led conversation that's underway in defense right now. Number one, multipolar. Number two, therefore we don't need as much defense spending. Number three, maybe the defense spending that we do do should account for the new technology in play in the battlefield, and that really changes the character of how the Defense Department is structured and how funding is structured. So that's really, I think, the way to look at it versus, hey, let's just cut defense spending for cutting sake.

And that might be what's going on right now. A holistic view of it. Patrick, any thoughts on what we're seeing in defense tech and saving money through Doge? Well, obviously, what, you know,l and others are doing is pretty amazing. But you know, we're obviously not defense experts, but sort of just bringing the credit card merchant perspective to bear here. You know, we naturally just go and look at the time series and sort of the data around us. And I guess I'm struck by, and again, maybe I'm getting some of the details wrong here.

This is outside of our zone. But as far as I can tell, the cuts proposed over the next couple of years for the Defense Department are of approximately the same magnitude as the reduction in the defense budget that occurred between 2010 and today. And so it's not like this is some unprecedented transformation in DOD budget. We've done this. unprecedented transformation in DOD budget. We've done this. And then secondly, as far as I can tell, one of the most ecumenical, uniformly shared bipartisan issues in Washington is the inefficiency and the profligacy of defense procurement. James Fallows was writing a book about this in the late 80s. You had Augustine's Laws and another whole book about this.

Everyone seems to fervently believe that defense procurement is monstrously inefficient. Now, it's possible to make budgetary changes without fixing that, but obviously the prospect of meaningful improvement there seems like it would be really beneficial. And if I can just give a quick book recommendation, this book Boyd by Robert Corum, but John Boyd, the Air Force colonel who was part of the reformist movement, I feel like everyone in Silicon Valley has that book on their shelf and no one's actually read it. But it is a exactly it is kind of references sprinkling some OODA loops into

your remarks. All this helps. Exactly. Yeah, helps. Exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sounds smart. But that is a great book and it's a book about Air Force procurement, essentially, where he had his, you know, basically the story is that the Air Force generals of the time wanted planes that were bad and he had a theory about better fighter jets and he had his fingerprints all over the F-16 and the A-10 and the F-15 and various aircraft.

And it was a real battle to get the Air Force to produce better aircraft. And they really, the generals really wanted these bad aircraft that they had planned. And so that's a fun read at this moment in time when it feels like we have this similar transition from man to man. Tell us the name of the book again.

I know there's many books about it. It's called Boyd by Robert Coram. It's a really engaging read. It's also just very well written. It's this kind of narrative nonfiction style. There it is. Okay, everybody. Another book selection from the All In Book Club brought to you by Stripe. Use the code ALLIN to get a year free of Stripe. We haven't even gotten to the Stripe Press Books.

Oh, you do actually have a series of cool books. Yeah, we'll plug those towards the end. All right. Srimathi, you added a crypto update. Crypto Corner is back. We had an exciting week of innovation in the crypto space. Last week, Argentine President Millay, who is a hero to a lot of people in on the right or for government efficiency, promoted a meme coin. It was called Libra, dollar sign Libra. And he originally tweeted,

this private project will be dedicated to encouraging the growth of the Argentine economy with a link to Libra for his citizens to go by and buy it they did. But he deleted that tweet when this whole thing came apart and said I was not aware of the details of the project and after having become aware of it I decided to not continue spreading it the market cap ripped 4 billion it crashed 95% as these mean coins always do. 74000 traders lost almost 300 million. 24 wallets had losses over a million and Malay has been sued 100 plus times already. And this just happened last week. He's being investigated by his own government now. And there is an impeachment attempt underway by the opposition. Malay's team told CNN that his endorsement of the coin was a mistake. Really?

Oh, wow. Going out on a limb there. According to insiders, Malay never actually owned any Libra and was not associated with the coin. I think family members maybe put him up to it. The details of why he brought it remain a little bit unclear. There's a lot of speculation. Jamath, your thoughts.

It's kind of crazy. I mean, he was on such a positive upswing of momentum. It doesn't make much sense why he got embroiled in all of this. The problem with this though is I think that the cover-up is always worse than the crime itself. So the first message was, you know, very Clinton-esque. Like I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

He was like, I did not endorse it. I just shared it. Was his justification for how he, how he could rationalize what he did. The kid that's behind this thing, Hayden Davis, I think is his name. He was on Coffeezilla. Was an incredible one hour.

Did you see that? The Coffeezilla interview? Well, I saw some of the clips on X and it was pretty brazen because he essentially said that he had Javier Malay in his pocket. And then there were text messages that use some pretty colorful language to basically say the same thing.

Then on top of that, there were some text messages that seemed to implicate Malay's sister as having got some of the money from all of this. I don't know, the whole thing just makes absolutely no sense. That he was doing so much good, and now he's gonna go through this whole cycle of trying to wash his hands of this whole thing.

It's a complete waste of time and effort. I don't know why he did this. And there was another like interesting little tidbit, Friedberg, a friend of the pod, David Portnoy, supposedly he's been getting in on this and he's a gambler and he loves gambling and he looks at his gambling. Obviously, he had put reportedly millions of dollars into this and this guy we're talking about gave him his money back. This guy also has something like $100 million sitting in a bank account anywhere. What's your take on

all these meme coins, Reaper? I don't like them. I don't think that they're like good. I don't think they're productive. I think that a bunch of people are going to put money in and lose money. And a few people are going to make a lot of money. And you know, but at the end of the day, it's no different than the people that sell trading cards or the people that create and sell collectibles and get paid for them. And this is just effectively a digital

collectibles business. Unfortunately, I think it's like amplified by like 1000 X, because collectibles businesses have friction and their manual and you got to ship them. And this creates a bit more of a digital frenzy where you see the social feedback loop happen really quickly in real time. And that drives these things to a high value, which means people have the ability to lose a lot more than they otherwise would. But look, I mean, these are not helping the financial system get rebuilt, as we talked

about earlier, they're not creating productive value, they're entertainment mechanisms, just like any other kind of gambling system might be. And you know, people can choose to do that if they want. But personally, I'm not into it. I just think it's stupid. But whatever. Patrick, do you think these are like collectibles? Or do you think they are perceived by the people buying them more like securities and more like Bitcoin? They do to steal men the other side of the argument. They do trade with a ticker symbol. They are traded on major platforms like Coinbase and Robinhood.

And people share charts about them. And so where do you stand on it? You're in the finance business. Meme coins good, meme coins bad. I'm basically with Dave. I mean, well, they seem to me to be maybe analogous to, to gambling, which, you know, I don't know that we want to ban gambling, like if you're able to do it responsibly, and you understand what you're getting

into, and so forth, like, I guess that's fine. But as you say, judging by the tweets that I see, there are a lot of ticker symbols and charts and prognostications about future price trajectories and so forth that lead me to think that people are placing somewhat more weight on the asset and security value of these as compared to the I don't know some numinous intrinsic aesthetic value. So John, John, maybe two things could be true here. People are gambling, and they are being presented as financial instruments. And they're trying to trick the suckers at the

table as suckers in this case being the people who voted for Malay to Trimont's point, this is the unbelievable cell phone of the decade. Yeah, look, I don't like meme coins. I think they're bad. And I think they're part of like Patrick said, a broader suede of things that we need to figure out societally, where the legalization of sports betting and combined with highly targeted advertising. I don't know if you guys have seen the stats on, you know, whales in sports betting, losing very large amounts of money. And it's just these heartbreaking tales. And there's a very large number of them, of people kind of losing much more than they expect it. And I don't know, we have to reckon with these societal questions. I don't think there's super easy answers. They come along from time to time. I only learned recently that state lotteries are relatively recent phenomenon. Like I think it was one state started doing it in the 1970s and then

a bunch of the other states followed suit. But it's kind of odd when you step back that like I pass a billboard on one on one for power, you know, the state of California trying to get me to buy lottery. So a negative EV bet. Yeah, just like but that's become very normalized. And so I think it's a bucket of hard questions here around, you know, meme coins, sports gambling, whatever. I don't know what you do. But there's a lot of meme coins are not the only place you find these very heartbreaking stories. This is the this is the first time where they've actually talked about, or at least where I saw the

details of how this stuff happens because he laid it out. And there's these people called snipers that go and like pump up the bids right as soon as the coin gets launched and then they're able to feed. So there's like this entire mechanism. It's all so shady. I was going to say some there where I feel like the specific thing within meme coins, it's probably most pernicious is like the rugged dynamic. And if you could have meme coins to a girl, but without the without the pump

and rug, if it was like, I don't know, just some mimetic tracker of some sentiment or something like maybe that'd be okay. But the like the particular way in which they seem to be, you know, employed is like, yeah, some some sort of discontinuous run up and then well, the rug. What do you think, Jake? I agree with you, Chema. Malay had the greatest PR run of all time, I think. I mean, he became an inspiration to all of us here in America, who were concerned

about the deficit and out of control spending and ridiculous departments. We heard Jamie Dimon talking about ridiculous committees and all this nonsense. I don't know if you guys remember, but remember he was like Minister of Culture afuera and Minister of Gender afuera. This was the precursor to of course, Doge, where now we're like USA, deleted Department of Education deleted, you know, Defense Department minus 8%. And you know, what I really find terrible about this is that what it means for leadership, what Malay did was he rug pulled the people who put him in office, the people who voted for Malay

are the ones who got hurt here. And when you think about leadership at its core, it really is about putting the needs of your constituents ahead of your own interest, the needs of your investors in the case of you know, if you were running stripe, right, you got to think about all these shareholders leadership, you know, at its core is, I think, setting the example, right, you set the standard, the standard, the moral, the ethical, the vibes, the culture, you set that

standard, he had set such a great standard that we all loved. And, you know, the appearance of in propriety is impropriety in my mind, that's the leadership standard that should be here. So even being near this, your sister launching it, your brother launching, whatever it is, he then went on to taunt, this is where I've really you know, like people make mistakes, but and this is a stupid one to make. But the taunting of his own followers, you know, I'm out on

the line right now. This is what he said, the reality is if you go to the casino and lose money, I mean, what is the claim if you knew that it had these characteristics? This is another failure of leadership leaders own their mistakes, They don't attack the victims you take ownership of it. And the way you should judge people I think is what they do when they're given a lot of power and what they do when they make mistakes. Millet is a failure on all of those fronts. It's absolutely important. That's it. Thanks for

coming to my TED talk. No, I'm just I'm on fire about it. I just think it's like really terrible. Do you need help getting off your moral grandstand now? I do. I do. Actually, yes. Yeah, I'm over here. I'm sorry. I actually care about morals, ethics and leadership. I think that there's a standard set by these people. That's what I think about when I think about you. Yes, of course. Thank you. All right. With friends like these, call some brothers. Can you imagine?

Imagine you have to be a so annoying. Can you please say their name? Callous and I said, pronounce the goddamn I could I'm pronouncing the Irish. Okay, we speed things up a little bit. We put them together. It's a little bit different. You know, this being from Sri Lanka, a great country. You know, you wouldn't know why anyone watches this show would you? I don't know. anyone watches this show, would you? Oh yeah, I don't know.

The subject of jumping to this right now. Everybody says the same thing. You have no content for this? It's funny. Why do you make every show a train wreck and we have to get it out of the- The banter is why people come, people listen. So many TV shows are about, it's nice to have friends.

I mean, you look at Friends or How I Met Your Mother. My wife and I are rewatching The West Wing right now. And it's basically a show about, you know, yeah, but it's just like we're all buddies and loyal to each other and everything. And I think the underlying idea behind lots of TV shows is it's nice to have friends. And I think that's the success, the all-in broadcast.

The West Wing, by the way, is an incredible, which season are you on? It's an incredible show. We're up to season four now. God, I gotta get in on that. Five or seven? Five or seven. I never got in on The West Wing. But of course, Sorkin left after season four now. God, I gotta get in on that. Five or seven? I've never gotten in on the Westman.

But of course Sorkin left after season four. And so many people said, The whole thing about the great debate that America needs to have, I think it's still like the missing aspect of modern politics is everything gets- Explain the great debate. Well, the great debate is like, let's talk about the topic that's at hand and talk about it on the merits of what's right for the country, as opposed to everything being about attacking because the other side brought the idea forward.

And now we have to attack the other side and frame the idea as being beneficial to them and hurtful to us. Nothing actually gets resolved because we don't end up having objectivity around these conversations around some of the major issues that the country faces, many of which, by the way, both sides have valid points of view. And if we can kind of have the great debate, if we can have these conversations like Doge, right? Like abortion, like, you know, the rights of states, like spending, like there are all

these things that we should be talking about rather than use that moment as a way to attack the other side politically so I can make sure I've got points and kudos leading into the next election cycle. it's just awful anyway I missed that about the West Wing it feels like a purist like just a beautiful like way of thinking I wonder what it would be like to watch the West Wing and then House of Cards back-to-back that's something I should know but it's like really adjust the position those two different shows yeah but they've isn't the West Wing kind of the opposite of what you just said you want the all in to represent?

Because I see the West Wing as being sort of fully immersed in and representing one sort of particular worldview. In some sense, we look back on the 90s at the Clinton years or something as this period of great harmony in the country. And that harmony might have been great and the economy was doing well and all the things. But it wasn't exactly a period of, I mean, whatever, I wasn't here in the nineties, but from afar, it did not feel to me when I was eight or whatever, as a period of tremendous ideological debate and fervor and schisms and all the rest.

During the nineties, during the Clinton era, you're saying? Yeah. Yeah. And I think, I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I think of the West Wing as, you know, a kind of recapitulation of the Clinton years. Maybe they were, I mean, maybe they were the compromising party because I mean, tell me another modern Democrat president that's had any point of view on balancing the budget and creating a surplus, which he was essentially was aligned with the Reagan point of view at the time. And he kind of, you know, again, as Jay, Jay Cal said, he was a centrist and he brought brought the parties closer together rather than farther apart with how they operate. I agree with Patrick. I think the thing that makes the West Wing a great show is that

it's about the insider nature of the White House and the West Wing and where you see these characters like Toby, who would never be a star in any other show under any other circumstance on any network ever. And instead, he's one of these central, quasi-good, quasi-nefarious bully kind of, you know, he was like the precursor to the Rahm Emanuel archetype in the Obama White House, I think. funny where you know the way Dominic Cummings has talked about just his experience of life in government was that it's so distracting trying to get anything done because you know, you have some plan, you get up in the morning and you're going to go do something that matters for the country and then you're just instantly by 8am, you know, side swiped by some kind of silly controversy of the day. That's basically many of the episodes of the West Wing where they like have some actual important thing that they want to get done and then they just get waylaid by a silly controversy. It seems to me like you're also

the product of the technological innovation that occurred during your presidency and during your term. And if you think about Clinton, he got to ride the internet and this massive economic boom. And you look at Reagan, the PC boom. I mean, sometimes the timing really matters, I think. Though I think, and again, I'm not any grand expert on the Clinton years, but I think it is interesting where one of the first acts of the Clinton presidency was the Deficit Reduction Act.

Dave, to your point, when's the last time that a Democratic president really cared about the deficit? And I think federal spending fell by five points of GDP over the course of the, of the Clinton presidency, which is really not a small amount, you know? So obviously there were some kind of structural tailwinds from, you know, technology and the internet and all that. So yeah, a bunch of that was defense, but, but like nonetheless. So he did. And the last two administrations and you look at

California, there were massive windows of surplus. And there were massive windows of a surging stock market over the last eight years. And we plundered. And we wasted them by adding 16 trillion to the debt during a good time. Like what's gonna happen during a bad time? Just absolutely brutal. Let's move on. Where do we want to go here? We got grok three, we got the China private sector, we got a victory lap for freeburg. You're gonna ask questions about Arc Institute and the evil model.

We should do that. Alright, let's do the Arc Institute. Freeburg. Why don't you ask the question runs the Arc Institute right? Okay, yes. And we're the co founders and then there are two scientists and you guys are funders of it or maybe you guys give us a lot of money into this. Yeah. Yeah. So the is a nonprofit.

It is basic biology research. It's in Palo Alto, Nexus Stanford. It's about 230 people today. And yeah, John and I are among the funders of us. But there's this much other very generous donors. Can you explain to us the idea of curiosity-driven research that's on the website? Yeah.

There's two things behind it. So the first is the vast majority of biology scientists today receive NIH grants during basic research. And the NIH grants are, one, just hard to get and annoying to get. Scientists spend 40% of their time working on grant overhead and so forth. But worse, even more perniciously, the grants are very restrictive in terms of the kind of science they can do. And so we ran a survey of scientists back a couple years ago of top scientists, and four out of five, like 79% of them told us that if they could just spend money however they wanted, if they weren't kind of limited, you know, what they're prescribed by these NIH grants, four to five tools, they would change the

research agenda a lot. And so I think the analogy here is imagine if there was only one VC firm, and it was run by the government. How would that change? And that VC firm had strong opinions on what kind of companies people should build. Exactly. Literally, the grant panels at the NIH are, and they're consensus-based, like explicitly. They've kind of consensus-based scoring mechanisms and they penalize you if you're doing work outside of your field and so forth. So we kind of, we go to all this work

to train these amazing scientists and then we sort of don't let them pursue their best ideas. That's kind of problem one. And the ARC investigators, they're fun to do whatever they want, curiosity-driven research. And then the second thing behind ARC is this idea that you can kind of divide diseases into three categories.

You know, you have infectious diseases. And we, broadly speaking, know how to generate cures for and treatments for infectious diseases. We have monogenic diseases, like wound genetic mutation or something. And we don't know how to cure those in most cases, but we can at least screen for them and so on.

And then we have what the biologists call complex diseases, where there's some kind of gene environment interaction. That's most cancers, most autoimmune diseases, most neurodegenerative diseases, and so forth. Alzheimer's, things like that. Exactly. And we've never cured a complex disease.

And many of these diseases are very tragic precisely because not only have we not cured them, we don't even have treatments as, you know, as John says, in the case of Alzheimer's, for example. And so, you know, the question is, can we do something about this? And, you know, what would a research agenda and program that, you know, can that can help, you know, shine some light on these complex diseases look like? And our hypothesis, you know, we'll see, we'll see how much

it's borne out. Our hypothesis is that we've gotten a couple of new technologies over the last couple of years, single cell sequencing. We can sequence the DNA or the RNA just like in one cell. We've, you know, fancy new functional genomics and CRISPR technologies. So you can make these, you know, fine edits and perturbations, again, even just in a single cell. And then obviously you have transformers and AI and ML and all this stuff. And this is kind of a new read, think, write loop in biology

that just didn't exist a decade ago. And again, the question is, is this powerful enough now to solve some of these previously intractable diseases? And so yesterday, ARK released this new foundation model for biology. It's the largest biology ML model ever. It's actually, I think, the largest open source AI model

ever. This is EVO 2 you're talking about. EVO, the number 2. EVO 2. Yeah. And so it's not just open weights, like the DeepSeq model or Lama or something. It's actually open source since the training code is public.

And people can read the blog posts or the paper or whatever. The thing I find amazing at Evo and that just really surprised me is it's trained on 9 trillion base pair gene tokens. So you know, chat GBT, LLMs are normally trained on human language. This is a language model, but it's trained on DNA, the language of life.

And there's only one human genome in the training set. It's mostly other species. And even though it's only seen one human genome, it's state of the art at predicting the pathogenicity of human genome mutations. And so, you know, a famous mutation is the BRCA mutation for breast cancer, like it's state of the art at predicting the pathogenicity, the harmfulness of BRCA mutations. Again, it only despite never having seen one in humans, it's only seen one human genome and that human, you know, did not have these pathogenic mutations. And so it's kind of learning something

deep across the tree of life. And I find that pretty cool. And sorry, is there a phenotypic data set that's used in training? So I think like, you know, when you're typically, right. And so when you're building models in typical genotype by phenotype models, you're trying to look at the phenotype, the physical characteristics of the organism.

What can it do? What does it look like? What are the features? And then you look at the phenotype, the physical characteristics of the organism. What can it do? What does it look like? What are the features? And then you look at the genome. And so that tells you, hey, these are the specific genes or alterations or mutations that drove this particular phenotype is kind of what the model tries to learn over time with the objective being, hey, can I ask it to define a genotype or a genome based on a phenotype, based on a physical set of characteristics

I'm looking for, vice versa. Maybe you can just help us understand what is it trained on and how did that kind of, you know, prediction in BRCA, you know, how is that possible? Great question. So it's totally unsupervised. That is to say, you know,

you're just showing us lots of genomes and any kind of latent structure that it learns is just based on trying to figure out how to kind of organize that knowledge, but we're not showing it any labeled data or phenotypic, you know, kind of outcome data or, you know, what have you. And so then you're able to, you can give it a genetic sequence and ask relative to its understanding of the genetic universe, how likely is this particular sequence? And so then you can do things like predict anomalousness

or pathogenicity or whatever. You can also then kind of using the embeddings of the upper layers, and we don't need to get too technical here, but you can train another model on top of the model. And even if you showed maybe only a couple of examples, it learns very quickly, okay, kind of here's, you know, here's how the weights of Evo 2 correspond to this particular task. And those sort of models trained on top turn out to be, you know, really accurate. You guys open source the base model or you open source the fine tuned or both? We open source the base model, but there's no kind of proprietary reason that we didn't open source the fine tunes. like it's really easy to produce them. And yeah, if anyone wanted one of them, we'd

happily share it. Where does it stand in the spectrum of different tools that folks would use to solve these life sciences problems? There's cell models that are being developed by some, then there's these protein models. Where does this fit? This kind of landscape of, of foundation models in biology, it's obviously very new. So it's a bit of an open question,

sort of how exactly people are gonna find ways to use it and applications for it. Part of what I think is cool is that proteins and RNA and I mean, phenotypic expression and everything, all these things sit on top of the DNA. Like in some sense, the DNA encodes everything because the whole organism comes from the DNA. And so I guess the question would be,

and we don't really know yet, is DNA all you need? And with EVO1, we saw some encouraging suggestions that, for example, you can build really good protein structure prediction models out of a DNA foundation model, even if you don't train on a lot of, you know, protein structure data. So, but I'd say just it's a really exciting time. And it's kind of an open question. And I don't know if you analogize EVO2 to, I don't know whether it's GPD2 or three or something, but, you know But I think we're going to see a similar Cambrian explosion of applications over the next couple of years.

The thing we're really excited about at Arc is training cell state models and trying to better understand what causes them to change states. And so we're thinking a lot about that. But the weights are in hugging face. And hopefully we'll be surprised in what people do with it. Do you just expect that over time as Stripe continues to grow, you can just take the X some of your own excess capital and other people will do the same and keep funding Arc.

And then if there's something that Arc creates or innovates on, if it can generate some amount of money, it would just kind of flow back. Is it meant to be self sustaining? Or is it always just going to be via patronage from successful folks that just want to keep it going? John and I are, you know, we are ourselves very committed to us and, and we're kind of underwriting us in that regard. But, well, one, we're just lucky where there's a growing donor

pool of other people supporting us. I think it's just better for an institution, if it's not kind of beholden to the whims of, you know, one donor or one group of donors or something. So I think that's just a much healthier structure for us. I think there's also a larger group of people who are just becoming interested in science and realizing, I mean, you know, Jason was on his moral pulpit. My pulpit is that, you know,

all is not well in basic research in the US today. And again, the way to see this, it's just talk to the scientists themselves, and they tell you how kind of inhibited they are, and you know, the kind of problems caused by the strictures and structures around them. And we don't see ARC as, you know, the answer. Hopefully, it can be sort of one point in the space. But then, you know, there's other people doing cool stuff. You know, Brian Armstrong, of course, started a company in the longevity space and Yuri Milner and others

started Altos and you know, this is the people that the Chan Zuckerberg Institute, and so that, you know, people are trying to different things. But no, our arc is, you know, we're very happy to support it. And then if it's possible that arc over the long term becomes self sustaining, but you know, that's, that was my next question is, you know, we're very happy to support it. And then if it's possible that arc over the long term becomes self sustaining, but you know, that's Well, that was my next question is, it takes a while to get things into the clinic.

So we're not holding out for that tomorrow. Well, you know, when they they have this technology transfer department at every major university where when scientists get grants and they work on some innovation, it gets monetized. And so what happens here? Who owns the innovations? How do you license them? Because it would be amazing if it just wasn't based on I believe you guys have put over $1 billion into this. That was my

understanding. Is that true? Is this like you guys are over $1 billion into this effort? Not quite the numbers. Yeah, not quite. The numbers are public. So arc spends around 100 million a year. Okay. And it started about three years public. So ARK spends around 100 million a year. Oh, OK. And it started about three years ago. Oh, OK. So hundreds of millions of dollars,

this is a really significant thing. Yeah, and again, I want to emphasize, there are other donors. Yes. It's not just us. But I mean, it's a nonprofit. There have been spin outs, and there will continue to be. And so if one of those, you know, really, if one of those becomes

Moderna or, you know, the next Ozempic or something, then, you know, that can be really good for Arc and Arc might have an endowment and be able to kind of self sustain and so forth. We're we're there's no prospect for us to make money on it in the sense that, you know, it's a nonprofit. Well, actually, John, you know, just one thing there. I was talking to a friend of mine, you could if this thing actually hits, you could flip this nonprofit. Oh,

stop, stop, stop, stop. I got a guy you can talk to. Oh, John, go ahead. Yeah, strays. On the whole like modeling world, we talk a lot about the idea that you can kind of use a computer, state the phenotype or the physical characteristics you want in a biological organism, and have the software resolve the whole genome, state the phenotype or the physical characteristics you want in a biological organism, and have the software resolve the whole genome, all the DNA needed to make that physical organism real. And it can do it from its prediction ability on what genes, what combinations, but we're

a couple orders away from that, right? I mean, I think like ultimately we always talk about, hey, we want to be able to define or have the software define the plant that can grow on the surface of Mars. It knows the soil type of Mars. It knows the air. It knows that it's carbon dioxide based. It's 10% of the Earth's atmosphere. This is what the daylight structure looks like.

It needs to be wind tolerant. And then the software predicts an organism that might be able to do that. You know, and obviously there's a lot of this predictive work going on in proteins. Then the higher order is cells, so single cell organisms, microbial organisms, and then ultimately multi-cellular organisms, so plants, and then finally animals, where you could basically create organisms from scratch using software, because we have all the other tools to biologically put these pieces together today, but this is a great kind of, I view it as a pyramid. There's a ton of phenotypic

data that still needs to be fed in ultimately to kind of have us all understand protein models and a lot more to it. But it's a great. I think that I think that's right. Like you can, there's a certain amount you can probably derive sort of, you know, from first principles just by looking at genomes. But I think the really powerful models are gonna need to do exactly what you say and to feed in a lot of ancillary phenotypic and just kind of other data, how they fare in different environments. And the sequencing data got ahead of the phenotyping data

because there's so much sequencing data that's come in. So you can do a beautiful job predicting like correctness in a genome, but you can't- And the sequencing data is really nicely digital, whereas, you know, the phenotypic stuff it's like, well, it's not exactly what is the data. Yeah, totally. Dave, sorry, I've while we're in the science corner, I have a question for you, Dave, which are strawberries, you might know the answer to this.

A bunch of tree species around the world are under attack. So in Ireland, we have this problem of the ash dieback. Ashes kind of Ireland's national tree, they use it to make hurleys, which is, you know, for the national sport. And since mid 2010s, you know, especially as the live plant trade has ramped up, you had a hurl for Jason. For Jason obviously. Absolutely. I put it right here on the shelf.

Absolutely. The American chestnut here. Yeah, exactly. I was going to reference the American chestnut as well in the U.S. But it feels like we have this real problem and And it's so sad where so many beautiful trees are under attack from- And you have the bark beetle in California and the various conifers that we're losing. So we got to solve this.

And the black pod disease, the black pod fungus and cacao and coffee is being destroyed. TR4 is destroying banana right now. Dr. Doom, let's go. No, no, but like it's a real like- It is a real issue. This is a real issue. Yeah. Down to the science corner here.

So this is yeah. I mean, this is exactly what we aim to address at Ohalo. So in some cases you can actually silence a gene that's a suppressor of immune function of the organism, which can actually improve disease resistance. But how do you do delivery of that? Do you like this airborne sprays or what's the yeah. How do you how do you treat the tree? Yep. So ultimately if you're going to use a genomic method,

you would transform the genome. So you would edit the genome and you would regenerate a plant or regenerate a tree and then propagate that tree. Okay. But then like we have to replant all the trees. We'd have to replant the trees and ultimately, Can we do custom projects? Can we do a little thing on ash in Ireland? Absolutely. That is some of the work we do. So we announced a few weeks ago, a partnership with the university

Florida to use our methods to basically introduce disease resistance for major fungal pathogen. That's destroying the Florida strawberry crop. And so that's what we call a trait program at a hollow where we can identify a specific genomic trait that we can go and introduce into that plant. But then you're right, you do have to grow all the plants back and then put them back in the ground. That's the second best to pure extinction.

But I have in Ireland, I ended up owning this kind of country house and virgin woodlands, where you know, woodlands that Ireland was used to be fully forested and then was denuded with the arrival of agriculture. And there's some kind of ancient woodlands on us that are from the original when Ireland was fully kind of covered in trees. And I find the die off of species very sad. And so we got to get. Yeah, but no, it's not like I'm very optimistic. Like we know how to address these solutions. We know how to regenerate the trees we can we can do this quickly We can resolve these problems, but you are right

I think you should be selling a skew a skew to the people in Tahoe like, you know, the Tahoe Basin has been so Worse than decimation doesn't decimation is only one in ten Which is like, you know half the half the trees in Tahoe have been hit by a bark beetle so those are very interesting ones because Insects you can actually build very specific defense mechanisms against insects. But we generally have to improve genetic diversity and in doing so, you know, there's a natural resistance because the evolutionary like the reason we have a TR4 problem in banana, all

the world's banana that we grow commercially comes from one original banana clone called dwarf Cavendish and they took that one plant they cut clippings of it put it in the ground for another plant cut clippings of that and they kept multiplying it so all the bananas we eat and all the bananas that are planted across tens of millions of acres worldwide come from one original clone and because of that this fungus has been exceptionally capable of evolving itself to better eat that banana plant and so 60 cents of every dollar we spend on bananas today goes towards fungicide. We're spraying these banana trees once or multiple times

a week to kill this fungus. We're consuming that, it's super expensive. And if we had genetic diversity, if we had better genetics in the banana programs around the world, we'd be able to radically improve. No matter what the administration says, you think we need more diversity. Are you in favor of DEI, Friedberg?

They cornered you. Friedberg, I got you got to make one promise to me. Here it comes. You're not going to start working on Raptors. I don't want to see any of these Raptors running around San Francisco, okay? Chamath, your thoughts here on the science corner here? It's been a really enthralling one.

The Raptors are coming for you. I find it incredibly inspiring that there's just so much movement in these foundational models. It's incredible, like every day just seems like there's something new. The biggest problem that I think that the commercial community is going to deal with is how to actually take advantage of it because you're kind of head spins because you don't exactly know where to start. The biological models are different in that I think it's a much smaller population of people that will use it and I

think they do have to figure out how to take these models and complement the existing pipeline they have. The pipeline they have right now I think is pretty brittle. I think we all know that in life sciences. My wife struggles with this a lot, is how to complement a very traditional pipeline with this kind of stuff. So I see it firsthand in how she tries to allocate capital towards these problems. On the other side, I just think these foundational models are really incredible. And I think that I was completely wrong on a couple of my earlier thoughts. One thought that I had for a long time was, it just seemed like all these base models were asymptoting. And so I was not convinced where all this CapEx would go in a productive way. Like, why are you buying all these Nvidia GPUs? And then

at GPUs. And then I think if you looked at Colossus, the Elan's Colossus. XAI built the largest data center over 100,000 GPUs going to 200,000 in 122 days. But basically what he proved was that there are still valuable gains in pre-training. And so the larger the cluster, the more value that there is. Now he also benefits, I guess, from the X feed, but that was really interesting. So now I'm like a little bullish on Nvidia. I'm like, oh my God, if this is true, then all this CapEx may be justified.

You could be buying a lot of stuff. Then, look, I actually also just to maybe riff on this Grok3 thing for one second, I had three takeaways. My first takeaway was I was sneakily surprised on the pre-training upside on having a larger cluster. So I think that that's very pro NVIDIA actually. And it's actually also just really good in general for foundational model makers. So I think that's a really positive thing. The second thing is, I don't know if you watched the live stream, but did you guys hear some of the stuff that these guys had to pull to pull this thing off? One of the most incredible, so the way that Elon narrated it was we first had a physical

problem. So we just had to search all around the country for one single location where we could actually put 100,000 GPUs and they found it, which was an old Electrolux factory in Memphis. Okay, that's kind of interesting. That power. But then he only had like 15 megawatts and he had to get a quarter gigawatt and so he had to basically buy every useful generator that was available. But then they had to get a quarter gigawatt. And so he had to basically buy every useful generator that was available. But then they had to liquid cool it.

And so they bought one third of all the portable liquid cooling capacity in America and located it on-prem. But then they figured out that there was a power problem. So then they took all these Tesla power packs and then had to do power smoothing, which had them had to rewrite all of the power pack firmware. In all of this, you know how we talked about deep seek being this moment where we had lost sight in America of capital being the source of innovation. He proves

actually a more generalized rule that I took away from this, which is you always have to have a constraint. So meaning, let's say there's like infinite capital in his case, and infinite talent because he can basically recruit anybody he wants. What did he do instead? He created this artificial constraint of time. And so he was just able to say, you're going to get this done in a moment. And Nick, I saw the third graph that the guys at artificial analysis sent to me. I just want to put it up here because it shows you guys the quality of grok three relative to the amount of time that they've spent on this problem is to me what's staggering. So if you just sort of project the rate of change of this,

and this is without judging, open AI or anthropic or anything else, those guys have been doing it for years. These guys have been doing it for a year. And they did all of this MacGyver engineering and were able to pull this off. So that's my second takeaway is that innovation needs a constraint. Sometimes it's capital, sometimes it's talent, and sometimes it's time. And so if you can basically be just completely rigid on one of those dimensions, you can get a great team to create something. So that was an interesting takeaway. And then the third is, I think what this also speaks to is the notion of like a kuretsu, right?

Which is like the Japanese word for like companies that work together while still remaining independent. Conglomerates, yeah. Lose partnerships. It's more interlinked companies. It's interlinked. Sure.

You know, Koreans have Chaebols, right? Samsung. Japanese have kuretsus. But this is the manifestation of an American kuretsu, which is Elon is able to get engineers from Tesla. He's not just buying the power packs, he had them re-engineer the actual firmware in real time on site. And so there's this positive ability to just like organize effort and human capital. Like, look, could we all stand up a data center and go and buy $500 million of power packs from Panasonic?

Absolutely. It would take a few months. 18. And then when it looked like we need to rewrite the firmware, it would take another 18 months to your point, Jason. So it's really incredible what these guys are able to do together. Those are why it was really, really inspiring. Chamath, a book I think you might find really fun is called Henry Kaiser, Builder in the American West. But Kaiser is kind of underappreciated these days. He was the Elon of his time. He started as a road builder of all things. He won the contract to build the Hoover Dam. He built the Hoover Dam. He started a shipyards during World War II. Yeah, exactly. This book

cars. He decided to make cars. He decided to make airplanes, stations, TV, the famous four day Liberty ship. Remember the propaganda win during World War II of, you know, they were able to lay down. That was at the Kaiser shipyards. Kaiser Permanente spun out of them as part of their. I was literally trying to say that pulling up my notes from the book and just. He was just a complete phenom and he just kept finding new industries. It's like, oh, building cars. How hard can it be? Oh, building airplanes. How hard can it be? Yeah.

I mean, that is the nature of entrepreneurship. The nature of entrepreneurship is doing something delusional and then just letting, you know. But most entrepreneurs just do one delusional thing once. And again, Elon and Henry Kaiser back in the day, it's in the world of atoms, very hard things, short timelines. San Francisco now, kind of at least in the physical domain stands for a kind of stasis, you know, it takes you 10 years to build anything. But when he had the toilet, the shipbuilding yards here, he went from

zero to 100,000 people in Richmond in one year. He basically built the city of Richmond, California. But guys, okay, let's just double how, how do you think these guys pull this off? I don't know. Personal sacrifice, massive personal sacrifice. I understand that Jason, but I'm talking about like tactically pull this off, where you have to be on site at some point, organizing this team directing this team, being able to help isolate

these problems, fix them, it just seems impossible to do it once, let alone six. I don't understand how they do it. I actually have some insight into this just from knowing Elon. A lot of these things compound a lot of what he learned in material science doing SpaceX and about making the engines and then working with metal. You see in his production at Tesla, and specifically in the cyber truck, he has learned so much about factories, I don't think there's a person on the planet who knows more about factories now having built a battery factory, a space factory, an engine factory and

a car factory, and now building optimists on top of that. So these things compound, and then a lot of the engineers will float between the companies. So there are folks who have worked at SpaceX who then go do a tour over at Tesla, et cetera. And a number of those wound up coming into Doge. I'm gonna read you a few quotes in this book.

I'm just gonna see if they remind you of anyone. Kaiser's managers challenged convention from the start. As builders, they were experts at coordinating workers and materials. Kaiser was almost contemptuous of traditional methods. His partners had long since despaired of getting him to follow customary procedures. In preparing his bids for each new job,

Kaiser would try to conceive every possible technique that might justify making a bid low enough to win the job. Once the construction was underway, he was forever trying to come up with ideas that would expedite the work. Perhaps more than any other builder, he believed that the faster a job gets done, the lower the costs can be. That's incredible. Incredible. Well, and what happened with Colossus is they

had told Ilan that it would when he wanted to use other network operation centers to host Colossus, you know, and he looked there were none available. And when he did find quotes from them, they told him 18 to 24 months, he just determined, hey, if this, there's no reason to even do this, if I can't get this done in a, you know, 100 days or something, why even join the race, I'm going to be so far behind. And if you look, just to wrap this segment up and get on to our final two segments. If you look at these two charts about rock, it's now, and you know, listen, these benchmarks in

these arenas and testing, there's a lot of controversy around them and people keep leapfrogging each other, but they do give us I think our best shot at looking at progress This is the benchmark here for grok on a bunch of different tests math science and coding And as you can see grok 3 has now eclipsed Gemini, which is Google's LLM and DeepSeq from China, Claude, and ChatGPT 4.0. And so to your point, Chamath, it's pretty impressive. Yeah, it's super impressive.

And at the top of the LNCIS leaderboard? The thing here, I think, Freiburg, I'd like to get your comment on is, if hardware is the constraint, does that mean that the person who understands hardware and build outs as Chamath was pointing to, does that mean that they by default win? No, but Jason, hold on. This is what's counterintuitive. It wasn't clear.

Because No, it was not. Yes. I would guess that the last couple of iterations, it wasn't clear. Because no, it was not. Yes. I would guess that the last couple of iterations, it seemed like OpenAI has moved to what comes after the base model, meaning in the allocation of resources in terms of what they were creating. And so this is what so counterintuitive, he was like, No. And so I don't understand what he knew that everybody else didn't know. But that the size of that cluster made no sense.

And it could only be a result like this where he basically proved that there was still value in pre-training where size actually led to better outcomes. That's not, I think that was counterintuitive. It's super consequential. I mean, complete agreement with the Chamath and just Freeberg to wrap the segment up and put a bow on it. We see these LLMs, they've made incredible progress, as we just heard from Evie to or Evo to I'm sorry, a grok, and we're making

these giant gains in space, you know, in work. And it's specifically in space, Dave, do you think this will get us any closer to Uranus? So sad, so sad, it didn't even land. Okay, let's do our final don't even acknowledge it. Do not acknowledge it. Because we'll just do more of it. I tried to get your mouth to do when you wouldn't do it. Okay, last two segments, we're going to talk about staying private longer and when you

guys are going to go public and then there's an asteroid coming. What do we want to do first boys? We want to talk about this asteroid coming. Dave is at the end of the world? If it hits us? What's going on? NASA dropped the probability of it hitting Earth to one and a half percent. So every day when the sky gets dark, they can do a better job seeing this asteroid that everyone's freaking out about. So we finally got a good night sky two

nights ago, the telescopes were able to get a better trajectory reading on it, and that allows the models to make estimates on the probability of this asteroid hitting Earth in 2032 when it's projected to cross our orbit. And so right now, the probability is estimated at 1.5% that it will hit the Earth. And based on the size of this asteroid, there's this range, it goes up to 320 feet in diameter, as small as 80 feet in diameter, which actually can have a pretty big effect on how big of an energy release there would be if it actually hit the Earth. So even on the high end, if it was, call it 300 feet, it would be the equivalent of, call it a 20 megaton bomb, which is not insignificant. If it were that big, it would be the equivalent of call it a 20 megaton bomb, which is not insignificant.

If it were that big, it would hit the earth. If it was smaller than that, it would probably just detonate me air and create a massive shock wave and, and firestorm. But the region that it would decimate would be limited to probably a couple dozen miles, up to a thousand miles of effect. And if you look at the total surface area of the

earth, you know, we're talking about 10 to 15% of the earth having people that have to take, you know, enough people to have it. Probably gonna land in an ocean, right? I mean, right. Yeah. So it's one and a half percent chance of hitting the earth and then call it a 15% chance of it hits the earth, the causing loss of life. 10 basis points. It hits a city. Yeah. And then, right. And then it's a function of how big it is. If it's actually as small as 80 feet, then it's not going to be that significant, even if it does get close to inhabited areas. So yeah, I'm not losing sleep over the work.

Did you come across in your research, I feel like this is a real boys are monitoring the situation moment. Did you come across the Tunguska event? Yeah, incredible. So that one- It's incredible. Yeah, so you want to talk about it? Go ahead.

Yeah. Just, no one knows this. In in 1908 and asteroids hit the earth. It hits relatively uninhabited part of Russia. It was a very soft. The asteroid did not hit the earth because it got so hot on reentry. There was an air burst and it was 1000 Hiroshima's in size. The explosion that they have here, the 60 meter asteroid, and they have the megatonnage somewhere.

Wow. It's the largest impact event in recorded history. Obviously, there was stuff before recorded history. It's flattened 80 million trees. Weirdly, basically no one was killed because it was so uninhabited. But this is quite comparable to the one that NASA is talking about. That's right. It's about the same size.

Yep. Yep. Exactly. And I think you can take a little bit of reassurance maybe that we have had a similar size asteroids hit before and there is some existence proof that despite the giant explosion, you know, it doesn't show up in the climactic data for 1908. The Tunguska asteroid was at like 160, 200 feet. So if this asteroid is in that range and it hits the earth, you have this kind of explosion in the air. If it gets above I think 250 roughly is where they think that it doesn't burn up fully in the air and it actually will strike the earth. But yeah, that's hits? Is there a counter measure? I don't mean to get all sci fi here. Great question. Yeah, no. But is there a countermeasure

possible? And like, if this thing was coming, let's say in five years, relative to the earth, this is like, tens of thousands of kilometers an hour, right? It's a very fast moving object. Yes, pretty small, right? 160 feet. So you've now got to figure out the exact trajectory, get it perfectly right. Get a launch off of the earth and intercept this thing at the exact moment that you need to, to push it off course or detonate something nearby it to redirect it. So technically very complicated, very hard to pull off, but this is exactly why

we have this planetary defense funding at NASA, which is to track these objects. And this is another example, by the way, where I would say AI can play an important role. And I'd love Patrick and John to apply on this, but I have a thesis that like AI more than anything unlocks deeply complicated projects for humans that would otherwise be kind of infeasible in the pre AI era. I think in the post AI era, we're going to be like, Oh, here's all these projects that we do that are like, oh, you know, we, on a daily basis, we mine to the center of the earth and we get cool, like rare earth minerals

from like 500 miles down and we go to space and colonize the moon and all these crazy things, because AI unlocks these large scale projects that would require millions of people to do things in a coordinated way. And AI can be very smart in this way. But I think AI could play a role also in these Planetary Defense Initiative concepts, J-Cal, in the future where you can actually build a complete project model in software on how you would actually address this problem and then go execute it with automation. But yeah, there's a planetary defense function at NASA. They track these objects and they're funded to do it.

So we hope that NASA continues to get funding to do this work, very important. And guys, it just came through that NASA just dropped the probability of an impact event to about a 1 1% of 1%. So it's gotten even smaller, which is we can all go to sleep comfortably. All right. All right, now good morning.

Everybody's been waiting for. Patrick, John, you founded the company in 2010. It's 15 years later, the entire LP industrial complex and venture capitalists everywhere. I'm sure some employees are wondering when will stripe go public and under what circumstances and what's the hold up here? Why aren't you public already? Yeah, look, I think people sometimes hold us out to be dogmatic or something on this topic. Whereas we feel like so

many other people out there in the world are dogmatic. We just tried to be pragmatic on us. You know, Keith was on the show, and he was saying, you know, he believes companies should go public as quickly as possible. I don't know, maybe that's the right thing for some companies. But in at least Stripe's case, that hasn't been the case. I also think the environment has changed quite a bit, where it used to be the case that to do any return of capital to shareholders, or if you needed any kind of large sums of

money, you needed the public markets. That's obviously not true today where the, you know, stable private markets exist. But we looked and we say, is Stripe better off at the moment as a private or a public company? And, you know, up to this point, we have determined private. That could change at some point, but it's kind of no dogma from our point.

The last thing I'll just say is, you know, I think Keith made the argument, people generally make the argument that it is critical for discipline to be public and public companies run in a more disciplined fashion. And I think that's hogwash. Like if you need a 25 year old fidelity analyst, asking you to double click on your CapEx, blah, blah, blah, to run the company with discipline, something is horribly wrong at the company and you need new management. And so that argument has never really resonated with me. Basically, what you guys are saying is for your intellectual perspective, you get a lot more return on the time you spend talking with the private investors you have and your team and customers. And it would just be dilutive and you would have your outcomes. Quite honestly, if you had to talk to these other folks who are talking to you and 50 other companies don't really know much of anything, maybe very surface level and then may actually

distract you and force you to make decisions you don't want to make. We're not even that negative. We're not even that negative. I was going to say, but it's, there's no spiritual status associated with being public. Like why be public? It is a cheaper source of deeper and more liquid capital. And so if you want cheaper and more liquid capital, then you know, by all means go with it. But you know, it's not, it's not more moral.

And I think, you know, again, it's, it's just helpful to sort of get away from, from that kind of framing. I also think it's noteworthy. If you look at financial services in particular, and we're kind of a company at the intersection of financial services and technology, being private for a long time is the norm. So Bloomberg is a private company, Fidelity is a private company, Vanguard is a private company, Jane Street is a private company, Goldman Sachs.

Citadel. Citadel. Yeah. Goldman waited 130 years to go public. JPMorgan waited 70 years to go public. Visa waited 50 years to go public, JP Morgan waited 70 years go public visa, which is the visa waited 50 years to go public. And, you know, again, those are all different times in history. So I'm not saying you can draw them. But I think it's a thing

of financial services where there's always a tendency uniquely here to be kind of pro cyclical. And I think you need to be kind of particularly careful as a public financial services company to avoid some of those temptations and some of those tendencies. And so you know, I think that that that's a unique dynamic that applies in our space. And and then financial services. And if you look at companies like SpaceX, they're able to provide this yearly liquidity, which actually is probably better because it smooths out a lot of the vol and then people

can get back to work and just kind of. Are you guys profitable by the way? We are profitable. Yeah. And profitable on like a fully loaded gap net income basis, not like community adjusted EBITDA stuff. Shout out Adam Newman. Come on the prod anytime.

You got to wear shoes. Yeah, I do think we think as it comes, you know, pertains to people joining the business and being compensated. You know, everyone loves the idea of an IPO pop. But if you look at a bunch of the other fintech companies, you know, Square, really great companies, 70% off its 2021 peak, PayPal 80% off their 2021 peak. If you're an employee and you join those companies in 2021, it's not a great feeling. And so again, I think the the lack of you know, the good and the bad is you are not priced every single day by the market, but it's not only a bad thing.

The framework, you know, if I'm trying to predict our actions, like the framework we use is kind of two things. One, I think what matters is less, the returns in a given year and more duration. And so the question is, what enables the best compounding on a 10-year time horizon? And what's best for shareholders as you really take the longer term perspective? And then just what's best for customers?

And what helps you build the best products? And, Shamanth, you said it where, at least at this juncture, with the business growing at this rate, we want to spend the marginal hour with some customers. And I think you guys have gotten this sense, like this is our life's work, you know, we're not going anywhere. We'll be very happily running Stripe in 10 years time, in 20 years time. And there's so much going on in this space where we spend a bunch of time talking about stablecoins, talking about AI, everything like that. And it's hard enough to stay ahead in the world of business without all these distractions, like you said.

And so it's just a question of how do you set yourself up to win and do right by anyone in a, the world's pretty competitive. I think if you had to steel man the Bill Gurley point of view, there are very few founders that are probably as steely eyed as you guys. And so what I think a lot of board members in most other situations that are not Stripe deal with is what is a good

forcing function to keep these folks on track, and focused and thinking in a multi decade kind of way. And they found that the public markets, I think, do that more than anything else. That's probably the most compelling for the folks that would otherwise maybe get distracted. But then for guys like you that can frankly just do it. It's great. It's impressive, it's really impressive. Congratulations.

Well, appreciate you guys coming on the program. Come back anytime. You were awesome today. And listen, let's recap. What have we learned? People gotta put some pants on and get back to work. Constraint makes for great art. Stripes going public in 2050. Chamath lost 5 billion not

investing. The Colson's read a lot of books. But I'm still kicking live and kicking bro. He's still in the arena. Got a lot of chips still to fire. So yes, what happens gonna fire fire fire. South American president shouldn't have their own meme coins. And life finds a way we are and you pronounce a call this on obviously I said call us in because you know, we're down the road and carry and we go and get some eggs and bakey sometimes okay, coming to

South by Southwest brought to you by the call us and brothers and stripe a all in is headed to the South by Southwest they're not sponsoring it. I'm joking. All in is headed to South by Southwest on March 13. Me and Freeberg are going to sit down and do our interviews to besties on the future of many media and building businesses in this new media ecosystem. We're going to have a casual party food drinks, the whole thing event is going to be pretty intimate couple hundred seats when you guys is

March 13, you opted out me and Freberg want to do it. Oh, Thursday, no can do. Yes. And it's by application only with a small $30 registration fee of which stripe will take $19 go to all in comm slash events to apply. I'm not better about it. And programming note the besties are on a tear. We were on Megyn Kelly last week. And next week, our bestie Friedberg is representing us on celebrity jeopardy. We can't say what happened, but the clips ready, get the clips, get the clips

ready. We are going to do a recap of every single question. When do you when do you when is it air on Monday? Next week? I think? I don't know. Wednesday at 9pm. Wednesday at 9pm. Perfect. Before the taping. Yum, yum. Perfect. Perfect. There he is. Between Anna Navarro. She's from the view, right? Oh, she's pretty angry. I've seen clips of her. I should have gotten some counsel ahead of signing up

for Celebrity Jeopardy on the lack of upside in doing this. And you will see why. We'll talk next week. Oh no. Goodbye. You lost to Anna Navarro. You lost to Anna Navarro. You lost to the view?

You didn't lose to the view, did you? Look guys, I'm just telling you. Guy's got 160 IQ. The view put together doesn't have 160 IQ. Let me just tell you what we'll talk about it afterwards. I just don't tell me they got you on pop culture. You're pretty good on pop culture. Okay, love you guys. I gotta go. Love you. Bye. Bye. See you next time. Bye boys. I'm going all in Besties are gone That is my dog taking an English in your driveway Oh man

Oh man My appetizer will meet me at the restaurant We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy Cause they're all just useless It's like this sexual tension but they just need to release them out What your b- What your b- B? We need to get merch.

I'm doing all in. I'm doing all in.