Big Technology Podcast - The Case Against SBF, Temu vs. Amazon, AI Therapy

Episode Date: October 6, 2023

Ranjan Roy from Margins is back for our weekly discussion of the latest tech news. We cover: 1) Plans to attend the SBF Trial 2) Welcome to Compound and Friends listeners 3) The legal case against SBF 4) The environment in the court 5) How SBF might win? 6) Michael Lewis update 6) Over 40% of Amazon users now use Temu 7) Blue Apron, once valued at $2 billion, sold for $103 million 8) Anthropic's potential $2 billion raise from Google 9) Should we use AI for therapy 10) Brief update on Twitter numbers. --- Enjoying Big Technology Podcast? Please rate us five stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ in your podcast app of choice. For weekly updates on the show, sign up for the pod newsletter on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/6901970121829801984/ Questions? Feedback? Write to: [e-mail]

SBF is in New York and on trial. New data shows Timu is gaining steam on Amazon quickly. And when you use AI technology as your therapist coming up right after this. Welcome to Big Technology Podcast Friday edition where we break down the news in our traditional cool-headed and nuanced format. We have so much to talk about with you today, including the early rumblings of the SBF trial. He's here in New York and the arguments are getting going. And it actually seems like quite a lively courtroom and then we'll get to other stuff. regarding TEMU, AI therapy, some stuff with Anthropic, and even maybe some Twitter news.

It's going to be quick. Right after this, Ron John and I are going to hop over to another link, and we're going to talk to Chris Leonard, who wrote The Lords of Easy Money. Fascinating book, that interview is going to air on Wednesday, but for now we're here to break down the week's news. Ron John, welcome to the show. I believe I am currently in downtown Manhattan in New York, and I think SBF is maybe a quarter mile from me so so i'm pretty excited right now so this gets out a question i wanted to ask you to start right

we are so close to this court case are you not tempted at all to go i mean it's open to the public it is and i i will not deny i was tempted to go over there but then i was seeing on twitter a bunch of people who actually follow this very closely were apparently stuck in an overflow room and not able to get in so i'll just i'll just follow it along with uh with what michael lewis is saying wherever he is So I'll tell you this. There's a more than 50% chance that I'm going to go next week. Caroline Ellison is supposed to be testifying. This is, of course, the head of Alameda research and the former girlfriend of SBF.

And I will be going. I'm pretty sure I'm going to go. The overflow is starting to become diminished because they're allowing people inside now that some of the government officials are out. And apparently the press is supposed to be able to make it in. So hopefully next week I'll have a report back on what it's actually. like in the corporate. All right. Maybe I'll see you over there then.

This could be fun. That's right. All right. Let's do. Live from SBF trial. Also, before we get it, so we're going to talk first about this SBF trial and the fact that he's being prosecuted here in New York. I want to quickly welcome anybody who is over here from the compound and friends.

I was on the compound and friends on Friday with Josh Brown and Michael Battenick. It's one of my favorite podcasts, definitely my favorite financial podcasts. And I had a great time talking. with the guys over there. If you're a big technology listener, I would say go ahead and check it out. And if you're here trying out the podcast, Ron Jen and I break down the news every week on Friday. And then Wednesday, we do flagship interviews. You're actually going to hear us both Wednesday, both Friday and Wednesday because we're going to do this interview with Chris Leonard. But anyway, very grateful to have you here. And thanks for giving big technology podcast a try.

So let's talk about the case against SBF. So this is from the Wall Street Journal, the long-awaited criminal trial of FTX founders Sam Bakeman-Fried kicked off Wednesday, with the defense and prosecution clashing over whether the fallen crypto leader was a deeply flawed company manager or the architect of one of the biggest financial frauds in U.S. history. So the prosecution is basically arguing that he stole $10 billion from thousands of FDX customers while defrauding lenders and investors from the company's sister hedge fund, which is Alameda Research, and that he stole the money to buy lavish beachfront property in the Bahamas, make political

donations to carry influence in Washington and cover risky bets by Alameda. Alameda. The second half of this, right, the defense is saying that he is being painted, that SBF, Sam Bakeman Fried is being painted as a cartoonish villain. And in reality, he's a math nerd who doesn't drink or party and acted in good faith building this crypto exchange. And, you know, he's a little bit of all over the place. And the lawyer says that as a result, some things got overlooked. I mean, some things is doing a lot of work.

work there. Ron John, how do you read this case? What do you think is going to happen here? Okay. So, first of all, the way the defense has already started this idea, math nerd, who didn't drink or party. I've written about this previously. I cannot stand to this defense or this idea that if he drank or partied somehow, this would make it any different. This is a very clear-cut case. Alameda and FTX were completely intertwined when they're supposed to be separated. you have an exchange that's supposed to be a neutral place where anyone has equal access to transact cryptocurrency and then you have a crypto hedge fund the idea that they were ever separated or distinct was always kind of ridiculous anyways but to me the most interesting part of this and i will go

straight to michael lewis on this because i have to and we had talked about this a few weeks ago and we called that by the way we spent weeks before this whole thing happened we were here talking about Michael Lewis and Walter Isaacson, we're going to get a lot of egg on their face. Lo and behold, that egg is there. Walter Isaacson, you knew the egg was coming. I was, we both were hoping what Michael Lewis did not go down this path, and he completely went down this path. And what I don't understand is, so, and this is, I think, central to the entire case.

Michael Lewis is like, well, there was this great business FTX that is generating profits. It's not a Ponzi scheme. And then unfortunately, Alameda researched this hedge fund, which was, connected to it, maybe in a little way, got run over. It got, you know, Binan, CZ came after them. And then there was a run on the bank. And then it was just, you know, out of their control. And it was just the wildness of cryptocurrency. That is absolutely not the case. And I'd actually written about this a while back. What happens here is you have FTX as a marketplace, as an exchange, that makes markets in any kind of wild cryptocurrency you want. And then what Alameda research would do,

is actually act as the market maker. When I come in and I say, I want to buy or sell some random coin, Alameda Research would take the other side and do it at a good price, a better price than Binance or any other exchange. And be willing to take the loss and show tight spreads, which is the hallmark of a good market maker and is what attracts people to an exchange. The two were so intertwined about what made either one work

that you can't differentiate them at all. And the idea that Michael Lewis is saying, like, FDX is never an exchange if Alameda does not exist. And I can't believe that he does not recognize that given he wrote a book on exchanges with Flashboys. Right. And it's, I mean, we can talk a little bit about Michael Lewis, but just going into like the details of the case. Like the defense of San Bakeman-Fried looks even more ridiculous with the details that are starting to come out now. And this is from the Wall Street Journal. We talked a little bit about this on the compound, but it's worth bringing up here.

FTX employees found Alameda's secret backdoor months before the collapse. And this is a story where you basically had employees, seeing that the crime was able to go on and baked into the code. And they've brought it up to some of the highest levels of FTX. And not only did nothing happen, but the people who blew the whistle got fired. And this is how crazy this stuff is. So this is from, again, from the journal, court filings have revealed a line buried deep in FDX code allowed Alameda to have a negative balance of as much as $65 billion on the exchange.

I mean, $65 billion, like, that stuff doesn't happen by accident. And, you know, this defense that, you know, as a result, some things got overlooked. I mean, come on. Like, I'm totally with you. The defense is going to have an impossible time trying to exonerate SBF because all the factors are there. I mean, it's in the code of the exchange that this. crime was able to be committed and lo and behold they used it. And not only that, again, the idea that FTX is down the hall or in the same room on a different desk where Sam Bankfinfried is,

but he has nothing to do with Almeida research, which is sitting on the other desk and it's Caroline Allison, to me, was always just, you know, incredibly ridiculous. And to me still, the thing that always blew my mind is how did they lose money? When you own both sides of the trade, when you own the exchange and the hedge fund side of it, Alameda could see what every other trader was doing at any time. They had so much information about the entire market and of a lot of illiquid markets. I think to me, not only did he commit all types of fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, commodities fraud, they were also pretty bad traders as well on this. Well, the interesting thing about this case is we're going to start to learn how a lot of this

stuff went done because I have a whole category of people I'm keeping an eye on who I call the flippers right there are people who are deep within FTX and they're going to be witnesses for the prosecutions they've pled guilty to someone or many counts and are basically there to talk about exactly how this went down I mean here this is one from FTX co-founder Gary wing this went down today which is Friday okay so the prosecution says did you commit financial crimes working at FTX? He says, yes. What type of crimes did you commit? Why are fraud, securities fraud, and commodities fraud? Did you commit those crimes by yourself or with other people? With other people? Who were the main people you committed these crimes with? Sam Bankman

freed, Nasjad Singh, and Caroline Ellison. I mean, there's going to be a, just a congo line of people admitting to these crimes and then helping the prosecution unpack how they happened. There's another person, Adam Nididio, who is apparently a longtime friend of Bankman Freed, and he says, I was concerned that as a developer of FTX, I may have unwittingly written code that contributed to the commission of a crime, and apparently he quit as well. So this is really must-watch court testimony as we start to see how this thing was built up and then eventually unraveled. How do you think he might get out of this?

What do you think is... I don't know. I don't know. Do you think is possible? I mean, this is the thing, though, that it's... seems so glaring. Everyone he worked with has flipped on him. So, you know, what's the, to try to bring a little nuance and balance to it. What could be, what could be, play the role of SBF's defense. All right. So first of all, Ranjan, thank you for helping restore the

central purpose of the podcast. Bring some nuance to the conversation. So I think it might be the jury, right? You know, the folks who are in the jury are, you know, they're not people who are obsessed with crypto. They're people who are trying to figure out what crypto is. And they're people who, like, they hear the complexity. This is a point that Teddy Schleifer from Puck made on Squackbox today. They see the complexity of the case and they stop, they stop being able to really understand the arguments of the prosecution. So this is again from the Wall Street Journal. I mean, dude, this courtroom sounds like an amazing place to be in. It's the Wall Street Journal says the first witness was a Cocoa trader who testified that he had lost money in FTX.

Several jurors yawned, and if you looked blankly around the room, that's how he gets off. Okay, okay, hold on. I like this because, okay, so yeah, two things. Even as I started this conversation talking about the complexity of a market-making hedge fund interacting with an exchange, already one could get lost as I'm trying to talk about this. I worked in this for eight years, so obviously for me, it's almost emotional and personal how ridiculous that arrangement was. but also the when the victims are a cocoa trader or crypto traders or crypto bros and like when the victims are not potentially the most sympathetic people in the world maybe the jurors don't feel as emotionally struck as if it was a very compelling victim so maybe that could be the way that

they can wiggle out of this one and it does seem like they've picked the perfect judge for this Judge Kaplan. The Wall Street Journal says, Judge Kaplan is known for telling it like it is. He's an experienced jurist who has presided over prominent cases. Then his computer beeps in the courtroom. And he says, I don't speak computer. He had one of the prospective jurists tell him, I still don't understand how it works of crypto.

And the judge goes, you probably have a lot of company in this court. I mean, it's unbelievable. It must, it's an unbelievable scene. And that's a good. That's what it will hinge, Yeah, that's a good point, though, that it could, it's not any more complicated just because it is crypto versus any other kind of bank fraud, wire fraud securities fraud, as Gary Wang admitted to. But once you throw in names like Dogecoin or things that other people have never heard of, and I mean, FTCS traded everything, that's what they were known for. That's how they attracted people by it's, we will make you a competitive price in whatever random shit coin you have.

I mean, even imagine in the courtroom the word shit coin coming up and Judge Kaplan trying to take it seriously. So, all right. I can see maybe. That's how this moves in a different direction. Yes, that's the only way. But the prosecution is doing a good job. I mean, did you commit financial crimes while we're working at FDX? Yes.

I mean, that's basically what you need to tell the jury. Okay, one minute on Michael Lewis. So we were also talking on the compound. This guy has gone from a journalist that was a little bit too taken by his subject to, like, someone who's now become more hated by then SBF himself. And there are rumors that he's been paid off. I started reading the book, by the way. I'm actually kind of enjoying it. It's just clear that he was way too taken by the subject. What's your, I mean, obviously since last week, we've seen the 60 Minutes interview. There have been more experts, more interviews. So for me, I am so saddened

by this just because. Yeah, I think that's the right. Having worked on a trading floor, I remember when I started in 2002, Liar's Poker was like the first thing circulated around the floor when you join. It was actually, I worked at Bank of America and there were certain desks that we called Equities in Dallas, which if anyone has read the book, that's kind of like the desk you don't want to end up on from Liar's Poker. That's what they referred to it as. That term was still used in a trading floor. And it was so well written and it's captured so perfectly all the absurdity of what happened and the ridiculous things that would happen. And so obviously, this is so similar in that way that, you know, like, you know, I can only imagine how entertaining and absurd

and ridiculous this crypto world is. But, but I think what happened, I mean, I read one piece on this is that Michael Lewis has really dug into the idea, and I'm sympathetic to this, you know, loves the little guy against the big financial establishment story. And so still, crypto, again, big banking, Wall Street, whatever, is where he's going to lean towards the kind of, you know, a nerdy, you know, crypto guy that knows like a perfect mark for SBF. Yeah, exactly. So, so I can see how he ended up taking, but still he's, he wrote a book on exchanges, knowing the actual business of how an exchange works out of everything else. And he wrote a book about bank trading floors. So the two of those things interacting, anyone who should know

how this kind of crime would work, it should be him. But it's disappointing. And especially in the context, another thing I was reading was, you know, the blind side controversy, which we covered a few ago, is that on one side, you know, someone is that someone is silent and doesn't communicate well. And that means that they're not smart and need help and need to be saved versus someone is silent and doesn't communicate well. and that means they're a genius and misunderstood by society.

Oh, that's very interesting. I know. No, I mean, after I read that, I couldn't stop thinking about just how different the portrayals were. Right. The set, well, the setter is that he goes out and he's continuing to do like PR, free PR for Sam. So this is from Molly Ball. Michael Lewis at his book launch event says Sam Bankman-Fried, watched his 60 minutes interview with his cellmates.

the former president of Ecuador, okay, this is funny, and the former AG of Mexico, and this is what Lewis said, they all love it, and afterwards the prison guards were asking them for crypto investment advice. No, no, don't celebrate the fact that people are asking Sam McMahon-Fried for investment advice in crypto. Why do you think he's doing this? I have a question, do you think, like, you having written a book that I can see behind you, always day one, um, do, like, do you think, like, you having written a book that I can see behind you, always day one.

Like, does a publisher ask the author to continue going around? I mean, it's probably potentially selling more books because it keeps it in the conversation. Is he, like, why would he go around and continue doing this? Is he this oblivious to the reaction, do you think? Or? I mean, I think he's just taken by Sam. Still? Still.

Still. Yeah. The SP. I mean, he got Tom Brady, the greatest of all time. So Michael Lewis after that, easy. Goat and then, yeah, goat of all business books, I guess. Two goats in Sam's Penn. So, Ron Jen, did you see the, I sent you over this chart about Amazon versus Timo.

So it's amazing data from Aptopia. I don't think it's been revealed publicly before, but it shows the percentage of Amazon users that are using Timo, Timo, which is the Chinese shopping app that we've talked about a few times on this page. For those who don't know it, I mean, it really is having a surge. And there's tons of issues with it. Obviously, the labor issues are at the forefront. It obviously also ignores every anti-spam marketing law on the books. But its growth has been absolutely phenomenal. So it's gone from, it looks like, you know, maybe 4% of Amazon users used TEMU in October 2022.

And now it's 40%. And it has accelerated rapidly to the point where, you know, building off our discussion. last year last week with uh bill covesick you know even if you were trying to define amazon as a monopoly you see the surge that timu has has uh achieved and you're like wow okay maybe it's not a monopoly but just like talk a little bit about the growth that you see with timu and you know having looked at that chart what are what are the implications there and what do you think it says about team yeah so okay let's separate this out into two things first timu and then second to Amazon and antitrust.

So TEMU specifically, the growth in this chart that you had and you had in your newsletter is spectacular. But let's not forget, TEMU is owned by Pinduo Duo, one of the largest Chinese e-commerce sites. I think it's like a couple hundred billion dollar market cap. They are ready to invest and lose plenty of money in the rollout on this. They've invested massively in Facebook advertising and platform advertising. they're willing to take huge losses on every first purchase, which you buying your phone case

last week, me buying an $8 drone like a year ago, you know, like they're willing to take huge losses on people buying. So when you think of it that way, it's artificial. It's artificial and it's not, there's no way it's sustainable. Obviously the bull case and this is like, you know, you lose money up front and then you get the customer into your ecosystem and then you start having them spend, but clearly Uber and others and many, many companies have made that attempt and haven't really succeeded with it. So I think on the actual success side, I'm very curious to see how long Timu lasts, especially in the U.S., because as you have seen, their emails are terrible. Like, there's only so far you can go with, again, you give me something for like

90% what I would pay on Amazon, I'll take it the first time. But once you go to even, you're only 10% cheaper. I'm probably not shopping as much. But then the other thing, the antitrust. This is one thing I think got lost, has been lost in a lot of the conversation, is we only look at the customer, but the sellers of Amazon are customers. And the central argument, and I actually think this is really smart that Lena Con and the FTC have taken in their lawsuit is focusing on what happens to the sellers that it went from i believe it was like 20 cents out of every two dollars to one dollar out of every two dollars now goes to amazon when you sell on their platform and that they leverage yeah that they leverage massive power

over sellers in order to sell on the platform and continue raising prices so they are increasing prices but the customer is not just you or i the end customer it's also the sellers on Amazon. And again, the argument is that overall that defl- or inflates prices across the economy. Now, obviously, you have a player like TEMO that comes in and deflates very temporarily, massively. But again, that deflation is not going to last too long. So I don't think this significantly affects the antitrust story, especially the way the FTC has presented it. Yeah, that's some terrific context and definitely helps me see the TEMU data in a new light, which I wasn't thinking about this could all be coming artificial promoted growth.

Okay, moving very quickly, I wanted to briefly touch on the Blue Apron story. Ron Jen, you're like very knowledgeable about D to C in this whole era. Blue Apron was worth about $2 billion in 2015. And it got $135 million in funding from, you know, big names is from CNBC backer, big name backers, including fidelity investments. And it turned a profit in the first two quarters of 2016. setting up a nice IPO, and it just sold to Wonder Group for $103 million. So, I mean, it's one, one, uh, 20th of, of what it was supposed to, I mean, what it was

at six weeks, I mean, six, uh, six years ago, what happened in Blue Apron? Is this a blue apron specific story or is this a broader D to C story? No, this is, I mean, following on the Timu conversation, it's a perfect example of a company that scaled massively by discounting, I'm sure. if you're listening to this you listen to podcasts and if you listen to podcasts in the mid-2010s you are going to offer 15 free meals you are undoubtedly bombarded with blue apron ads wherever you were whatever podcast you're listening to and promised six free meals eight free meals 10 free meals so remember in those early growth stages they were just giving away product

in order to scale some number of customers would stick around but most people would then turn away, but still they were able to show growth initially. And with that growth, raise more money, invest more money. In that cycle, it was incredible. And they managed to IPO around, I think the last valuation was $2 billion. The IPO around 1.6. And then right away, once the public markets opened up their books and took a look, it was just straight downhill after that. And it was kind of a weird company over the last, have you used it anytime? Once on a date, back in the day. Yeah, back in the day.

It's a great time capsule of like mid-2010s tech. I don't know. Anyone who's even talked about it, I'm sure there's customers somewhere again. They sold for $103 million. But I think it's just a, it's like a bookend, and especially as we will be getting into the ZERP conversation with Christopher Leonard just a bit.

And that'll be airing next on Wednesday. Like, I think it's like a perfect bookend to that entire era that, you know, $2 billion to $100 million for a business that maybe it's worth $100 million. Maybe the addressable market of people who want to make these ready-made meal things are there's some people out there, but it wasn't what they promised it to be. Are we in another moment like that right now, except with AI? Another story that happened since we spoke last as Anthropic, which I thought was all in on Amazon, right, had this deal of $1.25 billion, that Amazon was investing up to $4 billion. and there's now some rumors that it's pursuing $2 billion in funding from Google.

Is this, are we going to look back at this and say this is ridiculous, or do we think that this is actually going to materialize? Okay, so the AI bubble. Isn't it strange, by the way, to have Anthropic do up to $4 million raised in like three days later, like $2 billion? Like, did Sundar see the headline and be like, what the hell are we doing? Let's go put the money in. Yes.

Yes. That is exactly what. belief is? No, no, no. It totally makes sense. That is what happened. He saw the headline. He said, I thought they were ours.

I mean, come on. Like, that had to be the way this works. Which is crazy. How do you operate a company? I know. I mean, hey, but it's such a wild time right now. But to me, the difference between meal kits and generative AI leaders is, it's a different time.

And to me, that's actually the difference between the Zerpy era versus right now. Like, do we have a technology? that I believe will be transformative across all business, yes. Are things a little bit frothy right now and a little bit within this very narrow segment probably a little stupid, yes. Will there be certain winners within this

that actually do turn into the greatest investments of the next decade? Yes, so I think the AI, I mean, it's funny because we just talked about Blue Apron against this context. Again, like meal kits, being bubbly is a Zurp era like thing again the idea that like somehow you're going to scale massively meal kits was it was always ridiculous the idea that yeah the idea that one of these

one anthropic open eye maybe it's someone else it could be the next google or amazon or Microsoft that actually makes it seem like you know maybe you need to get in right now and someone will win so here's their question. Would you use AI for therapy? So this is from Ilya Sutskever, right? This is, let's really see if this is more than a blue apron when you answer this question, okay? So Ilya Sutskever, who's the chief scientist for Open AI, tweeted, in the future, once the robustness of our models will exceed some threshold, we will have wildly effective, with the asterisk around it, like to emphasize it, wildly effective and dirt cheap AI

therapy will lead to a radical improvement in people's experience of life. One of the applications I'm most eagerly awaiting. Yeah, you are eagerly aware? No, that's what he says. Okay. He is. Personally, no. I think it's dangerous.

So I understand the appeal. It's definitely a need, but I think it's dangerous to let AI do therapy. I'm going to take the other side of this one because journaling, I use day one, that's amazing app on the Apple ecosystem, simply just writing what you do during a is actually pretty awesome. Like, it's pretty amazing and it's a great thing to do. So the idea that you could knowingly have what is a machine, as long as it's clear that it's a machine, interacting with you, you know, talking back, understanding what you have been writing over the last 10 years, monitoring your mood over time. This stuff actually seems pretty reasonable to me. And honestly,

like, that over talking to a real person, it almost feels like it could be more private. So I actually think and then if you get into bringing that type of that type of good societal good to such a mass audience i don't know i'm bullish on this one i think obviously if it turns into something where it's like you know hiding the fact that it's a machine or trying to be purposefully manipulative obviously these are bad things but i don't know i like this one when you do therapy and i've done it You really open your heart up and you, in conversation, you know, I understand that it's really not accessible in this country and that's a problem that needs to be solved, but the therapist can steer the person that's getting the therapy in very different ways. And when you're that

vulnerable and that malleable, to turn that over to the machine, I mean, it's one thing if it's just listening and saying, share and like talk about all this stuff. But the second it becomes sort of proactive as opposed to reactive, that's where you might get into trouble. It's my perspective. All right. Then maybe you think of this as an ongoing daily check-in type thing. Right. These kind of things are perfect for it.

And it is interesting because the very first, like, mass market or the first big experiment with the chat bot was a therapy bot. So we're just kind of coming around to it. I think I remember this. I'm going to get the name of it. Yeah, no, no. It was like a Stanford research. I remember.

And it was one of the first where they claimed to use a transformer model to actually generate language. Eliza. It was called Eliza. Yep. Yep. And it always made sense because, again, speaking honestly on your phone to something, you know, and getting an answer that's somewhat structured and repetitive and predictable. I mean, these things, it's somewhat made for this.

Right. Exactly. And I think the fact that we're even here in having these conversations, to me just kind of shows how far the technology has actually come. It's pretty wild. The fact that this can even be in the realm of would you or wouldn't you as opposed to is it capable of nuts. Yeah, yeah.

We didn't, we didn't have time to get to the Twitter stuff. It's actually quite interesting. I'll just read it and then we can sign off. But, so Linda Yakorino has been speaking to bankers this week and talking about how they're going to introduce potentially three different tiers of, Twitter subscriptions, including for those who don't want to be all in on the current product now. And she's also talking about how that advertisers have come back, 90% of advertisers have come back to Twitter, but they're not spending the same amount of money that they

were previously. And that sort of squares with the Reuters story that came out. I'm pretty sure this week that Twitter has had a 55% year-over-year decline each month since Musk bought the platform. And in August, it was down 60%. So last week when I said that Linda Akarino, her number one job was winning the money back, you know, it was one detail I left out is it's not just advertisers. It's also the amount that they're spending. Spending and debt servicing. Yep. All right, folks, more to come next week. Ranjan and I will be back on Wednesday with our interview with Chris Leonard. We'll also have our weekly breakdown of the news on Friday. Thank you so much for joining us. Please make sure to subscribe if you're first time here with

show and hit five stars if you're a regular listener can't wait to bring you the chris leonard show so much is happening in the economy right now that's tied to the fed we are going to go into depth uh with him about that again he's the author of the lords of easy money that's coming up wednesday hope you have a great weekend if you hear again from the compound it's been a more abbreviated ad-free show we do these typically 45 to 50 minutes on fridays and we hope to see you next time so thanks again for joining we'll see you next time on big technology podcast us.