TBPN - Leopold Sold, Ferrari Undefeated, Martin Shkreli Joins | Guillaume Verdon, Lulu Meservey, Michael Kim, Joon Sung Park, Karan Kunjur, Vlad Tenev

Episode Date: July 30, 2026

(00:17) - Leopold Sold (12:14) - Martin Shkreli discusses the leveraged collapse of a major AI-focused hedge fund, explaining how forced liquidation, predatory short-selling, and excessive position sizing can rapidly destroy a portfolio. The former hedge fund manager and pharmaceutical executive also examines Citadel’s reported acquisition of the fund’s assets, the broader correction in AI stocks, and Wall Street’s recurring failure to heed the risks of leverage. (56:19) - Ferrari Undefeated (01:06:24) - Guillaume Verdon, founder of Extropic, discusses the company’s thermodynamic computing technology, which uses probabilistic electronics to run generative AI workloads with far greater energy efficiency. He also covers potential applications, government support for domestic chip manufacturing, AI safety and accelerationism, and the challenges of building a deep-tech company while maintaining a prominent public voice. (01:19:16) - 𝕏 Timeline Reactions (01:20:36) - Lulu Meservey discusses how founders and CEOs can build lasting relevance through consistent, authentic, and strategically focused communication rather than rage bait, viral stunts, or excessive media appearances. Drawing on her communications expertise at Rostra, she argues that leaders should prioritize trust, audience fit, principled messaging, and approaches that suit their individual personalities. (01:47:35) - Michael Kim is the founder of Cendana Capital, an institutional investor focused on pre-seed and seed-stage venture funds. Michael discusses Cendana’s growth, its approach to identifying promising fund managers, the importance of founder access and investment judgment, and lessons from both missed opportunities and exceptionally successful investments. (02:06:39) - Joon Sung discusses Simile’s $200 million fundraise and rapid growth as an applied AI lab building models that predict human behavior. He explains how its simulations help companies test products and understand customer preferences at scale while democratizing access to market insights. (02:17:35) - Karan Kunjur, co-founder and CEO of K2 Space, discusses the company’s $500 million funding round, successful first satellite mission, and more than $1 billion in signed contracts. He explains K2’s vision of building large, high-power satellites for commercial and national-security uses, including communications, orbital computing, and advanced space infrastructure. (02:28:35) - Vlad Tenev, co-founder and CEO of Robinhood, discusses the company’s record growth, expanding suite of financial products, and mission to broaden individual asset ownership. He also covers global markets, Robinhood Social, product design, and using mathematical superintelligence to verify software and improve cybersecurity. TBPN is made possible by:Ramp - https://ramp.comPublic - https://public.comCisco - https://www.cisco.comConsole - https://www.console.comCrowdStrike - https://www.crowdstrike.comFigma - https://www.figma.comMongoDB - https://www.mongodb.comNYSE - https://www.nyse.comRailway - https://railway.comShopify - https://www.shopify.comCodex - http://openAI.com/codexFollow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tbpn/id1772360235https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive

You're watching TVPN. Today is Thursday, July 30th, 2026. We are live from the TBPN Ultron, the Temple of Technology, the Fortress of Finance, the capital of capital. Let me tell you about ramp.com. Time is money saved. Both. Easier's corporate cards, bill pay, accounting, and a whole lot more, all in one place. Absolute chaos on the timeline. Last night this morning around Leopold Oshenbrenner's hedge fund situational awareness. They have been forced to unwind their public stock portfolio after. steep losses on AI infrastructure bets. CNBC reported this on Thursday today. Prime brokers reportedly rushed to raise cash to meet margin requirements while Ken Griffin's Citadel, my former employer,

reached a deal to purchase the funds publicly traded assets. Did Ken ever do anything to you? No. Like this? No. What? No. You were just an intern.

I was an intern. I would have loved to be getting a, him coffee. Did he ever try to maybe intentionally send the markets into turmoil just to test you? No, but I mean, honestly, the story of Citadel is crazy. I mean, after the housing crisis, the fund was down 50% and it was a very, very dark time. There were building. For Ken, though, at that time, Ken Griffin, what he would become didn't exist. And otherwise, you probably would have eaten the young Ken Griffin alive. Yeah, maybe, maybe. Much like it seems that and has done to Leopold.

Yeah, maybe, maybe. The other frustrating thing is that they went down 50%. I think the next year they went up 50%. And they were, you know, this is the classic, you know, explaining fun math to people. Oh, you're back up 50%. Great. You're back to where you were?

Nope. You need to go back up 100% if you're down 50%. Of course. Anyway. So the news. The fund had built concentrated positions in AI infrastructure companies, including Nebius, Sandisk, Micron, and Corweave, while also betting against software companies such as Adobe, those trades have unraveled as AI infrastructure stocks plunged in recent weeks before rebounding sharply today.

Now, how much of the plunge is around shaken faith in AI's ability to deliver value, open source, or just oil, inflation, the Fed's actions. We'll get into all of this because there's a lot of. moving pieces that led us to where we are today. Let me continue giving the news. Then we'll go through the timeline and discuss a little bit more in depth. So also relevant here, this is from the TBPN newsletter. You can go sign up at tbPN.com. And what a bunch of people are pointing out on X is the fact that on Tuesday, it was reported

that Citadel expected a surprise rate hike from the Fed meeting that took place yesterday, which did coincide with more sell-off in the market. So the market has been selling off based on what might happen at the Fed. We reported on the Fed news. There were three Fed governors that said we should raise rates, but the rate held steady. But mortgage rates are over a one-year high at 6.66 percent today. Very odd number. But yesterday the Fed left the rate unchanged, and today many of the stocks and Leopold's portfolio are up double digits and we'll sort of go through them.

They're up today, based on the news that King Griffin is buying the portfolio, but they are still down over the last month, for example, in many cases. Ashenbrenner, a former open AI researcher rose to prominence after publishing his 2024 essay series situational awareness, the billion dollar PDF, as Wilmanitis put it, I believe, which argued that rapid AI progress would require an enormous buildout of chips, memory, power, and compute infrastructure. That thesis became the foundation of his investment strategy after launching the fund. also engaged, he's also engaged to Anthropic CEO Dario Amadez chief of staff. The news is coming in hot and fast on the story. Here's a timeline of the most important headlines so far. So Bloomberg, 9.25 p.m. yesterday. I remember I think you texted me this as I was going to sleep. And we were like, whoa, this is big deal. I wonder how how crazy this will get over the next few days. It got very crazy, very quickly. So Bloomberg reported, Leopold Aschenbrenner's situational awareness

seeks to raise capital after AI route. There was an argument. in the Financial Times as well last night, just saying that, hey, there's some rumors that are leaking out from LPs that they got a letter saying, like, hey, the market's down. Now's a good buying opportunity. The thesis is as strong as ever. If there was ever a time to put more money into this fund, now's the time. That can be good. You want to be buying when things buy low, sell high, right? But at the same time, if it's to cover margin calls, if it's because the fund's getting beat up, it's a little bit rougher of a pitch. Then it's 6.05 a. AM. CNBC announces that AI investor Leopold Oshenbrenner has been forced to unwind all public stock positions after steep losses, according to CNBC sources. And then the Wall Street Journal reports at 8.39 a.m. that Citadel has stepped in to buy situational awareness as stock portfolio after big losses in AI. And so after living through FTX and SVB and now this on the timeline? No. You're just grizzled. No, the key takeaway is like when leverage is involved, things just move so, so, so fast, right?

You remember with FTX, there's kind of some rumblings, a couple posts from SBF saying, like, we're fine, it's all good, and then it was over. And then the same thing with SVB, like a couple rumblings, maybe like a couple weeks, a week beforehand, a few posts here and there, and then it just moves so, so fast, right? And, yeah, quite a bit different than traditional venture world where when a company is dying, it dies over two, three years, often, sometimes more. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm thinking of like, I mean, we've had some of these companies on from the private markets where they've gone through big booms and busts like Bird and then they built back and they've turned around. But there's so much more. Turned around. No.

I'm talking about Lyme. Lime turned around. But it took like an extra five years for a bird to actually wind down. And it's because there's no leverage in the system. There's just a bunch of dollars that sit there as equity. And those get burned down. But every month, if the business is deteriorating, you're cutting costs, shrinking the business, tightening things up, making that 12 to 18 months last 24 months.

And then you wind up 24 months in. You're like, oh, we're not going to be able to raise again. Let's stretch this again and right size the business again. And all of a sudden is so it takes a. years and years for these things to unwind. Although they are correlated in the venture world, they can be decorrelated in the unwinding process. And then there can be other things that are outweighing the portfolio.

So every VC that had bird on their books probably also had some SpaceX on their books or something. And so there's this balancing effect. And it takes years for these things to balance out. And they can be unwound at different periods in the market as opposed to everything needing to happen all at once. So speaking of public markets, let me tell you about public.com, investing for those a ticket seriously. They've got stocks, options, bond, crypto, treasuries, and more with great customer

service. I like this post from Richard Crabe, one of my favorite investors. He runs the Quant hedge fund Numeri. And he says, I think it's cool that funds like situational awareness can exist in America and that there's a market for them, but the outcome was never going, was never about being right or wrong on AI at 150% vol. Variance drag alone is 113% a year and risk of ruin is roughly a coin flip over the fund's life. A child can do the math on a napkin. Claude did it for him. He says, AI says ruin wasn't unlikely.

It was roughly even money. So there's a 50, 50% chance, 50% chance that the fund sees, you know, so many losses that they have to do this liquidation process. And that's basically what happened. And it must be so frustrating because the, this is not, it really, you know, it really, does not feel like, oh, Leopold was wrong about AI and the AI build out. It's like, well, there's oil and a war and interest rates and all these other things going on that are creating some jitters. And then also, once the AI trade and the infrastructure trade got so big, you wind up with like this retail froth on top that makes things even crazier. And then all of a sudden

benefiting from. Benefitting from. But also, it's much harder to do sort of a first principles analysis. on what the psychology of a frothy market will do, as opposed to just retreating to, okay, well, there's this, the model progress is progressing like this. And token pricing is, you know, counting the ooms, stop sort of working when it's like, well, will this particular stock become a meme stock, right? Pull up this picture. There was a lot of this going on this morning. The memes are flying.

This is truly like timeline takeover today. This was the first meme that popped into my head if we can pull this. The chat is asking for a non-sponsored sleep score to see how we slept in the midst of a financial crisis. I've been doing pretty well. I got an 87 last night, 92, 95 before. There's a lot of this on the timeline this morning. People saying, oh, I don't know why the guy's heads cut off. You guys are okay?

This was you. No, this was just a lot of people on the timeline being like, I knew he would blow up. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The armchair experts are out in full force today, and in many ways we are among them. So I like to think about it, like at least some of the more high-profile LPs. Yeah. That in situational awareness, a lot of them are like, you know, great founders. Yeah, you know, maybe they have big, big positions in the labs and all these different things.

And it's quite possible that situational awareness, at least when they invested, was like 5% of their portfolio. And they're just thinking, like, go giga long. Like go, yeah, yeah. For some of these people, it might be like one, less than one percent, right? Whatever it is. And so it's actually somewhat pragmatic for them to just be like, yeah, go crazy. Go crazy. Do whatever you want.

Yeah, that's the product. That's the product. That's what I want to buy. Yeah. The rest of my portfolio is fine. You're going to have a lot of AI exposure, whether you like it or not. Yeah. But yeah, it's it, it is actually crazy that it didn't even take a three-month drawdown, right? Yeah.

It was, you know, what was it? June, June 1st. They were at 45 billion of AUM, something like that, was the nav. I think end of June. End of June, so beginning of July. And then how quickly, how quickly things can change. you know, poor Leopold already went through this with FTX. I believe he and the rest of the future FTCS future fund team, I believe resigned like right when FTCS collapsed. What's interesting is people are framing this as like they got pennies on the dollar

or Ken Griffin bought the portfolio for pennies on the dollar. And when I think pennies on the dollar, I think like five pennies per dollar, so like five percent recovery. But it might be closer to like 50 percent. of book value, might be 80% of book value. I don't know. Fortunately, we have Martin Screlly joining in just a minute. He's here in the waiting room. And it's crazy because when Martin was the first account that I saw to post anything like this, he posted it before any mainstream media had picked up on it at all. And there was a bunch of comments on his post saying,

I have good sources that say this isn't true. And of course, Screlly was right. There was trouble and we'll bring him in now. Let's bring in Martin Screlly to break it down for us. I believe he's here. How are you doing, Martin? Good to see you again. Hey guys. I'm doing great.

How are you? Perfect. Perfect. How's your last? Take us through it. 24 hours been like for you. It's been interesting. I do invest myself.

So it's been probably one of the craziest months in Wall Street history. I was talking to some friends last night about long-term capital management. Amaranth, other famous liquidity driven blowups. And this is up there. And yeah, it's just a really crazy thing. We had heard rumors sort of mid last week, and then they really started crystallizing last night. And this morning, obviously, sort of a fate accompli.

And I actually think they did a wonderful job of keeping it relatively quiet. I think some players were already positioning, say, early in the week, Monday, Tuesday, looking to do what my old boss Cramer used to call, you know, shooting against a fund. So if you know somebody has to liquidate, the best thing for you to do, unfortunately, sadly, Darwinian is to go sell all the positions you have in common and go start shorting everything they have. And it accelerates the sort of downfall as quickly as you can.

And this is a very common practice when these things, you know, happened. Certainly not something. I had overlap decisions with them. So certainly not something I would do, but no wide number of funds that were shorting all of these stocks, hoping to cause a panic in a crash. How do you trace back the start of this correction? Is it the war? Is it oil?

Is it jitters around open source or just hyperscalor capbacks? There's so many different narratives around why the AI infrastructure trade, the bottleneck trade might be weakening. At the same time, it feels like there's some really, solid progress and the models are progressing along like pretty like as expected. Yeah, yeah, you have the labs having some of the best months in business history of any companies ever. Yeah. But then all the infrastructure correcting.

Yeah, none of that stuff matters. You know, the only thing that matters is, is the propensity of the buyer and seller to buy yourself. And what you got happened was the smart guys get in early start buying. See the prices go up. buy some more, and then less smart guys. Take note and say, I want to do that. I want to be up 400% this year too.

Guys like me started buying right near the top. I was just like, hey, this is great. I love memory. I love bottom. And then by the weakest hands are buying at the top. So they're also the first to sell. Sure. The first to panic.

And it just creates this like, you know, every bubble is sort of the same. this euphoria, this peak, and then, you know, everyone sort of panics at once. You know, the fundamentals basically don't make a difference. You know, I think they, you know, they sort of drive the marginal buyer and seller, but, you know, the 80 or 90 percent of the assets, shareholders don't change hands. It's that 5% of the margin that's deciding the price. And if that 5% is in the state where they're levered up 3x, or 4X, as we heard, salp is, was a 4x levered fund, which, which is, that's a lot of leverage.

You know, a 25% drawdown takes you out of business. Interestingly, we heard that three firms were bidding on the assets. So Jane Street, Millennium, and Citadel were sort of brought in a closed circle, sort of late Friday to bid on the remains of the firm. And we got offered a look at $100 million of anthropic stock, which we were puzzled by. Sometimes you see these SPVs, sort of interest comes across here and there. And we thought that was interesting. I sort of raised my eyebrow and I said, is that Leopold?

Sometimes when you want to sell $4 billion or something, you don't come out and say you want to sell $4 billion. You come out and you say you want to sell $100 million of it. And usually a guy who wants to buy $100 is enough to buy $500 or more. And you sort of fill them out and say, here's $100, okay, do you want $5 by any chance? and then, you know, your eyebrow starts to raise a little bit that, you know, maybe he's got even more. Now, of course, this is a really odd situation. So we heard Millennium did put in a bid. Citadel's bid was better.

You know, I think Ken wants to be the guy that everyone goes to when they're in trouble. And that's the, you know, Buffett is getting older. This is not the kind of stuff. Buffett wants to do anyway. But, you know, Citadel did this in the Amherth deal. You know, when Amherth blew up natural gas. gas futures. I think Citadel took that portfolio and virtually every blowup in finance they've come to the rest of. Enron, where they just rated all the talent. Yeah, they wanted to do it

Enron as well. I think they just sort of, Ken is a very smart guy, sort of shows up and says, you know, how can I, you know, how can I, you know, be a partner to the Goldman's and the Bank of America's when they need to get out, you know, of a really risky position. They basically take take over the book, right? So if you, I'll give you sort of an example and you're asking the question. So let's say, you know, you're at 45 billion, you know, sort of try to trace this back, and you're, you know, 10 billion of that is in Anthropic from what we understood. So you have $30 billion of cash in your bank account. And running Forex Lever means you have 120 billion gross market value. Oh. So if your GMV drops,

I don't know, 25%, that doesn't sound so bad at 120 billion. Maybe that's, you know, I don't know, 30 billion. So you're down to 90 billion, but that's not your equity. So your equity drops from 35 billion to 5 billion. Yeah. And no prime broker is going to let you keep 90 billion of gross market value, because once you dip your equity below zero, it's their loss, not yours. And they're not going to lose a penny after Arkegos and after these other kind of blowups.

And that's not their job. And they kind of have the right to take over your portfolio, which is sort of, you know, something I hope nobody ever asked to experience. But they basically call you in and say, listen, you know, these are our assets now. You know, we're going to decide what their disposition is going to be. And the rumor is over the weekend, he contacted about 10 parties to place Anthropic in an effort to shore up liquidity. Selling the anthropic stake for allegedly the offer was at 1.1 trillion. million equivalent market cap, which I think roughly where it's trading.

And, you know, it's unclear whether that was sold or half of it was sold is what we reported that half of it was sold. It's still a little unclear who bought bad at what's happening exactly, but that's the best we've got. And then, you know, when it came to the public, you know, book, it does sound like, you know, the buyer of that book basically got a, from what we were told, a $3 to $4 billion insta markup. So they basically now have to work them, they have to work out of $3 to $4 billion, more than $3 to $4 billion, quite a lot more. But in essence, if they work out of these positions without disrupting the market, they'll have printed $3 to $4 billion on the trade, which is unusual and interesting trade.

But, you know, it's really exciting. One of the parties reached out to me last night, one of these three parties, interestingly, after my reporting. And they said that, in essence, in some substance, yes, Leopold flew a little too close to the sun. And your numbers are a little off. And I asked what direction. And they wouldn't, they wouldn't confirm or deny. I received a lot of pushback on the reporting, to your point, privately and publicly, that it's not so bad. And that, you know, he's only down 30%.

30% you can kind of live with. But also, if Anthropic hasn't changed its mark, that means you were down 60 in the public book. And if you're Forex levered, you know, that means you're sort of down 15 on the public book, which sounds too good to be true. If you're trading these stocks, they were down like 15% a day. So we've also heard the other AI funds are hurting, maybe not as much as in trouble, but certainly hurting as well. Where does the fund go? He gives some good cover to all the funds that were effectively copy trading him. Oh, sure.

Maybe even being more risk on and later to these positions because they're naturally just late if you're trying to copy trade someone. You're trying to catch up. Yeah, you're trying to catch up basically. Yeah, yeah. More leverage. You're coming into these trades way later. Do you recall, like, how did you process Ryan Jacob in around the year 2000? because you were at Kramer's firm, I believe you joined maybe right before the Ryan Internet Fund started collapsing.

Yeah, there was also the Amerin Fund. There was a fund in the 60s called the Manhattan Fund that Warren Buffett criticized for being the GoGo kind of laxie fund. It was run by guy named Gerald Sy. And so like every generation, you've seen the memes about Kathy. you know, every generation has it, you know, the guy that believes in that cycle and it goes balls to the walls on that cycle. And look, I have a lot of respect for somebody who's willing to do that. I used to tell a friend who kind of did the same thing, he followed this trade, but he was very early. So he had sort of Leopold-like numbers, and he sort of did hedge at what sounds like close to the top.

So sort of a miracle trader, best trader I know. And I joked with him. I said, you know, if Leopold sells at the top and turns short, like I will absolutely adulate him as the greatest of all time. It's just that, you know, usually when you're so spellbound by that narrative of whatever happening, in this case, AGI, you know, there are people out there that say, look, AGIs here slash coming. When it comes, the entirety of finance is not relevant anymore.

Yeah. You know, we might as well just run it up and kind of see the end of days. this way. And of course, to some guys sitting on a training desk at Goldman Sachs, you're like, these people are fucking nuts. You know, it's just the stock market. I think a deal. Did you, given that Leopold had been at FTX right up until the fall, did you think that maybe as risk on as he was, like maybe he was like, you know what, I just, I can't go through that again. He wasn't necessarily, he wasn't necessarily directly tied to any of this sort of

nefarious activity at FTX, but he did have to viscerally experience it and, and I believe, resign the day of the collapse. And I would, I just was expected to not like run it. Yeah, to run it back like so quickly. You would, you would expect even like, you know, go and do it, have a normal, you know, great career for a decade, whatever, then maybe come back to leverage and be like, I'm ready to dance again. But there's a lot of questions.

Like one question is, what's his carry? You know, a lot of firms in the hedge fund industry, believe it or not, they have clawback provisions for carry. Like high watermark provisions, right? So you have to clear something? Everyone has a high watermark. But what's increasingly happened is a carry provision where you have to return the two and 20 you earned if you have a severe drawout, which, you know, could actually end up being a tough

situation. Now, as you guys know, the fellow is getting married this weekend as well, which is, you a little bit of tragedy with a little bit of triumph mixed in. But obviously, you know, when this kind of thing happens. How common are those clawback clauses? Because you have to imagine in this fundraise he had like massive, massive leverage, you know. Like demand was very high. Demand was very high.

That feels like a term. The numbers were so good. It's a more institutional thing. And speaking of which, you know, obviously the guy basically had no experience. And again, in times like this, nobody wants to grape dance, and I'm not doing that. But I had some institutional friends, one of the biggest fund of funds in New York, for example, who passed on Leopold, basically laughed at him and said, you know, there's no way I could invest in this. And, of course, you know, he goes on this tear, you know, makes like 20x or whatever it was since inception. And does fantastic.

And he feels sort of sheepish, but ultimately, you know, somewhat vindicated after all of this. So you did have a manager that had no experience. kind of a long only or extremely long biased, starts to do privates, which for many hedge funds is kind of the death knell. You know, when hedge funds put on their VC cap and try to do what those guys do, it often doesn't end well. And that goes back like 50 years, basically, of hedge fund history. And very few people have been able to do both. And the other thing I'd point out is we're going to see July numbers very soon here from, quite a lot of hedge funds that I think were in the same trade.

Sure. And so this is not just Leopold's $100 billion gross. It's like that times maybe five or 10. And while the market's liquid, that's a lot of downward pressure in a few weeks. And, you know, it's amazing to see this all compressed in a month, whereas like the dot-com bubble took three or four years to like patiently go up and patiently go down. You know, seeing that compress instantly is interesting. What's going to happen next is really going to be fascinating. There's some theory out there that, you know, that we see all-time highs again, now that all this liquidity is out. And there's other theories there that we actually were just having this nice, big downtrend,

and that this liquidity pop will fade and will be back down further and further. You know, nobody knows what will happen, but it's certainly, while you're right that, you know, the Anthropics and OpenEIs are having record business results, so is Microsoft and Google, and matter for that matter. There's still, I think, some more discerting questions about, is this KAPX investment worth it? Sure. You know, they rewarded Microsoft for being prudent. They punished Meta and Google for not being prudent.

So one wonders what the future will bring there. But, yeah, out as crazy as things have gotten on Wall Street in many years, probably at least since FTX. And certainly crazier than the sort of Tiger Soft Bank Venture Room of 21. And then, you know, really since then, the OA insanity. So it's quite a spectacle. And I think, you know, no matter how much people want to learn the lesson of leverage over and over and over again, we all seem to repeat it. And, you know, it is what it is.

But I think the Jane Citadel, Millennium, kind of like entire hedge fund complex, sort of becoming this like shadow bank is quite interesting. You know, and that like these guys are sort of there to, normally the banks would sort of take this on the chin. But now that there's other folks who are like, you know, Jane. was an LP, for example, in London, and reportedly was not interested in bidding, which is fascinating. May have taken the Anthropic, however. Really unclear. We're going to learn more, obviously, as some days go on here, but it's an unprecedented time and, you know, really an insane story that may just get more insane as we learn more.

Is there a world where the fund continues? Because I'm just hearing the numbers, and it's like, you know, up at $45 billion, the actual money into the fund was maybe $5 billion or something if you sell the positions. There's a world where you wind up with like $10 billion in a bank account and the LPs are like, well, we gave you five.

Keep going. Get back in the game. I hope that's the case for the LPs who are awesome for the fund manager who obviously got quite a lot of whiplash. But at the end of the day, you know, there's this concept on the street as you guys know,

like once there's blood in the water, like these positions would go to zero. Like, we'll send micron to $5, you know, just to liquidate this guy at three, right? Like that's the, you know, the craziest thing is like, that's, that's the nature of Wall Street when this happens. And there's a guy that has to sell $100 billion. You'll have a trillion dollars in front of them just like, you know, let's see this guy cry uncle. And it's the saddest kind of most Machiavellian thing. But like he had, he sort of had to blow up. You know, there's no other ending.

sadly. Because of the leverage level, it's just like one slight, you know, I remember my old boss was a Tiger portfolio manager, reminded me of the 2000 era where there's this very slight change in tone from one optical component supplier. And that's like him and his partner from Soros just decided to go like as short as they could. Because they knew, ultimately, these vulnerable hands were sort of sitting there after the easy part of the bubble. was over, you had this like, okay, what's next? Things have to get a lot crazier. You saw Dorcasia's tweet. Things like that would have to sort of happen for there to be enough second derivative for somebody to be surprised. You know, everyone knows AI's in this boom. Everyone knows

chips from this boom. What could possibly shock you to the upside? Not much. So if you hear any little like, you know, we're not going to spend as much, the whole shit hits the fan. And every, it's just too heavy. So I actually wonder if we're, you know, if we're not in for a long, or more protracted decline. Things feel great today. You know, you have this huge boom, this relief rally. A lot of the froth is out of the system. But, you know, what next?

You know, I don't know that, you know, a patient and calm market is going to emerge because you had the hyperscalers and the big companies, they fomo too. They fomo just as hard as Leopold did, right? If not harder. So this isn't just him. It's the whole world collectively saying, fuck, I got to go all in and AI. And it's it's and who had the guts, you know, other than one man Tim Cook in the back saying, not me. Do nothing win.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. The funny thing, you know, we, we had been joking, uh, we were joking in like Q4 when, you know, they're prior to like coding agents really starting to rip, you know, open AI revenue growth had like slowed a little bit and like there was some jitters and, and, and, you know, and, you know, and. And a lot of this stuff wasn't, you know, public at the time, but you could tell some of the kind of crossover types were like getting a little nervous, right? They kind of expected something to happen. M-A-U-D-A-U numbers.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And really plateaued. And then we, and then there was a correction. Like there was like briefly, you know, for a period. It was probably like eight weeks. It was like, okay. And then it started ripping again. And we were taking like a sort of a bit of a joking, like victory lap being like cool, like AI corrected, you know.

Bubble popped. Now we're able to build back sustainably. We're good from here on out. It's smooth sailing. No, I completely agree with you. I think the most unexpected thing would be if we saw brand new all-time highs for the entire thing. I think almost everyone on Wall Street is skeptical this will happen, which means it has a chance of happening. Bullish.

So you're saying there's a chance. I love it. Can you give me a little bit more insider baseball on what it takes to unwind a big position as a shareholder? Because a lot of people who are not inside the hedge fund world are sort of maybe confused around, okay, yeah, you own $50 million of a $1 billion chip stock. Can't you just dump that on retail? Can't you just like sell markets sell that on e-trade or Robin Hood? And in fact, it's much more complicated when you're at this level. Even though it's public markets, there's not just a big button.

Can you walk us through what it actually takes to like sell a big position when you're at that level? Yeah, there's a lot that goes into it interestingly. So the first is you have this advertisement system. So if you sell into the market, you can try that. And that's called selling into the screens. The screens are the numbers on your screen. Anybody could buy and sell, Robinode, whatever. So you don't normally do that if you can help it.

Selling on the screens is at least somewhat quiet. You can just sort of trickle out. There's always this conspiracy that as I'm selling on the screens, there's some guy who can see my screen. And he's like, this guy's got a BWW market order to sell 10 million shares. That's like, you know, I'm going to tell somebody. And that knowledge would be very, very powerful. And there's even some even crazier conspiracies out there that quants can actually use different, all kinds of insane ideas around what they can do to sort of sniff out that this is happening.

So there's people that are scared of that. Then you can pick up the phone and this is the way you normally do it. And you call Goldman and you say, listen, I need to sell five million shares of Microsoft or something like that. And they say, hmm, you know, should we take it or do we find a guy that wants to take it? and they'll sort of try to decide. Now, Microsoft is easy. If you're trying to sell Share an AI, a neocloud in Australia that nobody wants, that's a tough one. And you own like 10 days of volume.

So if you try to hit the screens, you have 10 days of volume. You'd have to be the entire volume for 10 days before you'd be out. You'd probably take the stock down 50% or more. And you don't want to do that. So you try to do this advertisement process. And you basically can post in the stock market that, you know, you were a seller of a stock. And you can post that your four-digit, what's called Market Maker ID. And so Goldman's is GSCO. So GSCO would be a seller of, say, you know, Nebius, which was one of his positions.

And so you'd call up, you'd say, okay, Goldman, I'm a client, too, of Goldman. You know, what do you got on Nebius? And the guy that's say, listen, we got a pretty big seller here, you know, and say, how big? You know, half a million shares? And he's like a lot bigger. And so you'd say, hmm, okay, because they have to advertise that, you know, they're working your order. So they have to sort of tell people that there's a seller. They kind of are trying to be coy about how big, but they're not going to waste somebody's time either. So the guy who's heard that there's a big seller, well, he might turn around. He's not supposed to do this. He sort of might turn around and say, you know, there's a huge seller of Nebius out there, and I'm just a little baby fish.

Maybe I could short 50,000 shares and get in front of this guy. If you're an actual interested buyer, you might also still be nervous because you'd say, well, if he's really got a ton of size, I might have to be judicious about how I stepped in. And so if you combine that with the sort of like pressure in the market and you add it all up, and then usually what you do is you'd have to say, oh, I know a guy that works there. And let's see if he's returning calls. And, you know, when you hit up the guy and he's not on Bloomberg, he's hard to reach, it's kind of like, well, it sounds like it could be them selling. So it's not too many people that own that many shares of that security. So you look at the holders list and you're sort of like, who could it be selling 10 million shares? So you call Fidelity and they say, no, we're not selling.

You call the next guy, no, we're not selling. Next guy's an ETF. Next guy's index fund. You know, it's got to be him. And so if it's them and then you start noticing all of their positions are down, it gets really hard. So ultimately the bank decides because you might say, you know, I don't want to sell. The bank says, I don't care what you want. We're selling regardless.

And Goldman Sachs is not in the business of holding AI stocks. You know, we're going to sell at any price we can because our board would rather know for sure that we're round a billion and just take the rip the bandaid off than to wonder if we could lose 50. And so it's Goldman's position that we're just going to just cut the arm off right now before it metastasizes. And so they'll do a fire sale. And of course, Goldman's smart. They're going to reach out to a guy like Citadel or somebody else to place it carefully. But selling the whole portfolio in one shot was a very smart move. Now, again, we've heard the discount could have been as big as, you know, 20 to 50%, which is, you know, mouthwatering discount to buy, you know, some quality companies at.

But to end it and have finality, what was really, to answer the question finally, what you really needed to do is the buyer of these stocks has to have the liquidity to hold them for five years and do nothing. because the market, guys like me, to very small extent, and guys too much bigger, will sit there and say, I don't think you can hold this. And they'll start shorting it and shorting it and shorting it and trying to make you cry uncle. Kiyosha in Japan, one of Leopold's Holdings, also one in mine, is trading it three times earnings. You know, they basically force you're, you're forcing a guy to really, you know, to sell. And if you're going to hold this stock, you have to make sure that you can hold it until it's two times earnings or one-time servings. And the only player big enough and more powerful enough to sort of hold $100 billion in that blink is somebody like a Citadel.

And even still, some people, the rumors out there, they're the people who are going to try to crush your Citadel, which I wouldn't advise. But something like that where, you know, maybe they'll now have to suffer the same contagion. So it's a very crazy time in the markets. And I don't think we've seen everything yet because I do think there are some large tech funds that have had the same trade on. I do think liquidation is over, thankfully. But I do think that there are some funds that are about to be found out to be down 30% or down 40% or something like that. Take me through the mind of Ken Griffin like a couple weeks ago. There's this rumor that he was sort of like pushing or signaling that there might be a rate hike.

But what I'm interested in is if you suspect that there's going to be a fire sale on X, Y, and Z companies, is there a world where you build the hedges before you acquire those assets? or is that two 4D chess? Because that, if they wind up acquiring these for 50%, 20% off, but they already have offsets, then they sort of come in market neutral. Is that possible? I don't think so. So I'm familiar with the Citadel's performance for this month, which is surprisingly up. So I think they're probably one of the only hedge funds in the world that's up this month.

It's up very small, very small. They were actually hedged, is what you're saying. Yes. They have a diverse platform of different businesses, a guy trading weather, a guy trading rates, a guy trading stocks, you know, about a thousand guys trading stocks. And they have a computer fund, you know, called Citadel Securities that is a market maker that trades a good chunk of the volume of every instrument of the world. And ultimately, I think that the prime brokers, the Goldman's and Bank of Americas, they do so much business with Citadel. And they've done this before where they know who to go to, just the same way the U.S. government went to Warren Buffett when they wanted to shore up Goldman. They know that the right person to calls Ken.

And he's really going out of his way to make himself the guy to call. And I think that is a great brand because you may not need to be that guy more than once every decade. But look, once a decade to make a free $5 billion or $10 billion is a great guy to be. And, you know, it's sort of like he becomes a dependable, trusted partner. to these banks, and if he wants something from the banks, he's helped them. Because without him, they might have had to sell that at a negative number. In fact, some people think, I don't think this is what happened, but some people actually think the equity in Leopold's prime brokerage accounts went negative.

Okay. Which I think is, you know, something that, again, the Goldman's and Bank of America's try to stop you before you get there. Sure. But, you know, they also don't want to sell, like I said, share in AI, which is an illiquid, tough to sell security. Sure. You know, they'll sell out your micron very fast, or you'll sell it out before then.

But if you're left holding this bag of like a liquid crap that you'd have 60 days of volume to get out of, it's pretty tough to sit there and tell your prime broker, don't worry. Which is why, again, I think he needed cash. Probably somebody on Monday or Tuesday tapped them on the shoulder and said, your margin's looking a little thin, you know, can you can add, you know, a couple billion here or more. And things happen so quickly that there was just no time. And, yeah, it's, I think Citadel learned about this at the 11th hour, as every, as you're supposed to. You know, the firm didn't leak out that they were hurting.

They didn't have, to my knowledge, daily performance. In fact, from what I'm told, situational awareness as a young hedge fund was not so great with communication, not surprising, especially with monthly and quarterly letters, could have been more timely on some of those. So it's a small group of a couple of guys. So I don't think that this was the same word. You rewind, what was it only a month ago that the, or 13F was late? 13F was like late and everyone was just questioning like, oh, did he work out, did he work out some kind of deal to get it, you know, keep it confidential? But it sounded like you just like didn't get around to it.

They had other priorities maybe. Do you think he can, do you think he can rebuild a career as a venture investor? Because like in venture, you're just like, gig along always. It's like, you know, one of the few forms of investing where it's just so hard to get out of position. That's the thing. I mean, why become a hedge fund manager? This is I have a friend who wants to start a hedge fund. I told me, this is the most painful, horrible business in the world.

Why do this? And if you start a newsletter business that makes $100 million a year, even $50 million a year of revenue, you've done better than almost every hedge fund on the planet. Like, you do not want to do this job. And the reason people do it, and I did it too, and I would never do it again, is it's the sexiest thing of the world. You think you're, you know, the glory is the master of the universe. It's incredible. Yeah, you're the master of the universe. And I had friends of wanting to quit really high profile jobs to be a hedge fund.

I was just like, you're out of your mind. You don't know what this job is. It's waking up at 3 a.m. checking Korean stock prices and, you know, waking up back up at 6, you know, wondering what's happening in the world and stuff like this. And there's absolutely no productive thing you're doing. You know, you're providing capital. You know, other than that, you know, you're really playing this high-stakes crazy poker game. And, you know, it's certainly fun and interesting. But when it's painful and raw, you know, I hope he'll do something, you know, he's a brilliant person.

Brilliant people like that. I mean, look, Peter Thiel had a hedge fund that didn't quite have this level of liquidation or anything like that. But it had a rough last few years. And, you know, Teal was able to, obviously not only continue his venture investing efforts, creating one of the biggest funds of all time, one of the most successful funds of all time, investing personally doing amazing, also getting back into macro trading with Teal Macro, which supposedly has done well. So I do think there is this like period of a few years that, you know, he can reset and take the learnings,

take whatever talent and skill and certainly genius that nobody denies that he's a brilliant guy and rebuild. I don't think it's the end at all. And I hope he's keeping like that even temperament about this because, you know, I think a lot of people respect him quite a lot. No matter how this turned out, you know, he'll be back and successful. But it is a little bit of a humiliation thing that I think most people on Twitter and other places are sort of saying, well, the market tends to humble you. And this is like an extremely humbling moment from being, you know, just two months separated from the biggest hedge fund on planet Earth and most successful to being forced to. being forced to sort of liquidate, that is quite a rapid sort of, you know, reversal. Also, just imagining what the fun looks like in two or three years if you just survive, right?

I can, you know, he, you know, there was a clip that was circulating yesterday from his, you know, appearance under our cash where he's like, oh, there's obviously like 100x, you know, left before AGI, right? So, like, he was, like, up, you know, 20X or whatever thinking, like, I got, I got so much room to run, but just couldn't stay in the game. I got to say, I got. Extrapolating has always a risk. I got to, yeah, I got to say it felt like a, felt like a huge moment for you and your business just because everyone, the whole finance world was learning about the situation from your post. I'm sure a lot of people were glued to your terminal. and it felt like a changing of the guard because, again, you were getting pushback.

You were getting some pushback, but then two hours later, it was like Financial Times and Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal. They're all kind of clearly they needed a couple hours to run it down. But you got to at first, and yeah, I was quite impressed. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I think that, you know, we've talked about this in the past. I mean, there is a change of the guard.

You guys helped change the guard. change the guard in your space. And I think that, you know, the folks at the journal, the folks at Bloomberg, the folks of these other companies, they're fantastic reporters, but they're not active or former players. And, you know, we will hear, we will always hear things before them. Because, especially on the street, because that's just, you know, we're not there. The craziest thing is you, you actually waited until it was, like, over effectively to share, right?

Like, you had been hearing about this for a day. We sit on that we don't want to share it. You know, we've been in that position like hundreds of times, which is not appropriate to share anything. And sometimes you're sitting there being like, I'm really surprised that, like, legacy media hasn't picked up on this story. It feels like it's just common knowledge. And there's definitely a time and place to just not say anything

and let something work its way through the system. Yeah. I mean, to give the devil their due, the information is also quite good at, you know, this type of thing. and they are particularly good at scoops on OpenAI, which I still haven't unraveled how, but they're obviously very good reporters. But a reporter in a place like that in Trad Media,

they generally don't care about burning bridges and resources or contact. So they want that news out yesterday. You know, I do care. And it also is a conflict of interest because I don't want to hurt somebody that's given me good information and betray their confidence because I have to keep the confidence of these folks if I want to keep talking to them.

But I also, in the case of this situation, as the carnage is unfolding, you know, there's sort of a, the balancing the need for everyone to know with the need for, you know, protecting friendships and relationships. You have to make that judgment call each time. And I hope that our customers understand that

there will be things that we know before others that we can't disclose because we want to protect folks and protect our friends. We're Washington, they'll never do that. They're always going to serve their customer who is the reader. We can't necessarily do that. You probably know things about a litany, like you said, hundreds of times, different fundraisers going on, different things like that.

And we have to all keep our lips closed because, you know, that will be the last time we hear about a fundraise. And I think that this was a situation where it's sort of merited discussion. It was going to happen momentarily anyway. In fact, to your point, the thing that got me to publish was, my friend saying, everyone is hearing this now. Once that happened, I said, all right, well, you know, it's time to let, I can let the cat out of the bag. It's about to be let out anyway.

Yeah. I have two more quick questions if you have a minute. One is just about how leverage works at a hedge fund. I think, you know, again, from the retail perspective, from the much smaller player, you might know that you can go to a, you know, a brokerage and get a little bit of leverage. and get a little bit of leverage. But what does the process look like as you're scaling into the tens of billions of leverage? At a certain point, you have to go to all of the banks,

certain banks. Who's actually, like, what is that process to get leverage at that scale actually look like? And also, let's appreciate it for a moment that I feel like just a month ago, the West Coast broadly was taking this insane victory lap being like the West Coast is eaten full street. Like the best and biggest head fund is no longer on the East Coast.

Like we just have everything now, finance and technology. And then just deeply humbled within the span of 30 days. And it turns out you guys over there, you know a thing or two. And here we are asking you, so how would one go about getting? So one of the things that I think is not well understood is the prime broker make a spread on, I think this somewhat understood, is they make their business to make a spread on financing. So if you go to a prime burger and say, I'm never going to use leverage. Never? And they say, I'm never going to use leverage and I'm never going to really trade a lot with your firm.

They're just going to sit there and say, like, we'll still take the assets because we can re-hypothecate them and lend them to the guys that are going to take leverage. But in general, that's not a great customer. So if they're making a 1% spread, which actually is relatively huge amount, and you're borrowing 4x, you're actually giving them 400 basis points of free money, which is sort of fantastic. In fact, you know, their borrowing costs are probably less than so far. So, you know, they may be getting as much as 600 or 800 bips of free money on huge amounts of capital. So leverage is the best friend to a prime broker. Now, the risk guy is sitting there saying, well, wait a second. And, you know, I love lending, but I don't like lending to concentrated portfolios.

I don't like lending to short sellers. You know, short sellers can get big, big, big, you know, leaps in their portfolios, like GameStop, for example. So the most that long can lose is 100%. But if a 4x lever, the most long can lose is 25%. So, you know, there's sort of this mix of things you have to think about. I think the getting into the privates is usually, like, for me, a really bad sign for almost every five. because it's as tantalizing as private companies are, there is a whole group of people on the West Coast

who are much better at that than the guys in the East Coast. And of course, there are funds now, like Altimiter and Kutu and others that are doing both and doing both. Yeah, and what made it so tempting, obviously, for Leopold that just how close he is, like, he couldn't be closer to Anthropic. And it's a company that over the last six months has had 100x, the demand relative to the allocation, right?

So it just felt like, you know, and I don't know, who knows what the, what the structure on those investments look like. But it's like, if you're going to break your rule and do private, it's like, then that's the company to do it with. But then you still get into a situation where you're like, wow, I really wish this was more liquid. Yeah, I can't press the sell button. Give us an update before you leave on Korea broadly because, you know, a lot of people are commenting on, on, on, on, on, on, on, on, on, on, on, on, on, on, just how similar Leopold's approach is to Korean retail. I don't know how true that is, but I can imagine, like, there's blood in the water over there, and the whole country is probably in shambles.

Yeah, I think so. I made a kind of a criteria and calculator and like a little portfolio simulator tool that, you know, basically, and Pulitzer Jones said this a while back, and I had a problem with this, every single trader out there makes one seems to make the same mistake over and over again, which is their position size is probably 2 to 10x more than it should be. And if you actually, you know, so it sounds nuts, right? Yeah. But if you actually run the simulator, and ours of Kelly.

So Kelly was a guy at Bell Labs. He was a member of the technical staff. He was original. O.O.D. MOTS. Yes. And so Kelly came up with the proof called famous. the Kelly criterion, which gamblers use, mostly was a gambler thing before a finance thing, and it proves the optimal bet size.

And the optimal bet size is your edge subtracted by the reciprocal of it. So if you have 55% edge, your optimal bet size 10%. That's still quite volatile for folks, and so people do half Kelly or quarter Kelly. Most folks actually don't have an edge when they trade. But if they did have an edge, they're trading as if they had 4x or 5x Kelly edge, which is interestingly, like, you might sound, okay, well, that just. sound swashbuckling and like guy takes a lot of risk. No, if you run the simulator, you will go to zero each time. And the simulator is a really cool tool that shows you,

even with a 60-40 edge on every trade you make, you'll go bust if you bet, if you over-bent. And it's an eye-opener. We might say, who has a 60-40 edge in the stock market? Nobody has 60-40 edge. But you will absolutely go bust if you don't size correctly. And it's something that I've had to learn very painfully, very, you know, over the years that I'm, almost always overbeating. And I think every fund is sort of the same. And certainly every retailer is the same. And it's just sort of a weird variance math game that very few people actually map out and say, can I simulate portfolio and just deceive what is the sort of the right thing to do in most cases? And in fact, I had a, after I left the Tiger Cup I worked at,

I worked in the briefly in the office of a guy who worked at SAC Capital, not called 0.72 for years. And he was one of the best managers who's a quiet guy nobody's ever heard of, kind of retired. But I got to watch him before I set up my own hedge fund and did the exact opposite, way over met on everything. I got to sit with this guy for a few months. And I was astounded. So what I found is that, you know, he was managing, I don't know, three or four hundred million of his own, basically. He almost never used the capital. You know, 80, 90% of the capital was just cash.

And he would just make these tiny trades. And the guy had almost never had a down, I think it's, record was he never had a down quarter in 20-something years of trading. And he had like 20, 30% returns, which is great. And the guy just kind of, you know, just did these little nibbles. And he never lost money. And it was an incredible thing. And then, of course, the second I get the chance to get some capital, I'm eight X leverage to you, which I got it. You know, and it's just like, you know, it's the dumbest thing in the world, you know, and you live and you learn. Psychology. Psychology. Well, thanks so much for coming on the show and breaking it down.

Thank you guys. This is always a great time. Looking forward to... Yeah, seeing where we go from here. Have a great week. Have a great weekend. We'll talk to you soon. Cheers, Martin. Goodbye.

Let me tell you about Codex. Codex is a powerful workspace for getting work done with AI agents. Whether you're writing code, analyzing data, creating content, or automating business workflows. Codex helps you move project forward from start to finish.

We have a couple of guests coming in soon, but first, I want to talk about Ferrari. I don't know. Did you want to jump straight into a next guest? No, let's talk about... I want to debate this. Because there is news in Ferrari world that the Ferrari EV, the luce, designed by Johnny Ive, has already hit the 2026 sales target. The haters are in shambles.

Everyone doubted that this would sell. And the Italian carmaker reports strong demand from China for electric model derided for its unconventional design. There's a whole bunch of interesting tidbits in here in the Financial Times article. Ferrari has hit this year's sales target for its first electric vehicle on the back of strong demand from China, despite a polarizing design that drew backlash from investors and enthusiasts. Remember, even the former CEO, former chief design officer, former executive came out and said, this is not a Ferrari. There was a lot of back and forth in the timeline.

I could have designed a better one with Chachapit. A lot of people threw out different designs. But this one is selling, at least according to the Financial Times. the Italian group is not disclosed at the target for the luce, but two people with knowledge of the matter said it had aimed to sell this year just under 500 units of the EV. Not a lot, but their goal for by 2030 over the next four years is to get to 2,500 units. So 500 a year for four or five years. That's where they want to get here. And they say they're on track. And so this is priced at 550,000 euros, 650,000 USD, something like that. that. One of the two people said the target had been reached earlier in July, just two months after its controversial launch, when critics on social media derided its unconventional styling. And there's also an interesting line in here that Ferrari says they gave strict instructions to dealers not to force its traditional petrol-loving collectors to switch to electric cars. He said, if you want a luce, we'll give you a luce, but we're not going to make you buy a luce in order to get in line for an SP3, SP4, some space. special F-80 thing that's more limited. Just if you want it, it's here.

It's a choice, and a lot of people made that choice to care according to these insiders. What do you think? Give me the pushback, and then we'll debate it. First, let me tell you about console. While you think about that, console is built AI agents that automate 70% of ITHR and finance support, giving employees instant resolution

for access requests to password resets. I was pausing because I wanted to start with something nice. Hit me. I think, so the videos that I've seen of it on the road, it does look even more strange than in the images. What is this photo? That's not. What is that?

The team just accidentally put in some random car. Okay. So the car is strange. I love the interior, but the car overall is strange. It's still unclear to me who it's really for, but they are finding buyers. the idea that that buying the luchet like Ferrari is saying we're not forcing any dealer to push this car or whatever but the idea that it's not going to have some whether or not you bought a luchet is going to have some weight on your future allocations to me is just insane there's just no way that that's true because

every single dealer is going to look at their client list they're going to look what cars have they purchased Like, we know, we know multiple Ferrari collectors that are buying two, two separate cars that they don't even want of the same style in order to gain status within the dealership and show that they're a proper, proper collector, and they're properly sort of cherishing the brand. And so I'm not at all surprised that they've sold 500-ish units. that's about as many as I would have expected for 2026. I actually, I guess if you asked me, I maybe would have thought they would have done more. Like, to me, this was a car that was so different than the rest of their cars. It serves a wildly different use case.

I would expect their sales targets to be quite a bit higher, simply because when it comes to their really special cars, they make about 500 of them. And so I would have expected at least 500 sales guaranteed. And then you would hope there was a bunch of incremental, buyers are people that are like, yeah, I actually don't want a Ferrari sports car, but I do want a daily, and why not go for a Ferrari daily? So you would have thought that there would have been like, 500 for the first year was like my very base case,

and I would have expected a bunch more on top of that. So I think they're positioning this as a win. I think people are going to love the car if you ignore the price. But I don't think it's the win that... I love the Pope and the Loo-Jack. It's so good. Okay, three points in response to years. Two, first point.

The design's absolutely growing on me. Like, watching these videos here, it just looks way better than when we first saw the first pictures. And I don't know if it's just distance and I'm becoming more familiarized with it, but it looks a lot better, even the exterior. I've always agreed on the interior. I think everyone agrees on that. But the exterior is looking better to me somehow. I don't know if this is just like I'm getting used to it.

two, yes, there are the 4D chess Ferrari collectors who are saying, I know I'm not getting pressured, but I'm buying one anyway because I think it'll help me jump the line and I'm doing that independently of any pressure that's coming. But there's also just collectors that are like, this is going to be a piece of Ferrari history regardless of if they, what if they never make another EV again? What if the, what if the Luce is canceled next year and Ferrari literally for 30 years never makes an EV? this thing is, it's important historically. It's an interesting thing to have in your collection. And then there's also just people that are like, I want, I'm a true collector, I want every

possible Ferrari experience. Give me the SUV because I want to see what that's like. Give me the mid engine. Give me the front engine. Give me the electric. Give me everything. Give me a vintage. Give me a new one.

Give me a road car. Give me a truck car. I want a Ferrari F1 car. Like I'm just, I want all of the experiences because I just, want to experience everything Ferrari because I'm that deep with the bread. So there are, and are there 500 of those buyers, maybe? And then, and then lastly, the question of, you know, what was their goal? I don't see this as their EURIS. I don't see this as they were trying to make a mass market daily. I think that they were trying to make a very iconic, very iconoclastic, very contrarian

car that was bold and weird and different, and it happened to be dailyable. And the fact that it is dailyable is what is weird about it. Like they're not known, the brand is not known for being able to be dalyed. And yet they made one and that makes it weirder. And I don't think that they were going after this is something that will be like at Lamborghini Euris, which they can sell in mass volume and completely change the profile of their sales curve. My view is that they, I think those are all great points. My view is that I don't think they should have done a car like this because I do think it hurts the brand. Unless it was going to drive so many sales that it could make the rest of the cars that they make better, right?

Like what the Cayenne did for Porsche or what the Euris does for Lamborghini, right? This sort of like workhorse product that can fund a lot of the other cars that are more Halo cars. Sure. And so, yeah, I don't think it makes sense if they sell 2,500 units other than it solves their sort of European emissions standards issue, right? Yeah. I do think a lot of people buy a Uris because they want a Lamborghini, but they need a daily. And so they go with that because it says a lot.

It's a very bold choice. And I don't think that's the calculus here because you're paying so much more. whereas I believe the Uris is cheaper than most of the Lamborghini sports cars, whereas this is substantially more than just going and getting a TNs. Yeah, and Ferrari has an SUV that is cheaper than this. It is significantly cheaper, and it is much more desirable to the Ferrari clientele because it has a naturally aspirated V12. Yes, but at the same time, the Perosangue, the SUV that you're referring to,

had a lot of pushback when it came out. So did the SF 90, and they all look really great now. And so the anti-halo car theory also holds. But I think it looks good and I think it's going to turn heads in a weird, weird way that very few cars, as we are collapsing and we're getting to, everything is white, everything is gray, everything is black, everything is the same rounded. Can you tell the difference between a McLaren or a 296 or a Lamborghini? They're all sort of starting to look the same like supercars. and then there's the whole hypercars, the Batista. Yeah, I'll give you this.

I think certain specs of the luce are going to look. They're going to look funky, but they're going to look cool. They're going to be a joy to drive. I just like that Johnny Ive in the Financial Times, they sent this photo of him looking over. We've got to pull up the, go to the Financial Times article, scroll down to the picture of former Apple designer Johnny Ive, who designed the luchet. And he's just like, he's like, what did I tell you? You doubted me? You doubted me?

You doubted me. We couldn't sell 500 of these. We did. It's a true victory lap photo, and I love it. Yeah, great photo. Anyway. And I can't wait to see one in person. Me?

I'm excited. Two. That's a big moment. Tell you about Figma first, and then we'll bring in our next guest. Agents meet the Candace. Your AI agents can now create and modify your Figma files with design system context. And we have Guillem Verdon from Extropic, long overdue, but very excited to have him on a show. Okay, um, how are you doing?

Boom. Doing great, doing great. Long time fan, first time caller. So excited. Great to have you on here. Congratulations. During a massive moment. Massive moment.

Thank you. Thank you. Time coming. Give us the state of the union on the company and then the news and the deal that's going on, the letter of intent. Yeah. I mean, so, you know, at Extropic, we've been pioneering this new form of computing from the ground up called thermodynamic computing.

You know, our whole thesis is that right now everyone, everyone, is focused on scaling things up, buying more GPUs, bigger data centers. We want to scale things down. We think there's going to be a race to densification of intelligence. So we started that about four years ago, which was very early to worry about energy. It sounded crazy to say, we're going to run out of energy four years ago, but here we are. And so we've reinvented how to leverage the transistor for the era of generative AI. So generative AI, for those not familiar, is a probabilistic algorithm, right? You're sampling from these distributions of like, okay, if I give you, if I type in the word cat, what sort of image do I get out?

It's kind of random at the output. And so that is a probabilistic workload. It turns out you could run electronics probabilistically and at much lower power. And we pay a huge price to maintain our electronics in a deterministic state. So it doesn't make sense to run probabilistic workloads on deterministic electronics if we're going to pay a huge tax to know the state of our computer at all times. So our insight is if you use very little. little power, essentially your computer can operate probabilistically and you can train it directly just like a neural network. And you can map your algorithm that is a generative AI algorithm,

like a diffusion model, directly onto the physics of the hardware. And so that's kind of the vision. And it's been a journey essentially a year, year and a half ago. We had our first prototype in Silicon. There you go. X0. And this one we taped out with TSM. We've also now done global foundries and that demonstrated that actually because when you operate electronics probabilistically you can use far less transistors for these algorithms you don't actually need the smallest transistors and right now the reason people have to go offshore is because the best cutting edge fabs are all offshore and they have the smallest transistors and so what we demonstrate is that in principle we can manufacture these chips in the u.s and that was very interesting to all sorts

of folks higher up and you know we we had some conversations And, you know, there's a, there's a very strong history of, you know, the government supporting the Silicon industry. I mean, Silicon Valley was founded. Go back to DARPA. They created the Internet, right? Exactly, right? And now, you know, we're trying to go with, or I guess they're going, we're going with a modern twist where, you know, if the taxpayers are going to support R&D, you might as well get some upside as well and get some equity. And so this is what this announcement is about.

It's with the CHIP's R&D office. And we'll get into it. Yeah. In terms of where you want the first applications to be, it feels like different models are maybe sometimes designed around certain architectures. You see certain like GPTOSS runs really well on cerebrus. And then you'll have another model that runs on an NVL 72. It's like Rack Scale. And then there's other models that can sort of run locally.

or run on a Mac Mini or Apple Silicon. And there's all these different pieces of the puzzle. And increasingly we're starting to see where, like, voice models might be really good for those to run locally, but some crazy, long-running AI agent might be fine to send off the server. Do you have an idea yet of where you think, if things go perfectly, the first application might be? Like, where's the sweet spot? Yeah, we've been exploring a lot of applications, obviously running the model. the transformer is a big one.

What we found is that, and we have a blog post coming soon, I guess it's a scoop here, but we have a blog post coming on a sparsity scaling law. So if you sparsify your model, because our chips have a sort of sparse structure, so that means sparse is just, you know, print GPUs. They have big matrices, which are these grids, and basically every entry in the grid is busy, right? Like there's something going on. Sparse means there's a lot of zero.

There's a lot of stuff not going, that's not activated. it's not activated. So our chips are really good at sparse operations. That's not originally what we're designed for, but if you really want to shove a transformer on our chips, you can do it. And if it's sparse, as long as it has the same number of parameters, you could reach the same sort of performance, which is interesting because for us, the flops are much cheaper per watt. So even though you use more flops, you get more intelligence per watt. So we have something coming out soon on that and teasing it here a little bit. But overall, all we're really interested in diffusion models, you know, models for predictive control,

for defense, physical intelligence, signal processing, you know, stuff you would use an FPGA for. You want to use one of these chips. So, you know, we have RTX as investors for that reason and similar defense primes. I'm very interested. How are you feeling about the retrospective on effective accelerationism? because it feels like my interpretation is that you were 100% right at the time. And that class of models didn't really pose any real risk. There was clear need for a buildout and diffusion of this technology.

But now we're in this like new, the last few months. There's been a new discussion over literally slowing down, literally decelerating. And it's coming from inside the leading labs, not just like doomers who are. are outside. How have you reflected on what EAC was its role now, just AI optimism versus pessimism, risk? How are you thinking about all that now? Yeah, I mean, originally I wanted to just bring balance to the force. It was kind of a modern culture in Silicon Valley. It was just the Dumer camp. And I was seeing the writing on the wall. If we just had the Dumeers, then that would eventually affect policy. And to me, it was a very biased view of the world. And so I think,

we kind of stretched the Overton window. It was okay to say no to Doomers and say that's a ridiculous model of the future, you know, great goo, fume, all that stuff. But now, yeah, we've reached a point where, you know, the models are very capable. And, you know, the EAC view to me is just like viewing the whole world as a complex self-adaptive system. And ever since the dawn at time, it's basically been PVP. Every form of life is becoming more complex and harder to predict. then its adversary has to step up, get smarter in order to predict it, in order to compete. And if you do that slowly, then basically you can have a whole ecosystem and everything's good. But if one thing becomes much smarter and much more complex than others, then it can kind of control others and that's bad.

And so I think stopping makes absolutely no sense. Pacing can make sense, but really it has to come with a really strong investment in, for example, cybersecurity and hardening things. because you can't pause things forever. Essentially, you just want to be adversarily robust, and I'm all for that personally. Yeah, it is very interesting reflecting on the Doom arguments, how they were, like, to your point about Gregoo and Foam, it was not as precise as cybersecurity risk,

which some people were calling out, but the conversation was definitely distracted from the more practical, I like difficulties around slop and, you know, overinvesting and bubbles and all, all these different things that are much more short term that, you know, America will need to grapple with to actually, you know, deliver a positive outcome here. How are you, is your development process being accelerated by AI? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. No, absolutely. I mean, we use all the big, big, big, model providers in-house and we try them all. We have agents constantly running. For us, it's like we have to speed run deep learning.

It's like you teleport back to 2011, and there's no AlexNet paper, and you have to speed run 10 years, 15 years of deep learning progress as fast as possible. But now it's like new game plus in a video game. You have all the power-ups. You have the AI. And so we're a speed running progress very quickly. And, you know, we have online learning agents. We're training our own models as well, or post-training, rather, sorry, as the cutting-edge companies do.

And so that's very exciting to me that, you know, current AI can help bootstrap and kickstart the next paradigm, the next substrate. And going back to your comment about the cycle, you know, my thesis was that, you know, GPUs are not the end game. And so, you know, we want to invest in the current cycle, but we should we should hedge our best. As we saw it today with Leopold, Rip, you know, you got to hedge your bets. And I think for all in on GPUs and we don't invest in the next generation, the next paradigm of computing and have a couple of bets there, then when that pops up, you're going to get wiped out. And we don't want that. And so to me, we're starting the next S curve. We're starting the next cycle.

I know people are not over the current cycle, but everything is cyclical. But, you know, it's my responsibility to make sure, you know, we can we can have buildouts in the future that are really. power-efficient and you know it gets you better return investment on your capital whether it's on earth or in space or you know at the edge yeah it feels like the one of the you know you've been one of the loudest biggest voices on on x for the entire time that we've been running the show we've you know had a bunch of your posts on the show over the years and it feels like you picked a you picked a product category that just by the nature of it was going to take time to evolve. And I think like when I think back, it's like the challenge of

showing progress. I mean, this moment is massive, right? It's a it's a vote of confidence and it's very exciting. But everything that it took to get here, meanwhile, you're getting like hundreds of millions of views from some of like, yeah, billions of billions of views. And I'm curious like, yeah, reflecting on the last two years, do you feel like you've found the right balance between like you want to be getting attention and you want to maintain your voice, but you also want to be moving the business forward. And at any point, you know, X and T-Pot specifically, if they feel like those two things are not balanced, they're going to like pounce and, you know, take shots and all

that stuff. And I know you've gone through that, which is why I'm excited for this moment to, for, but yeah, how have you processed at all? Yeah, no, it's been a, it's been a journey. It's been a lot. It was despite, you know, allegations, it was never planned. to get doxed. And, you know, I knew I was going after a very much deep tech moon shot that was going to take some time to cook. But, you know, exponentials are slow at first and then they compound over time. Could I have had, you know, a product that, you know, would have had a shorter time to market and use the heat to make it grow probably? But, you know, I was just dedicated to this one mission. I think it's the most important thing I could be working on. And I've been all in since the

beginning. But yeah, there's certainly a tension like building in deep tech where you're supposed to be in stealth. You know, you have nation states trying to reverse engineering technology and you're trying to just reveal the minimum because that's your secrets are your edge. But at the same time, you want to get by and you want to shape people's beliefs. Like, hey, actually this technology is here. It's coming. Here's a hint. Here's a prototype. Here's a nature paper. Here's this. Here's that. Here's some signal. We're going to have a lot more coming up next week, a big announcement for Z1. and all those products around it, including our stacks.

I love that framing of New Game Plus. It feels like there's so many founders from the previous era who grew big, like SaaS companies and they're now sort of on New Game Plus moving a lot faster. It's a great formulation, great philosophy, and thank you so much for coming on the show and breaking it down. Yeah, congrats on all the cards. Yeah. We'll talk to you soon.

Have a good one. Goodbye. Let me tell you about Railway. Railway is the all-in-one intelligent cloud provider. user favorite a agent to deploy web app servers databases and more while railway automatically takes care of scaling, monitoring, and security. Did you see that California startup Satyress unveiled a two meter tall centaur robot designed to enter disaster zones too dangerous for humans? There's no way this is a real picture. Sorry. Go to the website. I mean satirese satirese satirese. S-A-T-Y-R-E-S-S-S dot com.

Demon robot to go into disaster. Imagine that you're in a disaster zone, John, and through the fire and flames, you just see. Just kill me. Yeah, okay. Okay. I actually am in Hades. I'm in Hades of this thing. It says no job is worth your limbs.

That doesn't mean a job isn't worth doing. Do you think this is a prank? Do you think this is a joke or do you think this is a real company? I think if it's not a joke, then they got to go back to the design minds. and do something else. Human-like torso and arms allow for natural. This is a joke. On the website, it says this robot is more dangerous than it looks.

Like, no, it looks dangerous. Yeah. It looks very dangerous. I think this was vibe-coded, and I don't think it's a real company. Well, it's burning up the timeline. People are having a lot of fun with it. Anyway, we have Lulu Misservi from Rostra in the waiting room. Let's ask Lulu if she thinks this is a real company.

Yeah, and the value of rage bait. you have like fake fake launches All right Lulu please look at this product this new robot company and tell us

give us your read Is it real team can we pull it up Show her the Centaur robot that is absolutely Yeah I saw I saw a glimpse of it This is like the stuff from nightmares Like imagine that you're It's very funny

And this thing comes to you through like the smoke And the flames I think you would probably Die of heart attack if you could save you Don't worry human I will protect you. Yeah, really fascinating. I think if they change the head, you know, maybe you could get it a little bit better,

but it's still going to be wrong. It looks like the canonical demon head. Like, this looks like the canonical Satan head when he appears in form on Earth. How did this originally hit the timeline? Like, where did this? This just came out as if it's like... Well, the whole world gets their news

from prediction markets of media accounts now, so... I guess. But yeah, it did go out on like a PR newswire. I guess Satris robots like PANC to answer the question. No, I'm curious. I want to have them on now. They say the horns are necessary because they place cameras there so they can see the position of all limbs and tools. It gives a layer of redundancy in case there's issues with encoders and on the actuators.

That's what will make people like AI more, actually. It's that the horns don't have enough cameras. But once the horns are for surveillance, then people will come around. I think I saw an open letter about this. Yeah, they gave the demon. robot a chainsaw and they say the horns are completely necessary. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. What do you make of the current startup launch playbook? Because there is a world, like there's all this speculation that Nathan Fieler is working on a new season of the audition with that boy band called

Boythrob. Have you heard this, Jordy? No. Boythrob. Boythrob. So it's this, it's a real band, boy band, that has been, like, detained, and they've been making news, but people have been suggesting that, like, Nathan Fielder is sort of puppeteering

the, behind the scenes. And I'm wondering how far off we are from a startup, just launching something that's, like, intentionally rage bait or viral, and then sort of, like, pulling off the mask and saying, oh, well, we're at, we actually are doing a quadruped. It doesn't look as crazy as this.

This was just to, you know, draw a bunch of attention. here's the final design. It feels like that would probably be a rough go because you've sort of violated the trust of the audience on day one. But do you think the right founder could pull it off? I think it's a really bad idea to just optimize for going viral.

Because viral comes and goes. What's that? Yeah, yeah, why? Why? It feels like it's such a badge of honor. So viral comes and goes. Like you're viral for like 24 hours, 30, six hours, good or bad.

I think for Leopold, maybe we could get to that. Like, by next week, people could be saying he's the goat again. People are just very fickle. And everyone is at maximum intensity all the time. Fivex. No, I do think people under, people have this idea of like, if I can just go viral once, then I'll have a big business. And I think back with just building our show, like we had so many, we had some big, you know,

moments, you know, you can think of like the Soham Periques and there were big guests and there were things like that. But the amount of times that we needed to go like moderately viral on X to build our audience was like 20 times more than I would have thought that you needed to to build a media business. And so just trying to go doing something that will get you viral once and sort of a shortcut kind of like almost cheating, which rage bait is like wouldn't call it cheating, but it's like, you know, it's kind of, it's kind of close to there. It's just short term and it doesn't actually get you the thing that you want, which is like der-sustained attention.

Yeah, I agree with you. But it's also not just about viral versus not viral. It's actually about consistency. So if you are consistent over the course of a year, there will be times when you go more viral, less viral, there will be times when there's like some Tuesday afternoon thing that you do that catches the attention of 50 people, but it happens to be that one of the exact right people is among them,

You just have to keep doing the same thing kind of forever. It's like getting fit. You don't get fit by eating nothing for two days and then lifting for two days straight. It's like you just have to go to the gym kind of every day for the rest of your life in order to be fit. And the same thing is true of relevance. Consistency in just keep doing it. It's not a one-time thing. But also consistency in like, what are you going viral for?

It's like Elya said, what are we scaling? What are you going viral for? because if it's not going viral for the thing that you actually consider your true identity to be, now you've actually just gone in the wrong direction. Now you have to like overcorrect back. And so if you are consistent with the story and then with doing it over and over, that's a lot better than trying to put everything into one moment. Well said.

Do you think we are at peak? I forget what the word was. I got to ask this recently. It was like, are we at peak like transparency in terms of, of CEO communications. Because we're certainly at peak volume in terms of if I go back and I'm like, oh, I'd love to just like listen to 20 hours of podcasts from Jeff Bezos while he was in the middle of building Amazon.

That's not really an option. There might be like a 10 minute hit on Charlie Rose and then a four minute hit on Letterman. Imagine Steve Jobs on Joe Rogan. Yeah. that would be it. Imagine like Steve Jobs on Lex Friedman for the third time. And you're like, ah,

that one I didn't actually get through because it's like now we're in hour nine. But do you think we're at like peak, like maximum amount of just founder content and founder like interviews in terms of just a volume? It feels like this should be the peak. But I don't think it is. Yeah. I think people consider it to be an arms race. where now the peak is the new bench line, benchmark, and benchline.

I did, for a fun fact, I learned English from a book called English. So sometimes I still do stumble into like, she read the book on English. I did. There's a book. It's called English. I read it. And then I knew English, like Neo in the Matrix.

So forgive. Benchmark is the new peak is the current. benchmark where it's like everybody is loud all the time. So if I'm launching and talking, I have to talk more and louder. But to your point, it's very different from actually learning new things. So I've seen the same CEO maybe go on 10 different podcasts and I still don't know what they're doing. Sure. Or like is the sixth podcast marginally useful compared to the fifth? There was one week when Demis went on like a whole podcast tour. That's right.

And this is no shade to Sir Demas. This is like planned around he released a book or whatever. But it still was like, am I going to get anything new from the six podcasts that I didn't get from the fourth podcast that I already listened to? And each one of these is like two hours. I'm really invested in time. Well, and the other criticism there is like that podcast tour and the book launch and everything coincides with them like completely falling behind the frontier. So now in hindsight, it's like maybe you should have been working on. I thought you were going to say that there was no Rogan or Theo involved because that was the real.

Yeah, should have done Theo Vaughn. He's more Theo. Yeah. No, I, but do you agree that if you're advising a founder and the choices between 10 tech podcasts that are going to ask roughly the same questions or 10 varied podcasts where one might be cultural, one might be more political, one might be business, One might be finance focused. One might be technology focused. That having more of a breadth. Because there was a moment where the CEO started going on Rogan and Theo, and I was like,

oh, this is so fresh and different. It's just a very different conversation for them to have. It's not the same as a Dorcas or like a serious interview. But it just shows me a different side. And I like to see how they interact. Not every CEO set up for it, but how would you solve that problem? So I would approach it from the obverse, like almost the opposite. of what you said, which is if you have five podcast opportunities in front of you or five

whatever publicity opportunities, and they're all different, think about who do you actually need to reach? Like, what is the best use of your time? And if you don't need to reach the general population and if you don't need to show some fun side of your personality, then it's less about finding a way to show your range. And it's more about focusing on what do you actually need. Instead of doing five podcasts that are all different, just cut the other three. The three that are either duplicative or are reaching people that you don't need to, literally just don't do them. I think CEOs need to be thinking about what is like minimum viable effort where I can get my vision and persona and build trust with the people that I need to without actually going

on a press tour. Because at a certain point, the same way that it wastes my time to listen to the fifth podcast, it wastes you, the CEO's time to do the fifth podcast because the marginal value of one hour of your time, there is like $30,000 or more. I mean, what's an hour of a CEO's time worth, right? The only thing that I would push back is, I think the reason that you see some CEOs once they just get on this, the podcast treadmill, and then it's like every week, new episode, is when you actually think of if it's a virtual recording and they're using one hour of their time, and even if all that happens, let's say the podcast is like,

decent size, right? Like top 25 tech podcasts in the world. If you have 100 customers or potential customers that listen to that, I would argue, and they'll listen to the whole episode, I would argue that it is like well worth the time to go on, even if that's the only group that actually. And so that's why that's why you end up and it's like it's unless you're in a period where it's like you actually don't want to share anything, then I think every incremental progress is like, is it a better use of, is it a better use of time for the CEO to talk to like

a warm lead, you know, that's just coming in, talk to your customers, or talk to a hundred customers and they listen to you talk for an hour and the sort of like passing sales, or passive sort of like sales motion, right? Yeah. See, that's very true. And I agree with you there. And the difference is we're making the assumption that it is one of the top podcasts that your customers are listening to and you're saying something that is going to be worthwhile to

that is an amazing use of time because you use one hour or maybe on TBPN you use like 20 minutes if you're a busy CEO and then you get clips and clips and clips out of it and you just were able to amplify the equivalent of having a thousand meetings into this setting where someone is able to pull better responses from you than you might have been able to give on the spot. That's true. But what a lot of CEOs also do and founders in general is just try to maximize for volume at any cost. And that leads to going on a podcast that nobody listens to. Sure.

Going on a show that is actively detrimental to your vibes. There are shows where it's net negative. It's not just a waste of time, but you literally leave with a worse reputation than if you hadn't gone on there. Or just being boring, wasting people's time, or you're making people angry. And you're building a brand that you actually don't want.

And now you have to put in extra effort to unwind the brand and walk it back versus if you had just been more focused in the first place. So I think that optimizing for volume and sheer quantity leads you down the road to all of these perils, whereas if you're just focused from the beginning and say, here are the things that matter to me, hear the podcasts and shows and venues that I actually respect and people listen to. I'm going to focus on those. That's a better use of your time than just to go like hungry, hungry hippos with it. Yeah. It's also sometimes cool when the CEOs are sort of like, I don't know, like almost kingmaking a little bit where they jump onto a show that hasn't hit that inflection point before it's obvious. And they take the risk of going on some small show. And then that show blows up. And you're like, wow, that CEO went on that show that early. That's crazy. They took a real risk. I think Elon did this with Lex very early. And there's a whole bunch of other examples. You know who loves doing that. Brian Armstrong loves doing that. That's right.

And he went on TVPN when you guys had already blow, like this wasn't. No, no, no, no, no. I think he was our first public company CEO, first Fortune 500 CEO. He was very, very early. And it was huge. We had a lot of, we had, we had, it was probably not in the first like 100 or 200 guests. Yeah. Definitely.

I think you're right that it was the first. But he didn't wait for other public company CEOs to be going on there. A lot of public CEOs are so risk-averse. that they're like, show me. If Satya and Jensen have done it, I'll consider it. Otherwise, don't even bring it to me. Brian just never asked these questions. He just asked, do I like this thing?

And so TPPN wasn't that early. Still a nice milestone. But he went on this one podcast called Pod of Jake. Oh, yeah, I know, part of Jake. A guy called Jake. Yeah, yeah. It's a great show. Great name.

And he just liked it. Yeah. No, no, no, no. That's so cool. And Toby Lukie did that too with like some Starcraft podcast, which was like crazy. I was like, this is selection. this is taste. I know that, like, you know, he was involved in this.

This wasn't something that came through a committee, which is just so refreshing. The opposite of volume and the spray and pray do every podcast is like just being mysterious and having aura. Do we need to move to, I think of Jeff Bezos does it very well, Jack Dorsey does it very well, Ilya does it very well. Do we need to move from a world for certain CEOs where instead of media training, we're doing mystery training, where we are coaching them to be mysterious. and have high or is that possible or is it innate with those people?

It's innate because people who are too thirsty for attention cannot help themselves. Like you can tell them, I have coached founders to do less. And there are some people who just cannot be held back because they get excited. And that's okay. You can be a very respected, excited public facing archetype. But like what Ilya has cannot be taught. And in fact, if you tried to coach him to be the opposite, that would not. work. And Leopold is in the category, too, where there are people who just are a certain way,

and then that reputation gets out and it benefits them. But this is why it's such a mistake for CEOs to try to copy another. Because if you just say, I want to copy Elyla, and I want to be able to have a five-word tweet that gets 10,000 likes and everyone has Oz and whatever. Well, you can't because you're not him. You have to make this new thing that suits you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it's always funny when Amelia's tweets get completely taken out of context and people will be like, wow, like this is about ASI. It's like, actually, he's just happy about his family or something like that. Okay. I'm sort of, I'm sort of inclined to try to workshop some, some ideas. Let's do it. If we were doing comms for situational awareness, what's the next move? It's an interesting situation

because he was very, very quiet, right? He basically had like a couple podcasts and a billion dollar. Literally just one. A billion dollar PDF and then went on the most insane run, all of his predictions coming true, you know, vindicated, and then total annihilation in a very short period of time. I think that one, I think he's got to start kind of shit posting a little bit. You're going to advocate for the ask.

Like what for I think it works for I think it works I think it worked well one SBF was different and that and that he was very he was always talking a lot Yeah, this is like wildly different because he's been effectively silent And to come back you know maybe after the wedding and say What did I miss you know? No, no, I just I I I think that he's clearly brilliant And he, I think, from everything I've seen, will probably be an incredible venture investor. And he'll probably ask. He's just correct. Like, minus leverage.

His whole thesis is correct. So everything went up. It was just the leverage thing. Yeah. So one thing I think he should not do that now is start doing things differently. Because when people change how they operate, it shows that they're in a crisis. And obviously, it wasn't a good day. But there's a difference between market.

movement portfolio management versus repudiating your underlying worldview and your underlying long-term thesis. And so a couple of thoughts on my end is like, one, going direct doesn't mean you just have to tweet into the void or to the public. Going direct can mean picking up the phone and calling your LPs. And the people that matter to him most today and always are the LPs. So if he can call the LPs or if he already has and make sure they understand two things. One, that day-to-day market movement and portfolio management, even in pretty extraordinary circumstances, don't change the underlying thesis and worldview. And that his vision for what happens in AI still stands.

That's one. And two is that he has this kind of hidden jewel of his portfolio in private companies. This is an unusual thing that he does that he has access to and that what is happening in the public market is actually the peripheral padding around this really interesting core of his private investments. Now, people know about Anthropic, but he has all these other private investments that are super interesting that haven't even really hit their peak at all. And so if his employees and LPs know these two things, then I think it's like weather Twitter for a little bit and then come back and two weeks later some other thing will happen and people will be like he's the

goat again. Yeah, and I also think that I don't know about institutional LPs. I don't know about that whole world, but I think knowing a lot of the, a lot of the, like, you know, founder types that are just allocating a very small amount of their portfolio to situational awareness, I think they give them another roll, roll the dice, personally. I think after that run, I think after that run, a lot of them would be like, yeah, I'll just, whatever I got out, I'll let it, I'll let it, I'll let it ride kind of thing. Just because, again, it's not like the underlying thesis has ever been wrong. It's a timing thing. And if you're just thinking of it as like, yeah, basically like, you know, high stakes gambling,

then why not keep rolling the dice? You've been through this, I think loosely. I mean, you've certainly seen Scott Wu cognition come in as sort of the savior in a messy situation. And we were talking to Martin Screlli about this where Ken Griffin is starting to play this non-bank role of backstop, lender of last resort. this was a situation where the liquidity crisis could have bled into the big banks, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan.

It did not. It stayed within the shadow banking system of Citadel. And it's interesting because it feels like what Martin was saying was that Ken Griffin is beginning to position himself as like the next Warren Buffett. In a crisis, he can be the lender that brings stability to the market.

the market is up. And I'm wondering about your advice for founders who are fortunate enough to be in the situation where they are rescuing another founder, another business, a market even in this case. What is the right communication strategy where you are reassuring the world with Scott? It was the social contract in Silicon Valley in Ken Griffin's. Yeah, one year ago. One year ago, right? But at the same time, you don't want to take too much of a victim.

lap and and rub it in everyone's face and you don't want everyone to believe oh well like you know maybe I can actually go and you know screw over all sorts of founders because scott woo's always going to be around to save the debt so how would you balance that so the the highest aura move is always to just chill and not make a big deal out of it you know like when you when you see someone dance a little too much after getting a touchdown is like oh this is someone who's not used to getting touchdowns This is a big deal for them. Is this their first ever touchdown? Yeah.

But for the people who kind of like do a little something and move on, then you realize that this is just part of their day. And so I think one, just not getting over excited as if this is the best thing to ever happen to you by sheer luck. Two is, I think a classy way to approach this is to stand up for principle or to stand up for the other party. So in the case of cognition, Winsurf, the Scott's instinct was to protect and stand up for WinSurf employees as opposed to some big treatise about, here's why I did this and I,

I, I, I. It was all about, here's what Windsurf employees deserve. And by the way, you're not appreciating how talented this group is. It was all about defending them and about the social contract. So I think for Ken Griffin or anybody, the best move here is like, defend the principle, defend the people that you're trying to help, and then just don't make a huge deal out of it, be chill. Yeah. And I loved that when Scott put that announcement video together, he was there alongside with the team.

It was not all about him. Of course, that's his nature. He's a very humble person. But it would have been very easy to just say, like, oh, yeah, like, we can only schedule Scott for this video. And that's not what happened. And it was intentional very clearly, which was great. One thing I'll say, there's one thing that I've learned from Cheryl Sandberg.

I don't know or I've never met her. I didn't read. Wait, okay, here's what it is. When I think that I'm going to super duper hate a book, sometimes I'll read it so that I can hate on it with more credibility. So, like, I thought I would really dislike white fragility in between the world and me. So I made sure to read them so that when I hate on them, nobody can rebut because nobody's read those books. And so I thought I would super hate lean in, so I read it.

And it was okay. But there was one part of it that was actually really useful. And she was saying this in the context of women have to do this, but actually it's just anybody. And what she said was, if you are advocating for yourself and defending yourself, that gets totally discounted because it's just self-interest. But if you are able to do that on behalf of someone else that represents what you want, represents what you believe in, or principles that represent how you want the world to work,

just that small shift allows you to go really hard on being full-throated about them in a way that doesn't get discounted for self-interest. And so same for like any founder who's standing up for another person or for an ID or anything else. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Well, Jordan, anything else? There was an interesting comms crisis and resolution that happened effectively in the last 24 hours. I don't know if you guys saw it.

The founder shared out a picture of someone getting a tattoo. The tattoo. We told everyone that would get a tattoo of our logo. Again, a company, I'm not a big fan of logo tattoos in general. There's a few that I might consider my seat. but I certainly wouldn't, you know, encourage other people. Wait, what are they? You have to.

I think like a Coca-Cola across the back, iconic brand. I thought you were going to do a whole sleeve of the Botega Veneta Roman weave on your arm. Yeah, exactly. Like a sort of black- But that's less of a logo. Yeah. Roman-weaves sleeve would be like, if you know, you know, Tappado. Yeah, quiet luxury.

Roman-weaves. No, I just saw this and I was like absolutely shocked that someone said this out loud. basically founder was telling anybody that got there, again, I think subseed stage startup logo tattooed on them, got guaranteed an interview, which just felt like so, so wrong. They posted it. Everyone was like, how did you say this out loud? And then I saw the, I think you got deleted, but I saw the correction of like, we're now paying for tattoo removal for anyone that.

No, wait. No, there's another one. I didn't see the paying for tattoo removal. but he posted this like Maya Kulpah tweet that was fully written by Claude. Did you see that? No, I didn't see that. But I mean, the steel man here, I'm not going to go

the steel man helmet, but the steel man is that there are people that just love tattoos. And if you offer certain people, free tattoos, they will say yes, because they just want as many tattoos as possible. Yeah, we don't know. Maybe he was at a tattoo convention. I was, I've seen

free tattoos given out before and people lining up. And it's, I It doesn't math for me. I'm not in the market, but there are certainly people who are just like, yes, I want more ink. I want more tattoos. If there's a tattoo artist here that I don't have to pay, sign me up. You don't have to get something silly. But, yeah, what.

That's true. There's like cyan with her Anderl tattoo. But these are not people. She's a shareholder. Anderle didn't say, like, we're not giving you the allocation unless you're going to get the tattoo. That was the thing. It's like, are you maybe exploiting desperate job seekers?

And also, do you not have a different and better bar for whom you want in the company as opposed to the people who make the most rash poor decisions in the moment? You're like optimizing for people who can't decision make to advance in your interview round. So it obviously wasn't great, but I think the real crime was the cover up, which was in this case, the flawed report. Yeah, I don't know if that's still up there, but it was a sloppology. Rough. Well, good luck to them. Hopefully they live and learn and hopefully those folks who didn't want the tattoo can get it removed smoothly. And thank you so much for coming on the show.

Always great to see you, Lou. Thanks guys. Talk soon. Have a great week. We'll talk to you soon. Let me tell you about CrowdStrike. Your business is AI. Their business is securing it.

CrowdStrike secures AI and stops breaches up next. We have Michael Kim from Sindana Capital. He's the founder. And I'm very excited to dive in to your story. Welcome to the show. Michael. How are you doing? Thank you. Great to be here.

Thank you so much. Would you mind taking us through a little bit of an introduction in yourself, your background, and then what you're doing today to sort of set up the conversation? Yeah, so I started Sondon in 2010. It was specifically to focus on seed and precede stage funds. The thesis was that these new, you know, these super angels were starting to institutionalize and bring outside capital in, guys like Mike Maples, Steve Anderson, Michael Deering, Jeff Clavier.

And so we were very early in identifying seed stage investing as becoming de facto early stage investing. And so it took me 18 months to raise the first fund in 2012. Today we have almost $3 billion under management. Our LP base is largely U.S. endowments and foundations. So, you know, we feel like we are now, you know, solid LP focused on very early stage venture. And, you know, a lot's changed and we can get into that. But, you know, overall, we are convinced that early-stage investing is still the way to go in this world of AI. Do you think that if you look back, you weren't even thinking big enough about how much the category would emerge?

Because, like, clearly the initial thesis was right. But in some ways, it feels like early-stage venture has gotten bigger than anyone really could have predicted. Yeah, I mean, back then there weren't opportunity funds. people weren't standing up SPVs. I spent time with Josh Kushner when he was raising his first fund. He was talking about, you know, ultimately running billion dollar funds. We were a little bit too discipline, perhaps, where we didn't, we really wanted to have people play in the sandbox of seed. And so did not invest with Josh, did not invest in Ribbitt, Mickey Malco's fund.

You know, that's like a 50x fund. So, you know, I think perhaps I was a little bit limited in how I was thinking about it. So exactly, you know, should have a thought bigger. But, you know, the market's grown, obviously, and there are probably 2,000 seed funds now. And, you know, we're investing out of relatively large vehicles. So, I mean, 2000 seed funds is so much smaller of a pool than the broader startup ecosystem. And I'm wondering about what the day-to-day looks like. If you're familiar with the venture capital fund that might be having a founder, stop by the office, every hour, on the hour, every day.

of the week and then partner meetings and they might be taking thousands of meetings over the course of a year. What is your, what is your firm's day to day? What is the heartbeat of the firm look like? Yeah. Well, you know, just to give everyone a sense of how we invest. We want to be the lead investor. So we're the largest LP in over 80% of our funds.

So we work very closely with our fund managers. We're always on WhatsApp. We're talking to them. We do monthly calls. I would say also one way to think about this is, You know, it's similar in early stage versus late stage investing. Late stage investing, there's a finite set of companies that investors want to be in. At the earliest stages, there's an infinite number, right?

Because new companies are being started every day. So that actually transfers as well or translates to what we do. There are always new funds being created. Whereas, like, if you look at the Sequoias and Excel is an index and founder funds of the world, that's a finite number that LPs try to get into, whereas we're actually discovered. new fund managers. Sure, sure. How many great new seed funds are born every year?

Is it like two? That's a really good question. When you think about like venture investing, when you look back throughout history, there's like very small number of companies every single year that really matter. And you got to get in those companies. And then if you look at all the venture investors that actually break out and build big platforms or just deliver really great results year over year, fund over fund. A lot of them got into those 10 companies,

and sometimes all it takes is really getting into one in a significant way, and that's what allows their career to blossom. But I'm wondering when I, you know, we have six companies a day on to announce fund raises, probably on average, sometimes, sometimes a little less, sometimes more. And venture feels so competitive, but when I really narrow in and look at the seed market, like true seed practitioners, it actually in some ways doesn't feel that competitive because I can

kind of clock these sort of rising stars and I just know like I have a good intuition. Like this person is, I don't know if they're going to back like two out of the 10 next breakout companies, but I know they're going to back at least one and they're going to break out. But I'm curious how you view the market. Yeah, I mean, with the fund, obviously you get 20 to 30. shots on goal and the idea is that we're indexing on fund managers that have access to amazing founders. And, you know, one good example that is Neo, you know, Ali Partovee. You know, he was the first check into cursor.

First check into Kalshi. He has cognition. He has deal. He's ramp. You know, amazing track record. But he had a sourcing engine. You know, he was created, he created this Neo Scholars program. So he was going to Harvard, MIT, Stanford, CMU, all these different places to identify the top CS students.

And, you know, I think right now we've been investing along this thesis that there's an arms race for younger founders. And part of that is AI-native companies, small teams can actually generate substantial revenues. So the next round is actually a growth round. And so, you know, that actually translates to some of our fund managers that really focus on finding young founders. So, like, a good example would be Carlo and Coco at a fund called Nova. And they spend, you know, they're 25 and 23 years old. their third partner, Henry, is 19. You know, they spend a lot of time with kids in college.

We have Corey Levy at Z-Fellows, you know, all over the college campuses. And, you know, Josh Browder, he's a teal fellow. And he, you know, he's on the selection committee. So he gets access to this. So you're absolutely right. It's always, venture is a power log game. I think with fund investing, they have more shots on goal. And the other element

dynamically is that one fund may be good, but the next fund actually might be better. And so it's multiple layers. And so what we have to do is track who are they investing in, how these companies are performing, and then decide whether we continue on with them or not.

And Neo is a very good example of one that we have continued to invest in since fund one. If you want to be the anchor LP in a new fund, you're excited. What does it actually take? to win that allocation? Is it different than winning a seed stage venture round for a startup?

Are you identifying value ad or strategic advice? Like, what are the, what is your pitch to new fund managers? I imagine it's like, there's way less scarcity and there's way less urgency, right? Yeah, absolutely correct. Yeah, I mean, funds are raised over a period of time. They're not raised in a week, so it's not competitive term sheets, et cetera. Yeah.

You know, I think one of the things that we benefit from is that we know what we want. We know what to look for. We have good pattern recognition. So like with Kirsten Green, her first fund, $40 million. You know, we were the first to commit. We did $10 million. And, you know, and she was off to the races. And I would say that, you know, because, you know, of the 16 years of pattern recognition,

we kind of know what we want in a fund manager. And, you know, again, it's indexing on people who have amazing access to tremendous founders. Obviously, we want to see some picking ability or proven picking ability. So we've never invested in a first-time investor. But we've invested in plenty of first-time funds. And then I think, you know, we think that networks and domain expertise have a shelf life. So you could have been like the VP of whatever. at Google, you know, 10 years ago, that's not as relevant today.

And unless someone has hustle and they're building on those networks and they're, and they have the intellectual curiosity, you know, I think that's what we also look for. It is sort of like the it factor. Yeah. Are you, are you, so maybe to try to repeat it back to you is like volume of deal flow and access your preference over like just raw picking ability? Because when you think of like Z fellows and Neo, Sure, they clearly can pick great companies, but it's also they just have like insane,

they have insane access, right? They've built these sort of like pipelines of talent. And that feels almost easier to bet on. But then you have other investors who just like clearly know how to pick winners. We have a buddy who like, I think the first two companies he ever angel invested in, like both became unicorns. And so he has like clearly has access and picking ability. and a little luck, but you definitely need that as a VC.

Yeah, I mean, luck is definitely part of it. But you've got to be in the right rooms. So we're investing in this one guy. He worked with Nat Freeman and Daniel Gross. He's a very smart person. I can't mention who he is because he's still fundraising. But he's someone who has the intellectual curiosity. He's seen what great could look like.

He's learned from really good investors. And he's in the right rooms. Now, do we know if he's going to be an amazing fund man? No, but he's got the ingredients there. And to your point, because there are so many companies being formed, you've got to be able to have some sort of competitive advantage, some sort of discernible edge in finding these and accessing these founders. And so Carlo and Coco, for example, have that.

They have the hustle. They're in the right rooms. They have the right access, not only just at the founder level, but also, you know, like with Sequoia and the downstream capital. Mm-hmm. Sure. Do you, how much do you value if someone's a former founder? Because a lot of people like to talk and say, oh, yeah, former founders make such good investors.

But when I think about it, some of my favorite investors across stages have never started a company. They've never had a job other than, you know, just, just looking at, like, deals and trying to pick good ones. Yeah. And that's it. Yeah, for sure. Like Mike Moritz, right, legend, was a journalist. Yeah. Right.

And Bill Gurley, he was an equity research analyst. But I will say at the earliest stages, a lot of our fund managers are actually ex-startup people or operators. And that's because, you know, if you're a founder, you want someone who can actually help you. I know it's a total VC meme that, hey, how can I help you? What kind of value can I add? But I think at the earliest stages, founders do want that help,

even the best ones, although they probably don't need as much. But if you look at late stage investing, they're typically ex-investment bankers, consultants, and lawyers. So there is some sorting. And we do see a lot of ex-founders. We actually have current operators.

Like, we're invested in a mods fund, you know, CEO founder of Mercury. And that perch gives him really great perspective. And he's a founder magnet. People want to work. with them. Yeah. Can you give me a little bit of history on how venture capital, alternative investments became attractive to LPs, endowments, universities? We often talk briefly about the Yale model. How real is that as a story that gets told? What were the other key turning

points in endowments sort of waking up and starting to allocate towards venture capital? Yeah, I mean, David Swenson at Yale legend, you know, he obviously pioneered the endowment model of having significant exposure to private markets. I think 60% of their endowment is private markets, including private equity. But I think 25% alone is to venture. And, you know, you mentioned a word that I think describes venture. It's about stories, right? I mean, if you think about asset allocation and like, oh, you know, small cap value investing or, you know, these public. funds, the standard deviation of returns is pretty tight. In venture, because of what we just

talked about, you know, power law, you know, a handful of companies can do generate most of the returns. And so, you know, I think a lot of endowment and institutional LP types get attracted to those anecdotes. You know, I think, you know, for kids, you know, the Facebook movie actually inspired a lot of people not to just go down the Goldman Sachs McKinsey path, but try to do something new. And so, you know, it is, it is narrative-based. It's anecdote-based, but when it hits, it really hits. You know, I mean, I don't think Neil will be upset for me saying this.

But, you know, they had $4 million in Takashi. It's worth a billion five. Wow. Seriously. Yeah, that's incredible. Yeah, wow. That's wild. He's goaded.

Going to the Midas list. The, another question for you. How much time do you spend looking through a fund's portfolio and trying to apply or understand what you're like a real like fair value to different assets? Because as an angel investor, I've done like 70 some odd companies. And there are companies out there that I'm up like, you know, 10, 15x and I believe the company is probably a zero, right? and knowing the way that the venture game is played, there's a lot of, you know, I'm not in the venture business, right? So I don't have to report to anyone. I'm just like, I do it for fun and, and I enjoy, I enjoy learning from the process. But I know there's venture investors who are out there in the same

exact situation, and they're not exactly probably like raising a hand and being like, you know, Michael, like, I know I'm up 15x here, but it's, I'm probably getting wiped out. Yeah. I mean, there's a couple things around that, you know, like all the SaaS companies and vertical SaaS companies in the 2016 and 2022 before Chat CheapT came out, you know, we call those the messy middle. Those are companies that, you know, raise probably at 50 times revenue, you know, maybe at a billion or more. And today they might have 100 million of revenue growing 10%. You know, you look at the SaaS Poclips. You look at the rewriting of software multiples to like three and a half times. Those companies are probably, at best, worth $3 to $400 million. So the question then becomes, have our fund manager, and everybody has those companies in their portfolio, you know. But have the fund managers been proactive in marking things down? We've had fund managers, for the most part, be proactive and mark things down.

We've had other fund managers that haven't, and we know that those are unrealistic marks. The other thing that we do, just to give you a sense of this, is when we diligence a fund manager, you know, for the first time, we, we are very founder-centric. So we'll call, you know, all of the founders that they've ever invested in and really get a good sense of like, you know, can this person help you or how does they help you? But also importantly, and this gets into some of the inside football, you know, a fund manager has to come to us with a plan, right? Portfolio construction. We're going to invest in 20 companies.

I'm going to invest a million dollars in each. what we do is we assess the credibility of that. So if you're an angel and you're getting 25K into a bunch of companies, that's one thing. But if you're running an institutional fund and you're saying to your LPs, I'm going to get a million bucks into each company, that's what we want to hear from the founders. So we run a very founder-centric diligence process. Yeah, my best ever investment is roughly at 150x to 200 X right now. And I would love to think about a world where I could have, I put 25K in. I would love to think about a world where I could have put a million.

A million in. But like, honestly, at that time, this was a few years ago, 25K was the, like, I was begging for 25K. So I could never go out and be like, yeah, like, yeah, had a million. There was someone else. They wanted to give me a million. I turned it down. I was like, no, it was like, I was getting the last slug. And I'm very grateful for that.

But, but, but yeah, that's. You got to fight for that allocation. It's so interesting to think about the path into building the next site. I have those regrets too. Like I've invested in two of the three best venture returning funds ever. We're not in lowercase one, but we're involved with lower carbon now. And I've known Chris Saka for probably 12 years. But the other two funds are Founders Fund 2, which I'm in personally, and also blockchain capital two, which is Brad and Bart Stevens.

So that FFF2 is approaching three. Yeah, Founders Fund 2 is probably going to be a 300x fund. I think blockchain capital right now is 157x fund and it's on its way to being 250. And Chris Sacko, of course, was 204. So, you know, I didn't realize FF2 was that good. It's SpaceX. It's amazing. No, it was a lot of fun.

Yeah. Yeah. Not having more in those. Yeah. Wow. but yeah thank you for coming on thank you so much for talking about the anti portfolio the wins the losses this is like what makes a great interview so thank you so much it's been a lot of fun yeah I appreciate it we'd love to have you back on and talk

more about venture the different landscape how rounds are changing how fun yeah next time what what I think we would appreciate because you have a bunch of interesting data as like a regular interview where you're talking about the current actual market dynamics from an LPS standpoint because like super interesting getting that kind of read all the venture stuff and the venture deployment is, you know, a lagging indicator typically of, you know, LP activity for, you know, historical LP activity. So this was great. I appreciate it. Yeah. Thanks for having me on. Yeah. Have a great rest of your day. Have a great rest of your week. And we'll talk to you soon, Michael. Thank you so much. Let me tell you about Cisco. Critical infrastructure for the AI era

unlock seamless real-time experiences and new value with Cisco. And our next guest is June Sung Park from Simile. He's back. Oh, founder and CEO with a huge fundraise. June, how are you doing? Welcome back to the show. Hi, everyone. Grace and you all.

Great to see you. Dude, you've been cooking. You've been cooking. It must be about a year since you're on. I don't know. It's blown by, but congratulations. Why don't you give us the news first? Because it's the first gong hit of the show.

I got to warm up the gong, and then you've got to tell me. What happened? How much did you raise? We raised $200 million at $200 million. Thank you. So, where is the company today? Take me through the footprint. How big is the company?

What really unlocked this new round? So the last time I was at TVPN, I believe it was about five months ago. Since then, the company, literally the team itself has quadruple. And one of amazing thing that we're seeing here is the pure market demand. The simulally is a company. It's an applied AI lab that is creating foundation model of human behavior, where we create models that can predict human behaviors across different market segments in the future in the multi-agent simulations.

And this particular area of study and model is seeing an extreme amount of demand across retail. So we've been working together very closely with CVS, but other Fortune 10, Fortune 50 retailers. but also in finance, in some of the largest financial banks that are out there today, and also in CPG companies and more. So the market demand has been incredible. Demand for AI products is insane everywhere, and clearly no different here. How are you grading yourself?

Because it sounds like this feels like the kind of product where the value prop, if the product works, is like almost too good to be true, right? Try to understand people's future actions so that you can better serve them as customers and all that kind of thing. And I feel like humans want to believe that, you know, they have free will and like, you know, you couldn't possibly predict my next move, June. I'm too unpredictable. I'm sure you disagree.

But like how good, how good is the product today and how much better can it get? Like from an accuracy standpoint. and on that, like what gets a CVS or one of these big logos confident in your product where they're actually changing the roadmap based around your data? This is great question. So there's a technical side and the market side. On the technical side, today we may have already seen many models that are trying to be amazing reasoning models.

So many of the labs are working on this. So they would go to more core skills of the world, get experts. data, encoding, natural sciences, mathematics, these are trying to solve the objective problems in our lives. Similarly, doesn't actually care about any of that. The models that we create are models that are trying to be as human as possible to actually represent the human values, preferences, taste, all the subjective half of human brain. So what we do is we get into partnership with places like Gallup of the world that are amazing at creating a representative the sample of human population.

And we try to understand what is the real behavior and distribution of our human population. So really, on the technical side, the success here is can we predict that distribution, can we predict people's behaviors, and can we represent them at the scale that we want? The vision here is to actually represent only 8 billion people along the way, and we're very much going aggressively towards that momentum. And right now, we are representing tens of millions of people as we speak. Yeah. So that's the technological side.

How much? Yeah, yeah, continue. I have another question, but continue. And of course, on the market side, this technology is now having real impact. So we've been in deployment. So we're obviously a fairly young company. However, the simulation as technology has been in deployment

in some of the largest markets in the world. And companies are making real decisions. They are usually starting from actually replicating what they know to be ground truth. The studies they have run, the behaviors of their customer they're aware of. Now we run them in simulation. we see that they replicate with extreme accuracy.

And once they replicate, we go on to test new markets to basically help them test pre-deployment testing on new markets, new product, message testing, and actually show ROI on those predictions. Okay, very, very cool tool. Sounds like it's working. This feels like there's one scenario here, the sort of sad scenario is like big companies get access to the crystal ball that allows them to just like compound their scale and their growth and their customer bases and and they have access you're

building like predictive super intelligence or predictive intelligence the biggest companies in the world have access to this meanwhile the like long tail of you know shopify brands and smaller companies are just stuck you know guessing uh i'm super curious Do you think there's a product to be built that, you know, the long tail of companies can, can leverage to get access to that same intelligence? Because I feel like a big company can afford to spend $20 million launching a new product and, like, swinging and missing. So they have the advantage of scale and being able to take different shots on goal,

and they have this sort of like base of successful products. Whereas you have a young startup that's just trying to get off the ground, and you have maybe one, two shots to make something, you know, thinking about consumer brands. your consumer brand and your first or second product aren't a hit, like you're probably not around to launch the third. So I'm curious about how many people you can get this to. So it's a great question. I would actually look at this as the way to democratize access to people.

If you look at how insights really operates today, if you're a large enough company, you have the budget and you have access to your customers to go after those customers to better understand them, to actually talk to them, get their feedback. but especially their younger company that is small, that doesn't have a big budget, that is very cost prohibitive in many ways. Simulation is the way to get access to people in a scalable way. So it is actually a way to democratize this function. You can also think about this from the people's perspective, people who are represented by simulations. There are so many decisions that are being made today where we would love to be able to listen to people and actually see and get their feedback.

However, in practice, it's very difficult. You cannot actually go talk to millions of people every time you need to make a decision. But if you can create simulations of people, then that is representation at scale. So in the grandest sort of scheme of simile, what we are really trying to achieve is to bring human voices to the rooms where the most important decisions are being made for our society. And what does that actually look like in practice? Is that like people are developing a product, again, I'll use like a big CPG company, they're developing a product and they can actually like pitch, like, effectively like, like, I'm wondering how much this is like tech space right now versus actually conversational. Like, can you simulate talking to your customers? I'm sure the YC folks would, would laugh at the this like stop simulating talking to your customers and just talk to your actual customers but but it feels like very valuable you know there's there's every founders had the experience of like having a big

customer meeting and it either going great or not going great and sometimes you wish you could have like just done a bunch of simulations of that conversation before you actually went into it so what is this actually like how are people interacting with the product now and where will they and what are the other kind of interaction uh formats of the future really right so our customer come in and what they see is an interface that allows them to filter down to a population of their interest. So they can describe the population to be whatever they wanted to be. Let's say male living in California in their 30s. And then they can literally ask any questions. That can be a behavioral environmental questions. What about male podcasters in their 30s in California?

You know, you must have guessed. You know, I simulated both of you before coming on today. You did that last time. That's like last time. You're like, we've had this. conversation thousands of times. This is my thousand first time I'm having this conversation with you. Yes, yes. But our customers can literally filter down to any population of their interest, and they can ask questions. It can be a survey form.

They can also send images. If it's image asset, videos, if it's a video like advertisement, it can even be a product demo, whether it's a Figma or real website. And our agents will actually traverse through those websites and Figma Mok-Mox. and basically give feedback once they have seen it. Now, that's how the product is being leveraged today. But one of the things that I also find to be quite exciting is as agentic development goes much more prevalent,

the cost of production is going down every single day. Now, the real alpha in that case really is to understand what do people actually care about. We can generate 10,000 variations of this product, which one actually matters to people. So in that way, similarly also has an opportunity now to actually inform not just human decision makers, but also agentic decision makers who had delegated power from real humans.

So this is done through MCP, API. These are the kind of product that are also getting built instantly. So, yeah. Oh, okay. Very interesting. Thank you so much for coming in the show. Congratulations to the progress. Really, really awesome.

Yeah, one of the most, I love how sci-fi the company is, but also grounded in practical business. Yeah. That's a great way to put it. Yeah. It's like very, very sci-fi, but like then it's like CVS is a big customer

and driving actual value, which is great. Next time you come on, I'm sure it'll be soon given, given the trajectory. But I want you before the conversation to predict, you know,

10 questions that you think John would ask, 10 that I would ask. And then let's, let's compare at the end. I have a feeling you'll be able to, at least like 60% accuracy. Yeah. But this is great.

Well, thank you so much for coming on the show. You go soon. Congratulations. Cheers. Talk to you soon. Let me tell you about Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform, the gross of your business, unless you sell in seconds online and store on mobile and social and marketplaces and now with

AI agents. And our next guest is in the waiting room already. We have Karen Punger from K2 space with an amazing update. How are you doing? Here he is. Good to see again. He's back. You're back.

Welcome back. give us the news the gongs warmed up i want to hit it again yes and we just announced a 500 million round congratulations uh so for anyone living under a data center here on earth what's going on in space what's the latest on the space economy anything happening any big any big deal not that much it's been it's been a quiet year um you know a lot of like seed stage investment is nothing much going on in space this year um but no i uh yeah we we started k t We want to build giant satellites. Since the last time we talked in December,

we flew our first giant satellite. We called the mission Dramatos, if you guys remember. And it's gone well. We're 120 days in. We proved that we could do a lot of really hard things. And yeah, this round comes on the back of that. What was the very first satellite that you thought about putting up in terms of actual use case?

If I go back to the very first deck or memo you put together, obviously there was a vision for building satellites, putting them in space, but were you thinking cameras or internet or data centers? Or like, what was the earliest prediction? So when we started the company in June in 2022, our pitch tech was all about Starship. And it was all about like building physically,

what's the largest possible satellite you could build using Starship. Yeah. And it was, I mean, we were thinking about data centers. We were thinking about orbital fuel stations. We were thinking about giant telescopes. Like, and our pitch tech to show you like how wrong we were, we were like, oh yeah, in 2024. we'll be using, you know, Starship on like a monthly basis.

Yeah. A little bit wrong on time in there. But yeah, it's all right. And those delays, I mean, there have been delays. Everything, I mean, the video of Starship landing that dropped like a week ago is incredible. Everyone's like, you know, I can't believe this isn't CGI. Are you set up, do you set up your business to be insulated from those delays? Is the overall like space economy broad, broad enough and diverse enough that at this point,

slight delays. Everyone sort of adjusts all the different actors from employees to investors. No one really freaks out when there's like a slight delay there because everyone prices it in. Yeah, we got fortunate. We had a few, a few very smart people tell us in 2022. Maybe don't go full send on Starship. Okay. Yeah. Thankfully. And so we built something that's like compatible with Falcon 9, our entire business. Like we announced that we also crossed a billion dollars in signed contracts. All those contracts are tied to Falcon 9.

nine, right? That's not big number. So I have heard, I think we've all heard the pitch of lots of small satellites, potentially data centers network together. We've all seen how well Starlink works. It's an incredible technology. And it's an incredible technology because it works with Falcon 9. It also works with Starship.

But is there an actual use case or a world where you see basically, the starship faring filled with just a single satellite, some huge thing that goes up, stays there, and it's massive. And there's benefits of the scale to that degree. Yeah, I think for us, at least we're going to use it for proliferation, like lots of big satellites. I think there's probably some military use cases that might get interesting where you go even bigger and maybe fewer per starship. But for the most part, we're going to stick to like, okay, let's put up like 50 of these in a starship and think about how to max out how much power per satellite and power per launch vehicle.

Sure. Maybe on the telescope side, like, he starts to get, like, giant telescope, starts to get interesting. But even those with the Hubble, like, you can usually,

like, assemble things in space, which sounds even more complicated than anything else, but it has been done before. Like, the ISS didn't go up in one big piece. It was assembled over time, which is remarkable to think about.

But congratulations. Walk us through the, the energy density or energy, the power output that comes from, these satellites because there's this big vision that Elon's been very good about laying out the timeline

who knows might slip or whatever but there's this idea of like gigawatts in space that would be meaningful to the AI inference market but there's clearly going to be a walk crawl run Starlink has a certain amount of power we've seen that that can work but what is the scale up

and build out of just getting more energy in space before you start running into crazy heating and what the solar capacity can be. Yeah, I mean, power drives everything in space, right? If you think about communications, power drives how much throughput you can put down on the ground, it drives the strength signal. If you think about compute, power drives how much compute you can host. It is like the fundamental metric that kind of ties every development to. And so, you know, I was telling people like four years ago, we started this company called a K2 because we wanted to help make humanity a type

two cartership civilization, right? Like one that's able to harness massive amounts of energy, right? Hallmark as a Dyson sphere. At the time, I had to explain, like, what is a Carterchev, right? Nobody knew what that was. And now everyone, Elon is like, I know exactly what that is. I know how it works. And so for us, like, the whole idea is keep pushing the bounds of power so that we can have even more compute. We can have even more comms. And over time, like, every single infrastructure play we're going to want to do in space is going to tie back to power. Maybe a bit of mass as well, but, like, all of those require going built, you know, building bigger, effectively.

On heat radiation in space, that's been sort of one of the sources of like fear, uncertainty and doubt around the data center in space plan. I've seen really, you know, thoughtful takes from scientists on both sides. My question is more on where that intellectual property, that R&D will happen. Because if this were 50 years ago, we'd probably be like it will be done at DARPA, NASA, and it will be in the public domain and every company will be able to benefit from it. We're now in this world where some of that might happen at SpaceX and that might be sold or licensed. But are you going to be working on that particular technology?

Do you see multiple companies creating standards around it or is it just sort of a horse race between every company where everyone will have their own solution? Maybe the best one wins. How will that play out? Yeah, I think the evolution is going to be there's a conventional way to solve the thermal problem, even at the 100 kilowatts. a class satellite, right? Like, you can do it with the existing technology. It's just an engineering problem more than a physics or R&D problem. Over time, I think we're just going to get more optimal,

and we're also going to be pushing up power more and more, where everyone's going to try, like, you know, the new science, right? So I do think you're right. Like, we're going to see a massive amount of capital investment invested in managing thermal in space in a way that was never going to happen in a world where NASA was the only one pushing, you know, the R&D forward. I think it's going to be pretty cool. I think we'll see, you know, like how different strategies play out for

now in the next five years, I think it's going to be relatively conventional. It's not going to be, it's just engineering that's like solving some problems that should be solved. Yeah. I feel like a lot of maybe it's all hard tech, certainly space companies, they sort of go back and forth between the dual use opportunities. They'll do some government work for a few years while the commercial sector sort of catches up. Then they'll flip it and all of a sudden the revenue will be 90% commercial. Are you on that sort of roller coaster as well? Do you see you, you, Do you see the company going through phases of, well, we're doing a lot of government contracts, but we ultimately want to have a big commercial business or vice versa.

How do you see the tradeoffs there playing out? Yeah, we've always seen it as like both, right? I'm going to be about 50-50 in our business. Like the first big contract we announced this year was a massive commercial contract for 30 satellites that we're going to deliver in 2028. Yeah. The second contract after that was partnering with Andrel on Golden Doe. So for us, like, the whole goal is to be able to build this like super performant

platform that we can use for national security and commercial issues. Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. Do you think hyperscalers and big telecom companies over time will feel like they need in-house space in a more meaningful way? Like right now it feels like having a specialized partner makes a lot of sense, but then as space becomes a more important part of like, let's say, cloud and on the telecom side is just like general communications. Like you'd imagine them thinking like, way, we should try

to buy a company like K2 because this is too important for us to just be entirely reliant on an external partner. I can see it going both ways, but I'm curious your view on it. 100% is going to be a mix, right? If you look at like how comms and compute happen on the ground trusually, right? Like meadows rolling out their own deep C fibers, right? You know, Google's partnering with certain neoclots in a certain way. I think that, you know, exact same thing is going to happen as we take those applications and put them in space. Yeah. It is funny looking at the mag seven, I guess mag eight now, if you include SpaceX, like if the question is just like going up high doing things off of Earth, like Google has the

balloon project and Facebook was doing solar powered planes for a while, Bezos obviously has Blue Origin and Amazon, not directly linked, but there's a play there. And so the the big tech companies are certainly waking up more and more doing deals, but also having stuff in-house and the outside. It's a fascinating market watching it evolve. Yeah, it's interesting to compare launch to just the frontier labs. A lot of people realizing like, whoa, it's kind of, it's interesting not having a frontier model and being reliant on another partner. And then on the space side, it's like, hey, we don't necessarily want just one highly competent launch party. Yeah.

Or sorry, launch company. Yeah. So. And we've seen that with Rocket Lab and a bunch of other companies in the same. space economy. But yeah. I think that's the coolest part about this, right? Like,

we're seeing like a purely capitalist reason to go invest tons of capital and things like launch vehicles. Yeah. Right. Like that's something that didn't exist, five or even 10 years ago and, you know, outside of SpaceX, right?

So I think that that's probably like one of the most fun dynamics of this whole orbital compute dynamic that's happening now is everybody's like, wait, to your point, like, hey, launch is just like, you know, a model. And if I, if I'm the only one that has it, I'm going to be in a lot of trouble. Yeah. Yeah. I can't stop thinking how you're kind of office studio-mogging us right now. We have a pretty big space here, but you have a K-2 space.

Yeah, it's amazing. Go bigger. Go bigger. Excited for the next one. Great to see you and congrats to the team on all the progress. Yeah, thanks so much for taking the time to come chat with us. Have a great day. Cheers.

We'll talk to you soon. Let me tell you about the New York Stock Exchange. Want to change the world? Raise capital at the New York Stock Exchange. Just do it. Stop making excuses. Up next, we have Vlad Tennev from Robin Hood. He's the co-founder and CEO.

Back for the third or fourth time. Glad, how you doing? Welcome back to the show. We got new sound effects. We got new sound effects. Great to see you. How's it going? The market's in turmoil.

There's obviously crazy news with situational awareness, but how are things going in your world? Things have been strong. We announced earnings, and we had a really strong, quarter record revenues 1.31 billion total platform assets all-time high over and we had more records on trading so records again with equity options prediction markets and we launched Trump accounts as well as Robin Hood chain and token so we're doing a lot

stuff. I think the thing that I'm most excited about is, you know, wrapping everything together. I don't think any company is pushing broad individual ownership as much as Robin Hood is. I think that's important, not just for individuals, but also on a societal level. You know, I think we're in a very fragile spot right now and plugging more people into owning real assets, giving them more of the upside, more of the benefit. could lead to a more stable and prosperous society. How difficult is it to actually, when you say unify everything, I imagine that there are regulatory considerations,

there are also just UX tradeoffs that feel like, I don't know, it feels like it's more human taste than AI. It feels like it's not so much like the code that goes into the app, but real decisions about the hierarchy of different. products in your app on the website, for example. How much of your time is spent thinking about the, like the Robin Hood super app, like how you actually design these things? How human is that versus you can sort of A-B-Test your way there?

We spend a lot of time thinking about that. And you can't A-B-Test everything, right? Like you can't A-B-Test the name of the product, the front door. or what's on the App Store pages. So yeah, I'd say up until a couple of years ago, we were very much trying to rev up the product engine, putting all the pieces in place. Now we've got so many pieces.

We launched 13 new products at our previous event. The world is flat. And an increasing amount of time has spent on kind of this coordination and how many apps should we have. The main app, like what goes into it, How do we surface the right things to the right people? How do we push personalization?

So, yeah, it's, I spend a lot of my time on that. How is, how is, so we've been in this AI, you know, the bottleneck cycle. The age of bottleneck investing is probably not over, but symbolically maybe over with the situational awareness situation today. But something, I think that there's a lot of. American retail investors that for the first time were it was like, oh, wait, I want to own this Korean stock or I want to own this Japanese stock because this toilet company is in the bottleneck path. How is that changing how you're thinking at Robin Hood? Obviously, you want to make sure that if there's an asset that investors want to buy, like your job is to make sure that they

can do that. But markets are complex and, you know, all these regions are quite different. Yeah, I mean, I have many thoughts. I think that, you know, we were hearing from customers that they wanted Korean stocks, right? And so international stocks were one of the features people wanted, but I don't know, it was probably like top 15, top 20, right? It wasn't one of the top features. And then suddenly, maybe last quarter, every single conversation. I would have, people are like, when are the Korean stocks coming? Why can't you bring them faster, right? And then, and then you saw, um, some of them started getting ADRs listed, leveraged ETFs. And I think I had two minds of it. One, obviously, we intend to offer every asset. We want, if people want to trade it, we'll, we'll offer it, uh, to them to trade. But also when you start hearing that every everyone wants Korean stocks, it should raise alarm bells that maybe something could be slightly

overheated, at least temporarily, which I think is what ended up happening. I think it's interesting too that Ken Griffin is in the middle of this. A lot of respect for Ken Griffin. Just, you know, you can tell he has pure love of the game, loves what he does, you know, maybe in the way that a Pavarati is you know the art of the opera singer and you know Trump

Trump obviously makes deals Ken Griffin provides liquidity in the most challenging and uncertain of times so yeah him being in the middle of this buying the Constitution yeah I thought

I thought that was very entertaining I view him as like a a a shark, like a very large shark, like a megalodon, that has an important role in the ecosystem where sometimes he, you know, is, you know, you maybe don't want to be, uh, well, this is just a second or third time that he's been like the final boss of tech stories where the constitution Dow, all the energy was intact.

It was this thing that happens. And then at the last second, it's like, let me introduce you to Ken Griffin. And then the same thing with the situational awareness story. It's like purely a tech story for, you know, months and months and months and months and the domain of Twitter and podcasts. And there's like one or two Wall Street Journal articles about it. But then all of a sudden, it's Ken Griffin at the very much. Yeah. How about a month or two ago, there was a, like, this sort of narrative bubbling that like the West Coast had just like eaten the East Coast.

And like the East Coast is having less relevance, right? And you could see this in the performance of all a bunch of the hedge funds on the East Coast. you look at their performance relative to Leopold's and you're just sitting there like, you know, what is, what's, what are they doing on the East Coast? Are they just sort of asleep at the wheel? And then, you know, the events of the last 24, 48 hours, or at least since Friday, have shown that like, yeah, maybe the East Coast, like, has learned a lesson or two about the way that markets work in these cycles.

And, and I feel like Robin Hood's been in a position where it's, like, very much a West Coast company to me. at the same time you guys have, I think now at this point, like probably more respect than any West Coast tech company for traditional finance and that whole world. So I'm curious how you was, did you ever kind of like buy into that narrative that tech was eating finance or did you always see it as just wishful thinking? I mean, I think certainly there's some truth in that technology, which, had at its epicenter, Bay Area, you know, Silicon Valley has disrupted lots of industries.

I never really looked at it as a coastal thing. It's not like, you know, rap music or anything like that, where you're kind of in your neighborhood, you know, offering, offering the technology. Everything's fully global. And, you know, I'm sitting here in New York. Usually I'm in Menlo Park. We've got offices all over the world. New York's probably our second biggest. And now it's increasingly a global thing. I think a lot of these people are, you know, a lot of the hedge fund folks are working remotely and now out of California. So I don't know if, yeah, I don't know how much of it is actually location based. Well, I think part of the interesting story for, uh, We were talking with Schrelli earlier, and he was like kind of walking us through, like,

if you're a hedge fund that's getting margin called, like what that's actually like. And it's like for being a technology focused hedge fund, it's still the irony of it all. And even an AI focused hedge fund, the irony of it all is like it sounds like if you're a hedge fund that's getting margin called, you're spending a lot of time on the phone with your prime brokers and you're trying to like, it's not really much of a technology problem as like you're working with a lot of people and a lot of different buyers and there's all this game theory of like when you know trying to exit positions without letting other funds know that you're you know it just seems like this um yeah it's like a very fascinating like when the stakes are high right it ends up being down to relationships um yeah i think uh yeah i think um you know, algorithms and automated processes are great for the typical case, you know, the 99% scenario, but I think humans still have to get involved at the extremes. Yeah. It feels like retail crowd, for the most part, is like extremely, I mean, it's all just very power law driven.

So I would imagine, like, even though oil has been like a super interesting market this year, it wasn't quite as interesting or didn't have quite as much attention as like the bottleneck trade. And certainly like, you know, crypto has been, has probably gotten less attention this year than many of the years prior just because it was like, well, if you can buy some stock that's trading at $100 million and it can go up to $2 billion in the span of a couple months, like that's what gets people really interested. is that, is that, is that, is that, is that, is that, is that track with with what you guys are seeing? And like how on, on the commodity side, like, what, what are you guys doing on on that front? Is there a lot more things you can do at the product level or did you, had you already sort of established, like, is, is trading oil on Robin Hood as good as it, as, as it's going to get? Yeah, I think there's, there's obviously more we can do. do. We have great futures trading products. We have a great mobile experience. We have a trading ladder. I don't know if you guys have tried it, but it's like very tactile, easy to use, particularly on mobile. Futures business has been, has been growing quickly as well. One of the things we announced this quarter is we've got 13 business lines. So lucky number 13, generating 100 million in annualized revenue.

or more. So we added two more this quarter, Robin Hood Legend, which is our pro trading platform. And a big part of that is actually futures. Futures traders love the desktop interface. And it's just much easier to see the chart and have the news and everything all in one place. So Robin Hood Legend got to north of 100 million annualized. And the Robin Hood Gold Card crossed into 100 million as well. So- Yeah. The last number I remember was nine. At some point last year, you had nine business lines doing over 100, so added even more. He added four since then. It's like, I had this analogy that it was like adding

cylinders to a high performance vehicle. So now there were at 13. I'm probably close to needing another analogy. But yeah, it's remarkably diversified. I don't know. Bentley's got the W16. Or no, sorry, sorry. That's the Bugatti. Bugatti. It has the V16 now. Maybe I've got the three more. Yeah, yes, somewhat related to Jory's question. It's very interesting that when you identified a new product request, Korean stocks, you were just stack ranking it based on customer demand, not really financial volume. It felt very much like when you talk to customers, that's just what they're asking, and it's just maybe showing up in forms and feedback and requests. And I'm interested in other markets that might sort of pattern match to that where

there's a lot of money moving around, but it's maybe lower on the priority stack. And I'm interested in how you're thinking about compute futures because that feels like that could be a very big market sort of insuring data centers and providing some sort of derivatives market on top of compute, which is a massive market. But when I think about it, I feel like some of those big numbers might just come from, you know, a hyperscaler who gets an insurance contract from their bank when they go to build a big data center complex. And it might not actually be the vast majority of the volume might not be driven by retail at any point in the future. And so I'm wondering how you deal with new financial markets that are going to be big, but you don't see a lot of demand from them.

How do you think about reasoning through how you should play in that market? Yeah, I mean, I think if we have strong conveys. will add it even before it becomes a huge asset class in terms of volume. I think we did that with crypto. You know, we added crypto in 2018, and it was many years of next to no volume until end of 2020, when suddenly it just really inflected. So compute futures, yeah, if there's a lot of demand and if people are trading, them and if institutions are using them to hedge, of course, we'll look to add that.

I don't know if we're seeing much of that yet. I think the tricky part about that is it's typically a rapidly depreciating asset. So I think those tend to not make for very good markets. But you are in a unique situation where compute on a per, on like a given architecture tends to be increasing in the short term. I don't know how long that'll last, but

I think that's rather unique in history and we'll see if it's the same in the next two to three months. Can you take me through a little bit more of the story of the Robin Hood Gold Card and how it's changed, how you're positioning it, how it's evolving, what's driving

the growth? Yeah, so what's driving the growth is a very simple value prop, three percent cashback on all categories, which is much bigger than what you'd get with a typical credit card. You know, it's market leading. And so when we find that the best products are easy to explain to your friends, they grow through word of mouth. And, you know, if someone asks you, well, why would I use this credit card? You have a very simple answer, three percent cash back on categories. And of course, The user experience is nice and you have virtual cards and family features and we make it really good around the edges.

But I think the clear reason that's easy to explain is a big part of it. So we're now at above a million card holders with the gold card. I mentioned earlier 100 million in annualized revenue for the card business. And last week we started rolling out platinum. So we have, um, there we got. Oh, I don't know. Yeah, we've got like a growing card portfolio. I think the platinum card is really, really good.

We, um, if you haven't checked out the website, I really just, uh, sometimes I just scroll through the website and look at all the great things that, that we're offering. The platinum card is a highlight, I think. I love. Uh, Robin Hood Social. What's the latest there? I've been seeing some. screenshots. It's already providing a lot of entertainment, even for people that are not

using the platform yet. But how's it going? Yeah, I've seen those two. Yesterday was a big day. Yeah, so Robin Hood Social is something I'm really excited about. It's growing. We're rolling it out. It's not out to everyone yet. And the reason for that is we've just been iterated. on all of the details. Building a social network from scratch is pretty complicated, right? You want to, there's a decision about what type of content you want to allow people to post. And at first we started with only trades. And we came to the conclusion, maybe that was a little restrictive.

You want to give people a little bit more freedom to post charts and things like that, to post comments, maybe news stories. but you don't want to give too much freedom. So we've been iterating heavily. We just added politician trades as well, which have been doing quite well. And yeah, now you're starting to get to the point where you have legitimate influencers on Robin Hood Social with thousands of followers. And we're still rolled out to a relatively small portion of the customer base. So I think we've got good signal that it'll do well and it'll be useful. And yeah, yesterday it's sort of like transition to people posting Robin Hood social content on X, which is very interesting.

I think the unique differentiator that we have that makes it compelling to people is that there's actual trades and real portfolios tied to the account. So we can combine these two things, you know, real transactions with opinions. and that gives you a primitive that you can't find easily in other social networks. Yeah, the same content. You know, you see somebody post on X, like just closed out this position. Like, you know, I'm updating my thesis or whatever. It doesn't have the same weight if they are doing that and they either printed on it or, you know, or took a meaningful loss.

So it's great content. I have one last question. You've been very early and very bullish on mathematical super intelligence. there's been a whole bunch of conjectures solved. It feels like a total validation of your idea that AI would be very good at mathematical, problem solving. How have you processed the recent conjectures that have been solved by various models? How does this update you?

Do you have like a next hurdle that you want the AI to solve? Because it feels like, I mean, I know people are still throwing like the Riemann hypothesis in P versus NP, at it. But aside from that, do you have like an idea or vision of where this goes? Yeah, I think that's an awesome question, John. So the next thing is in the same way that I applied my mathematical skills to computer science. You know, I was a mathematician and then I became a business person. What we found is that math skills and coding actually go hand in hand. So what I'm really excited about now is applying mathematical superintelligence to software. So in the same way that MSI can be used to make sure that your math is correct,

when you have a computer program or a piece of software, it can be used to make sure that's correct and that there's no mistakes. And I think particularly now when we have mythos, finding something. security bugs and you see all the scary stuff like we saw last week with the hugging face breach rather than it being a cat and mouse game of just escalating model capabilities, finding breaches and preventing breaches from happening, verification and proof that software is immune to these types of bugs, I think, is the future. So you're going to see it first.

Formal verification of software systems that you use and there could almost be. Like, I mean, you know, you go to those websites and it's like there's a security certificate at the bottom and no one really knows if it does anything. But in the future, you could actually land at a website where the entire code base has been formally verified. Yeah. And now the absence of the security certificate is a red flag. Browsers will block it. I think you're going to see it first in domains where accuracy and correctness are critical. Sure.

So you're seeing it a lot in crypto, actually, with crypto formal verification. is having a bit of a moment. You're going to see it in semis. If you're producing a chip, and the process of producing a chip is you get to tape out and beyond. If you find a mistake, it's incredibly expensive to reverse.

So you'll see it in chip design. You'll see it in system software. You know, a lot of software, legacy software is written in languages like C++. So, yeah, I think you'll start to see it in these systems languages, critical software, and then from there, it'll just, as the price goes down, I think it'll be ubiquitous. Yeah, that's exciting.

There's a lot of, there's a lot of fear about the cybersecurity questions, and I think it's great that the mathematical progress can actually apply, even if it takes a couple reasoning steps, and I think people will need to digest it. And then they'll actually have to see it in, the proof is in the pudding. If we go through a whole period, we're like, wow, yeah, there haven't been any incidents, even though everyone's been piling zero days of every system, but we're still in a good spot. Very exciting. Wait pill.

There you go. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Congratulations. Always good to chat. Cheers, guys. Have a great rest of your day. And we'll talk to you soon. Goodbye.

Let me tell you about MongoDB. What's the only thing faster than the AI market? Your business on MongoDB, don't just build AI. I own the data platform that powers it. I have one last post I want to go through. Jordy, have you seen Spider-Man No Way Home? Absolutely. No, not.

Absolutely not. Should I? I think I have. I'm pretty into movies now. I saw The Odyssey and I appreciate film. You're a film buff now. I'm somewhat of a, yeah. Honestly.

No, there was a question on the timeline from Rob Felt re-watching. He was re-watching Spider-Man No Way Home to prep for brand, new day, the new Spider-Man movie. That is actually insane. What? Right as you said that, a white spider landed from the ceiling on my microphone. You see this?

Yeah, yeah, I do. Wow. You said Spider-Man. Maybe you are the next Spider-Man. Just landed. I'll try to show everyone. Yeah, you might need to turn down the console. The put down your laptop.

Swing it out more. Oh, it's really going around. Oh, it's on the ground. Whoa, there we go. Can you see this at all? I don't know if people can see this, but there is a spider crawling on George's microphone. You'll have to really, oh, yeah, you can see it in the monitor right there. That's a very good omen.

I think that's a good omen. Anyway. Spiders can hear. Yeah. They can speak English. Well, let's, you feel free to deal with that. I'm going to talk about this. So, in Spider-Man, No Way Home, the movie, the prequel to brand new day.

I think Homecoming is in this series, right? There's a whole series of new, the latest round of Spider-Man with Tom Holland, right? Daily Bugle web show scene pops up and all I can think about now is a question. Is the TBP anesthetic inspired by Jay Jonah Jameson's web show? And if you look at it, it does sort of look like our show. And so it's a good question. Did we see this film? did Jordy, who is the brand architect of the TBPN aesthetic,

watch Spider-Man No Way Home, and say, ah, I'd like that color, I like that design, let's bring that into our studio. And the answer? No. No. Lots of other influences, but this was actually not one of them. I believe I have seen this.

Yeah, we like the color green. I remember Jordy one morning, and we were working out, and he's like, we should do green. And I'm like, okay, yeah, that sounds good. I like green. and he's like, no one's done green. And I'm like, that's not true.

Like, Robin Hood is green. There's plenty. He's like, no one in tech has ever used green before. Not TBPN green. I'm like, it is a white space in the sense that like, yeah, I couldn't think of another podcast with the green, dark green background. And we did find our own space. We looked at Pinterest a lot for different references, some photos, some catalogs. I didn't look at Pinterest.

What images were you pulling from? Because I know you had some references. I mean, obviously F1, but just your brain? Just your brain? You don't let much go in there. Certainly not movies. I got to figure out where the spider went. This guy landed.

It was on the mic. I lost it. I think it's in the mic's in. I think that's a good place to call it. Anyway, it is a coincidence, Rob. That's your answer. It looks like. It is.

They're up almost 9% after that. And the market is, is way up. The NASDAX up 2.7.8%. Should have been in white suits. But it's a very sad day because we love such relational awareness and they're going through a really hard moment. We're wishing them the best, hoping that good things

come out of this ultimately. But it didn't feel appropriate to wear a white suit on such a red suit. I'm in a black suit. He's in a black suit because it's a very disappointing moment. But of course, everyone has a long career ahead of them and there are many ways to build back better

and do more big things in the future. in the world of AI and technology. So thank you for watching TBPN. Tune in tomorrow at 11 a.m. Pacific. That's right. Thanks for hanging out with us. Stars and Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Sign up for a newsletter at TBPN.com. And we will see you tomorrow.

Goodbye. King in the castle. It's 10.37 on Wall Street. Money never sleeps. You shouldn't either. Call me back.