TBPN - The Great Peptide Debate, SpaceX's Lunar Mass Driver, AI Coming for Zuck's Job | Martin Shkreli & Max Marchione, Mitchell Green, Shane Hegde, Dr. Adam Oskowitz, Robin Vince, David Senra

Episode Date: March 23, 2026

Sign up for TBPN’s daily newsletter at TBPN.com(01:22) - SpaceX's Lunar Mass Driver (41:12) - 𝕏 Timeline Reactions (54:37) - AI Coming for Zuck's Job (58:17) - The Great Peptide Debate w/ Martin Shkreli & Max Marchione. Martin Shkreli, often referred to as the "Pharma Bro," is an American investor and former pharmaceutical executive known for his controversial decision to drastically increase the price of the life-saving drug Daraprim. In the conversation, Shkreli expresses skepticism about the growing popularity of peptides, attributing it to psychological factors like identity control and distrust of institutions. He emphasizes the importance of adhering to established pharmaceutical practices and regulatory frameworks to ensure drug safety and efficacy. Max Marchione is the co-founder of Superpower, a health optimization platform focused on proactive, data-driven care and longevity. He works at the intersection of consumer health, diagnostics, and software, building tools that give users deeper visibility into their biology and long-term health. (01:31:35) - Mitchell Green, founder and managing partner of Lead Edge Capital, discusses the firm's recent closure of its $3.5 billion Fund 7, highlighting the strong interest from both existing and new limited partners. He emphasizes Lead Edge's unique approach, leveraging a diverse LP base of world-class executives and entrepreneurs to support portfolio companies through customer introductions, recruiting, and advisory roles. Green also addresses the resilience of the software industry, countering notions of a "SaaS apocalypse" by underscoring the enduring value and stickiness of enterprise software solutions. (01:43:28) - Shane Hegde, co-founder and CEO of Air, a creative operations platform, discusses the company's recent initiatives, including a new ad campaign in The New York Times and their most significant product release to date. He emphasizes that while AI is a powerful tool, it cannot replace the deeply subjective and perfection-driven nature of creative work. Hegde introduces five new features launching tomorrow: access to 50 AI models within Air, a canvas editor for asset manipulation, AI agents for automated edits, a context layer to maintain brand consistency, and a shift to usage-based pricing. (01:52:53) - Dr. Adam Oskowitz, co-founder and Chief Medical Officer of Doctronic, discusses their AI-native care platform that offers free, 24/7 health consultations, connecting users to licensed doctors across all 50 states for $39 per visit. He highlights the platform's efficiency, enabling doctors to see more patients per hour compared to traditional telehealth services, and mentions a pilot program in Utah where their AI system can renew prescriptions without direct physician involvement. Additionally, Dr. Oskowitz notes that the platform's ease of use encourages users to seek care they might otherwise forgo, addressing the longstanding supply-demand mismatch in medicine. (02:00:16) - Robin Vince, CEO of BNY Mellon, discusses the bank's strategic focus on integrating artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance operational efficiency, enrich client services, and expand its service offerings. He highlights the development of Eliza, BNY Mellon's enterprise AI platform, which supports over 125 AI-enabled solutions and empowers employees to build custom AI agents, fostering a culture of innovation. Vince also emphasizes the importance of responsible AI adoption, underscored by BNY Mellon's collaboration with Carnegie Mellon University to advance AI research and education. (02:17:26) - David Senra is the host of the Founders podcast, where he studies and distills the lives of history’s greatest entrepreneurs. Through deep dives into biographies of figures like Steve Jobs, Estée Lauder, and Henry Ford, he focuses on the patterns, habits, and principles behind building enduring companies. TBPN.com is made possible by:Ramp - https://Ramp.comAppLovin - https://axon.aiCisco - https://www.cisco.comCognition - https://cognition.aiConsole - https://console.comCrowdStrike - https://crowdstrike.comElevenLabs - https://elevenlabs.ioFigma - https://figma.comFin - https://fin.aiGemini - https://gemini.google.comGraphite - https://graphite.comGusto - https://gusto.com/tbpnKalshi - https://kalshi.comLabelbox - https://labelbox.comLambda - https://lambda.aiLinear - https://linear.appMongoDB - https://mongodb.comNYSE - https://nyse.comOkta - https://www.okta.comPhantom - https://phantom.com/cashPlaid - https://plaid.comPublic - https://public.comRailway - https://railway.comRestream - https://restream.ioSentry - https://sentry.ioShopify - https://shopify.com/tbpnTurbopuffer - https://turbopuffer.comVanta - https://vanta.comVibe - https://vibe.coFollow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive

Today is Monday, March 23rd, 2026. We are live from the TBP at Ultradome, the Temple of Technology, the Fortress of Finance. The Capital of Capital. Let me tell you about ramp.com. Time is money. Save both. These use corporate cards, bill pay, accounting,

and a whole lot more, all in one place. Very barnyard-themed this morning. Very barnyard-themed. Let me pull up the linear lineup. Linear, of course, is the system for modern software development. 70% of enterprise workplaces. are using agents if they're on. Very fun day today.

We got Martin Schrelli coming on with Max over at Superpower to debate. The peptides, two very different stances on these compounds. And we will see how it goes. Bring the popcorn. Is there a peptide that helps with debating? I'm sure there is. Is there like a DBT1, DBT-157 that you can take and then you become a, Hopefully, Max can make one before.

We'll see. Then we have Mitchell Green, lead edge capital coming on, 1230. Shane from Air, we're going into a lightning round. And then David Center is coming on at 115, hanging out in person. Don't forget. We're going to ask me what the meaning of life is. B&Y. Of course.

And Matt from Doctronic. Yeah. It's a very fun day. Anyway, over the weekend, you watched this live, right? Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, the CEO of SpaceX. got some folks together, gave a big keynote presentation about his vision for the future. Basically something that looked like an ultradome. It did look like an ultradome.

And so you watched this, right? I did watch it. I watched a little bit of it. And overall... And if you were taking a shot every time Elon said, Epic, you were... Hammered by the... Not in any state to drive after about three minutes. Yeah. He's got so much going on at this point.

I mean, he's doing... sports cars, cyber trucks, you know, Model 3, Model Y, just consumer cars. YXL. Space Internet, space data centers, space launch capacity, point to point. He's going to take us from one on a rocket from New York to Tokyo in an hour, 30 minutes. Neurlink, brain chips, tunnels. These Elon projects have just gotten bigger and bigger and bigger. Of course, he owns X and Twitter, XAI, Training Foundation models,

to make a consumer app where you chat with it as well as you know solve math and physics so the big and I yeah this was super rough it was I listened to it and it was a rough delivery like he seemed like he seemed a little like just like well okay got another thing to present and so the cadence wasn't quite there and he wasn't able to get the crowd going there was a lot of like waiting a little bit for the audience to like realize that that was a flaw in a slainer or something never bet against Elon. Sure. I'm not dumb enough to bet against Elon.

Yes. I'm not dumb enough to try to short any of his company. Yes, for sure. And I'm not, you know, by now you should have learned not to doubt. Yeah. What his organizations can do. Yeah. And even though this tariffab concept, you know, there's a lot of reasons that you would want to bet against it.

Yep. There's a lot of, I don't know that many. people that are genuinely sold on the space data centers in the near term. It's still is not clocking for me, John. It's not clock for me. That he's standing on business? It's not clocking. He's standing on business and you're, it's not clocking for you. It's not clocking to me that he's standing on space data centers. And so, so this entire pitch, you know, notable, seemingly the first time he's put the, the Tesla X-AI, SpaceX, logos together? Sure. No. The tunnel project, Hyperloop, was a blog post that he wrote and it appeared

both on the Tesla blog and the SpaceX blog at the same time. And everyone was like, who's going to be involved in this? And it turned out it was like a couple people from both sides. It became its own company at some point. I'm not saying it's the first time. No, no. But it does feel like E. Go on Mega, he's gearing for the Elon Mega Corp. And yeah, so just overall, Yeah. The pitch is he's basically saying like, okay, we're going to do TerraFab. It's this really hard project. And the evidence for why you should believe that it's going to work well,

he's like, we've done a lot of hard things in the past. Yeah. And then he talks a little bit about space data centers. And then he talks about needing something in the order of a thousand times, more compute. Yeah. Then we are... He says to reach a petawatt

will build an electromagnetic mass driver on the moon with robots like optimists and humans. No, but before the mass driver, he's talking about how... Oh, we're chip constrained. Which is true. Elon...

He gets it. Chip constrained by a thousand X. Sure. And so we have to do this. Yeah. We have to build more fab capacity. He doesn't lay out like a super compelling case

of what all the chips will be used for, right? Is they going to be, is SpaceX going to be a neocloud? Is it just for their own internal products? Like, you know, self-driving, humanoids. Yeah. It, you know, again, again, my criticism is not of any individual company as much as the presentation I just came away. He kept saying, like, if we can do this, it's going to be epic. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And, and, and there wasn't a really strong justification. There wasn't a strong justification other than it's going to be epic. Yeah. And then he just closes out with this render of the mass driver, which is, again, it's tight. Yeah. But I didn't, I didn't, what was the takeaway on like what we're even going

to use the mass driver for other than to get to a Kardashev 3 civilization, which again, all this stuff just feels so, so, so, so far in the future. Far out. But when I, he did, he did, he did, he did, he did drop the line turning science fiction into science science fact science fact no way which is I think it's a Josh wolf line I mean I don't know Josh is the first one ever say it but it's a good line yeah I think of it as a as a wolfism I do too and it's funny because Josh wolf was like the hardest critic of Elon oh that's right yeah and he was that's right like he basically had to stop at some point yeah of course But yeah, he kept saying these lines that he was like expecting like kind of laughter. Yeah, it was really hard.

I mean, doing like the actual delivery of a speech on stage. I mean, Jensen just went through this with the keynote at GTC where he didn't have a teleprompter. And he was able to deliver moments and get the crowd going. And the crowd sighs at GTC is really big. And so even if you just have a couple hardcore fans that really get you and have listened to every Jensen. keynote. They know. Yeah, they start clapping and then everyone starts clapping because it's in fact, and then pretty soon everyone's clapping. This is how it works. So yeah, yeah, I mean, the comedic timing, the delivery timing of like when to clap, when to be, whoa, you know, that was a little

tough. I don't know the way I actually know who was in the audience. It might have just been employees. It has a certain aesthetic to it. But interestingly about the tariffab, this is something I was advocating for back in 2022. So when the Biden Chips Act happened, there was this question about like what's going to happen with Intel, Intel should be at the like the center of the Chips Act because the whole pitch for the Chips Act was that America is not on the leading edge of semiconductor fabrication. And so we need to sort of pull our weight with our intellectual property laws to stop Taiwan from exporting them. Remember, Taiwan is its own country. They should in theory be able to sell their products anywhere. Like what, what say do we have over,

you know, if Japan wants to sell Playstations to China or anywhere, why do we have authority over them? Well, it comes down to the intellectual property. There's a lot of patents that have been licensed to ASML, to TSMC. And so we do have the ability to pull levers and strings to sort of limit those, especially if they're packaged by NVIDIA, an American company. We have export rules. But it's a stretch. But the whole thesis was America is going to lose to China unless we do this.

And so Intel was a very logical. And I remember there was like 60 billion or something up for grabs around the Chips Act. At the same time, Elon was marshalling around $60 billion to buy out Twitter, something like that, 40 something billion. And then Intel's market cap, they're $220 billion company now. I think that they were lower back in 2022. They were maybe $150 billion. And so it would have been a stretch, but between the chips.

fact money, all the private equity dollars that came in, all the venture capital dollars that came into by Twitter, there was a world where Elon just bought Twitter. And there was also that, that rumor that he was maybe meeting with Global Foundries, that there were a number of different, like, oh, like, what is Elon really great at? He's great at engineering efficiency. What is Intel need? It needs engineering efficiency. There was a world where, you know, they teamed up and Intel, you know, like really delivered on building new facilities much quicker. Yeah. But yeah, so here we are.

I think it makes total sense for Elon to make chips. Yep. I think it will make sense over time for XAI to start offering cloud services to other companies. Yeah. Having computer is valuable. But still, this seems like a kind of just kind of a blatant, sci-fi pump going into the IPO.

Maybe. I will take the other side of that, but first, let me tell you about CrowdStrike. Your business is AI, their business is securing it. CrowdStrike secures AI and stops breaches. And let me also tell you about the New York Stock Exchange. Want to change the world? Raise capital at the New York Stock Exchange. And we have, BNY was the first Bank of New York was the first company to go public on the New York Stock Exchange. And we have them joining later today. So the other side of this is, is that it is good to have a long-term vision, even if it is decades away. And that's what mass driver on the moon is.

It's not going to be realized this quarter. It's not going to be realized this year. Probably not even this decade. Elon, interestingly, didn't really put a date on it. Like he's, yeah, did he say something specific? He said, I hope to see it in my lifetime. Yeah, in his life. Which is like, I mean, he's 54.

He's got a while, right? Yeah, if he's a radical life extension guy, he could be like 300 years from now. Who knows? That's a very vague timeline. Whereas in the past with point to point, with Roadster, with CyberTruck, with Space Data Centers, all the other Elon pitches have been very focused on, we think we can do this in five years. We think we can do this in two years.

And he always gets criticized for being Elon math, too aggressive. But then history is shown that, you know, he over promises under delivers. typically does deliver eventually. And if the technology is completely new, no one else was going to build it and he's the first one to build it, like, it's fine because Starlink works. It was the first Leo constellation for satellite internet, had it turned into a huge business, wound up being a great technology. And so even if it was late, I don't even remember the Starlink predictions, but even if that was late, it's fine. It was still good business. Now the mass driver's a lot crazier. I was going back and forth, Tyler, about this.

trying to get him to nail down a prediction. We started with 100 years. Do you think it's possible to put a mass driver on the moon in the next 100 years? Yeah, but... And you said yes. So it's possible. Yes.

There's all sorts of qualifications, right? I think the thing, it was like 300 metric tons. Okay. We will go through my conditions. We will also go through my timeline. And then we will get everyone's predictions for how long this will actually take. So first, there was an interesting moment last year when everyone sort of like came around to the same AGI predictions or the same super intelligent prediction

saying eight, ten years, George Hots, Dorcasch, Carpathie, Sam Altman. There were a number of people that were all saying in various words, like Sam said a few thousand days, Dorcasch had this probability distribution that said 2032. And so everyone was sort of in the seven, to 10-year range. And it was just this interesting moment in the AI industry, at least, where everyone had a clear definition of like what super intelligence would be. And then simultaneously, everyone was like,

yeah, it's not this year. It's more like 10. And so it was a cool set of discussions, and I enjoyed that moment from last year, sort of around November, last year, fall. But there's way, like we are so far away from consensus around mass driver timelines. I thought it'd be interesting to start,

developing a thought process around what is a mass driver, what a success look like, and what are reasonable timelines here, even though I agree with everyone, with what you're thinking, which is that it's really far away, because it is. So first, we have to define what a mass driver actually is. In simple terms, it's an electromagnetic launch system

fixed on the lunar surface that converts energy, so you put down some solar panels, you take energy, that's the electromagnetic, so you're not putting up, fuel and then because that's extra cost you once you're there you can just repeatedly get sunlight turn that into energy and you it's fixed to the lunar surface and it's going to successfully accelerate a payload to lunar escape velocity which is one fifth of earth's escape velocity you got to be going 5,000 miles an hour to escape the moon's gravity well you have to be going 25,000 miles per hour

to escape Earths. So from an efficiency, an energy efficiency standpoint, it's much better to leave from the Moon than to leave from Earth. So then the payload needs to go somewhere useful. Like you make this thing. In this video, he's talking about making satellites on the Moon. That's even farther away, but those have to go somewhere.

So you can't just launch them into deep space. I mean, unless that's where you're going. Usually you would go to a lunar orbit or an Earth orbit or some point in between. between the Moon and Earth. And there are more intermediate steps. You don't need to go straight to satellite with a chip on it from the Moon to wherever it's going.

You can start just by launching rocks, which sounds crazy or water or hydrogen. If there's ice on the Moon, you can split that into hydrogen that can be used as fuel with electricity. Electralysis is the technique for that. Even just moon rocks, can be used as radiation shielding. Gabe says, what is this mass driver you speak of?

SpaceX is getting in the supplements game. That's a great name for us. They should make a- They've done the Tesla tequila. Yeah, exactly. They should make a mass gainer that they release now and say, hey, you'll get, if you buy this, you'll get priority access to the mass driver on the moon.

I like this. I like this a lot. I would definitely be a daily driver of the mass driver. And so, yeah, there's this question of like, you set up this thing. It's going to take forever, be really expensive. What are you actually pushing into space? You probably start with basic materials.

So rock, literally rocks, metal, oxygen, water. A lot of useful space. What if the asteroids that we get into our atmosphere is just an advanced civilization somewhere else? Just hurried. Mass driving? I saw, I saw. Yeah, we're downrange, guys. Relax.

I saw a hilarious take that the first UFO that will arrive on Earth will just be a car guy from another galaxy who like got into building a crazy you know supercar effectively taking it out and somebody's like you can't get to earth in that thing that's too modded that's too crazy you're now yeah you're going to break down there's no way and he's like i'll show you're going to be too old but i'll show you i've modded this thing um so uh a lot of useful space infrastructure needs heavy shielding uh that means water regalith other dense materials are good for shielding humans and sensitive equipment to radiation. There's been a lot of fear around the radiation around affecting different instruments or humans in space. So you wrap them in moon dust or water, and then that reflects or diffuses

the radiation. You can also potentially get propellant from the moon. If you can extract water from ice from the moon, especially near the poles, that water can support people because you can drink it. Or you can split it into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket propellant. So here are the four conditions I think need to be met in order to say, yes, we have a working mass driver on the moon. This is how I'd formulate this bet with Tyler Cosgrove over there. One, you need a permanently installed electromagnetic launcher, and it has to be on the lunar surface. This should be obvious.

Two, it has to launch at least 300 metric tons over a 12-month period. This means it's driving significant mass, not just test payloads. Let's aim for 95% mission success and at least 200 launches per year. Failures are going to happen, but we want to get this reliable and at commercial scale, and that means that it can't be breaking down all the time. Lastly, the mass launch from the moon has to actually be put to use. You can't just have this demo unit that's just blasting rocks into the sun. It's got to go to something useful.

And that could just be water that's going somewhere else or, you know, rocks that are going somewhere else. It needs to be like, we're catching them somewhere. There's a reason that it's going there. How do you adjust the direction? I think at the last second, if you have the trajectory, right, it's like how much do you go up? How much do you go over? How much do you go left?

And then, of course, once whatever's launched is floating in space and you can use propulsion to kind of move around. But yeah. So, I mean, with that, it seems like it's a pretty basic satellite that doesn't have any propulsion. on it, but you could potentially put some, you know, like even just a gas can. Yeah, I was more, I was more asking because it's like, okay, do we need, do we need a, do we need every, do we need every possible angle of mass driver? How many mass drivers do we need? Because I'm assuming we don't

want to send every single thing that we want to send into space. The exact same direction. Okay. We're going to sell that one later. That's a 2065 issue. We'll get that. Quickly, let me tell you about public.com investing for those that take it seriously. Stocks, options, bonds, cryptos, treasuries, and more with great customer service. Let me also tell you about Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform that grows with your business and lets you sell in seconds, online, in store, on mobile, on social, on marketplaces, and now with AI agents. So once all four of those conditions are met, it will be hard to argue that we're in some sort of demo phase or publicity stunt. We know we love a publicity stunt, but this needs to be actually

commercial. I'm looking for Model 3 level success, not Tesla semi-level success. I want to see this actually working, reviews, economics. I want other companies being like, yes, I benefit. I'm a buyer of mass from the driver. So how long will this take? You should put the goalposts on the mass driver, the way that you keep moving them. Okay.

I'm moving the goalposts. I feel like I'm just trying to dial. Oh, it needs to be economically viable. I mean, what Elon showed was extremely economically, viable. If you're just up on the moon and the moon's just producing satellites with chips that are fabbed and they just go into space, that's extremely economically valuable, as long as he can get the cost down. Yeah. And build it in some reasonable amount of time. And it's going to take a long time. So how long will it take? I put the over under at like 15 to 20 years,

which is about as aggressive as I could get. I think Tyler's going to take the other side of this. Well, I'm going to take the over. You're going to take over 20. 15 years is, I think, kind of crazy. 15 years is a blink of an eye. It really is. Well, personally, you know, I think I'm a bit more HGI pill than you, Tyler. Okay. Okay. Well, let's go through the six steps.

Just say, just say you lost faith. The six steps. Six steps. Okay, so first off, we got to get to the moon. We can't really get to the moon right now. We're like, we're pretty close with like really small payloads. We need reliable, heavy lunar launch capacity. And that's going to take some time.

So Starship needs to be refueling in orbit, landing on the moon with and without crews, because you're probably gonna need some humans up there, some robots, and we need to start routine cargo flights to the moon. So this is straight up like three to five years away, like minimum. Then you need to build a power infrastructure. So mass driving, hogs electricity.

You need to deploy a 100 kilowatt solar array, then build out energy storage systems so you can burst power during launches and ultimately scale to multi-megawatt continuous power generation plant. So that's another couple of years. Because once you're actually going up and back, you have to put down a bunch of solar panels, stored in batteries, and then the batteries need to be able to deliver a lot of power all of a sudden. Now this is what the Tesla does, right? You can charge your Tesla Model S plaid off of solar panels. It'll take, you know, a couple days.

And then when you're ready to go zero to 60 and two seconds, like it can deliver that energy very, very quickly. And that's what you need for an electromagnetic mass driver because it's a, it's a rail gun, basically. So. Yeah. And to SpaceX team's credit, this stuff can, a lot of the stuff can be done in parallel, right? By the time, like I would hope that five years from now, Optimus is quite good, functional, valuable. Yeah. At that point in time, maybe we can get to the moon and back. And I've talked to SpaceX folks who have been working on,

on putting solar panels out on Mars. The problem with Mars is that's farther away from the sun. So you have to put out a lot of solar panels. And that's why maybe they're thinking nuclear on Mars. But it's not like they've never thought about how do you deploy solar once you get to another celestial body. They've been thinking about this for at least over a decade that I know of. So robotic construction capacity, you've got to get autonomous construction. Rovers at least up and running to lay the electromagnetic track. You have to solve for all the insane forces during high acceleration, deal with thermal expansion.

So you're basically laying train tracks. that have electromagnetic coils in them, so they're way more particular than just like railroad tracks. But then those coils, all that infrastructure has to deal with being negative 280 degrees Fahrenheit during the night, and then positive 260

Fahrenheit during the day, I think. So like massive, massive temperature fluctuations, and that means everything expands, contracts. If you have metal there, it gets brittle during the night, it gets warmer during the day. that's maybe three years of work, maybe a lot more, who knows? Then you actually have to build the mass driver on Earth,

because you don't have the infrastructure to build anything up there yet, so you have to build most of it on Earth. You need to ship hundreds of tons of super conduction coils to the moon. The physics behind all this stuff actually comes from a Navy scientist back in the 1970s. And so we know that the physics works. Isn't his pitch, we're just going to just drop a bunch of robots on the moon and they're going to just mine and refine rare earths and then build out the manufacturing facility

with those rare earths and like just kind of become a self-replicating civilization, fully autonomous civilization. Like I thought the whole pitch was that we didn't have to send coils. I think we definitely have to send like close to finish goods. I would be very surprised if you can go and just scoop up some lunar regolith and be like, okay, step one, make a wrench, make a hammer. Okay, now I have a hammer and a wrench now. Let's make some rebar. Let's make some cement All of that is very you would just logically you would pull it forward by delivering some of that

pre-made because it's just it's just one extra space space-space to get up there and then have You know a CNC machine something I don't know whatever you put up there like you're not gonna go with nothing So you're looking at another five years here at least you'll need dozens of dedicated cargo flights just just to get the several hundred ton system up there. Then you need to assemble the track sections with humans or more likely robotic crews, integrate the supply, the power supply and cooling systems, test everything rigorously.

Integration hell can take years, but should overlap with some of the other milestones. Lastly, you need to shift into operational launches. Your first payload needs to achieve escape velocity. And at no point can a catastrophic failure result in permanent damage to the mass driver or the energy infrastructure? And obviously we've seen, you know, test failures at SpaceX where things blow up and it can hurt other support infrastructure and that can delay things.

And so you know how long the mass driver is, roughly? I think like one kilometer is about enough. But I'm not, I'm not 100% sure on where that is. But that's a long way to go. If the California government thinking about one kilometer of track. That's 50 years right there. So, you know, just testing all that, not damaging things. unforeseen setbacks. That's another five years and lots of variability. The good news is that once

you build it, once you built it, the benefits are really good. Like you don't have an atmosphere. There's no drag, no weather, no air resistance. And of course gravity is a lot less. So you still need a plan for where the mass goes after it's driven. You got to catch it kind of. And that's a whole other problem. But and when you add all these projects up, you start easily getting into the decades. But what and the render just kind of played, everyone clapped, and then the presentation was over. But the idea is to put more space data centers on these. Yeah.

I mean, if you think about this in like the most grand project you can imagine, which is like the Dyson sphere, basically solar panels directly around the sun, all the way around the sun to capture all of its energy, you're going to need to send a lot of solar panels to the sun. making those on the moon is lower cost potentially than making them on Earth. That's the theory. That's the theory.

But then in the meantime, Elon's clearly thinking about making at least part of the satellite up there. And then, I mean, you could ship up the chips and just make the housing up there if that's the most, if that's the heaviest part. You could make the more economically precise, valuable piece up here, drop off a bunch of chips, drop them into the actual, you know,

housing that's been made and then launch those into orbit. There's a whole bunch of other. Yeah, but then you're sending chips from here to the moon and then they're being sent back, right? No, they're not being sent back. They're being sent into various orbits. Okay, so these are not the... Yeah, and then again, my concern, and again, I'm not a mass driver expert. I'm just kind of thinking through this is like, what if the, like, you got like one shot, basically? Well, I mean, the moon's, the moon's, uh, like movements are pretty predictable. And it's not like the moon's just up there go crazy, right? Like, the moon is, like, rotating on a... It's, like, extremely predictable.

It's perfectly predictable. You predicted hundreds of years. Yeah. And so, and so if you have it lined up so that every day, at least, it lines up to be the perfect angle, like, then you just launch right then. I know, but you're saying we're launching them back into, like, just into Earth's orbit. Earth's orbit, yeah. Toward where the SpaceX. Yeah, yeah, you are kind of round-tripping.

But it's the equivalent of, like, of, like, dropping. a ball versus throwing it up. Like you're dropping stuff. But the whole point that more mass starts up there. It seems clear that it's going to require like the vast majority of the components for these satellites being made entirely on the moon.

Otherwise, it could very well not make sense. Yeah, no, totally. Like there is no benefit to bring a fully complete starlink satellite up there and then driving it from the moon down to low Earth orbit. That makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is if you're able to get something, like the vast majority of the mass,

ideally 100% of the mass, from what's already on the moon, because that's already been driven up there. It's already at low gravity. Like the energy is stored effectively up there. I'm seeing a tourism angle when the mass drivers pointed back at the earth to be in a little like bobsled type thing, a little pod to be launched at the earth. And then you kind of break through the atmosphere and then you parachute. Yeah. that could be good for like gender reveal birthday parties you know potentially

yes well let me tell you about re-stream one live stream 30 plus destinations if you want to multi-stream go to restream.com and let me also tell you about Cisco unlock critical infrastructure for the AI era unlock seamless real-time experiences and new value okay predictions Tyler you're going over 20 years you're going over 20 years are you going under 70 years yeah it's just so hard because like right now I don't, it's hard to see like a real economic incentive to do this. Like, because even space data centers,

it's like still pretty hard to like figure out how like, like why that like really makes sense. Yeah, yeah. But then like for this to work, you need maybe space gender centers, but you also need them to somehow be built on the moon for them to make sense, right? Yeah.

So I think, yeah, maybe like median is like something like 70 years. 70 years? Okay. Median, 70. Wow. Give me 50, 50 years. 50 years.

Okay, 50 years. Getting more techno-optimist over here. Doherty, if I'm at 20 and Tyler's at 50, where are you? And while you think about it, let me tell everyone about Apple of, profitable advertising made easy with axon.a. Get access to over 1 billion daily active users and grow your business today. Okay. You got it? My concern is that an Elon, like Elon is the only...

I didn't specify Elon. could be anybody. But I'm just saying there's a lot of, there's. I'm just saying mass driver on the moon. This needs an Elon-esque figure to accomplish. And yeah, I'm thinking more in that 50, 50 year. Over 50 or under 50? We gave Tyler exactly.

I changed, I'm going 30. 30. Whoa. I think 50's changed. I was just like, you know, AGI is like basically here. There's no way it's going to take that. long. There we go. There we go. It's like everything will be so cheap. Okay. So you want, do you know, I mean, I was thinking five years. Five years. I was thinking months, specifically

50,000 months. I mean, when, you know, opening I codex six comes out. Yeah. Totally possible. Who knows. Who knows what's it. Yeah. No, no, no, no, even even, even in the software only singularity. So, so, so, so, so here is a just amount of time that takes to I have I have a pull to mid curve this one. Okay. And just And just think, okay, this is just a big pump. Yes. It's just a big pump going to the IPO. We need the semiconductor pump.

We need the space pump, the mass driver pump. Yeah. To get to the $2 trillion valuation. We need a lot of pumps going on, right? Space data centers, mass drivers, semis. Like, it's the final pump, basically. That is the mid curve. That's the mid curve.

Okay, okay. What's the left curve? The left curve is Elon good. Elon good, businessman. AI accelerate. Yeah. Elon good business. Five years.

Elon make thing. Elon put a thing in space. Elon do hard thing. Elon do hard thing. And then the right would be just like insane AI acceleration. What does Elon know? Yeah. And who else is going to do it?

He has all the infrastructure. He's cornered the launch market. He's shown a big track record. Yeah. The politics thing. Yeah. it's hard to see how real it is. Yeah.

Right? I don't know. Because these data centers on land do generate a lot of local revenues. Yeah. And there are going to be plenty of places that want them. Yeah. But so hard not to mid-curvy. Well, while you think of your final estimate, knowing that I'm at 20, Tyler's at 30, and you are undecided.

Let me tell everyone about Gusto, the unified platform for. payroll benefits in HR, built to evolve with modern, small, and medium-sized businesses. What's your final answer? Ten years. Ten years. Ten years. Until we have...

Ten years. Elon's like, Jordy, that's too aggressive. I never said ten. Don't want me to... I said maybe in his lifetime. Ten years to an MVP. No, no, no. It needs to specifically be launching

300 metric tons, 95% mission success, 200 launches a year. It needs to be. be pumping mass. Never. Needs to be driving. Never?

Never. I think. No, I think, I think, I think pumping mass? Driving mass. Driving mass. It's got to be, I'm thinking, I'm thinking 2100. Okay. Based on just average life expectancy, he's got another 20 years.

54, average life expectancy is 75, 76. He has access to all sorts of stuff. you know, could go for 30, could go for 40. Plus, like, you forget that, like, Apple introduced products after Steve Jobs passed away. Like, companies continue to exist. Company, and projects will be picked up. There will be other competitors. This isn't even specifically an Elon thing.

This is a humanity thing. I think there actually is, like a- What about China? China could do it. Maybe if there's some economic incentive found on Mars or, like, asteroid mining, like it actually does make sense to do to launch from the moon right because it's like so much easier requires wayless energy yeah so 2100 75 years 75 years there is another there is another mass driver idea which is you you build this you take a shuttle to the moon and then if you want to go to

Mars you are mass driven from the moon yeah Ryan says roadster has been 10 years since they sold out pre-orders. This isn't going to happen. The roadser is happening. Ryan, is it never going to happen? Like, you would say roadster's not going to have, I mean, roadster could just get completely canceled, but no one does it. I'm not even saying Elon. I'm saying humanity, mass driver, moon over under 2100. 75 years. You got 74 years. Seems possible. I don't know. Okay, which one do you? What about, what about what about? So here's, so here's, Here's the thing. You have to make so many,

you have to come to terms with so many incredible technological leaps to get to the point where the mass driver on the moon is mass driving. Assume we get all those leaps, can we not just mass drive from, let's say, the Earth? I don't think so. I mean, there's a company that's doing this.

You said 25,000 miles per hour. There's a company that's doing this called, like, spin launch. Fastest plane has been, it's like that NASA plane, it's like 7,000 miles an hour. 7,000? I thought it was like a couple thousand. I don't know. Fastest plane. Yeah, look up the fastest plane.

We'll tell you about the McAllep default, which Andrew McAllep, friend of the show over at Varda space, was in the economist. The cost of a one gigawatt data center in space, he pegged it at 50 billion. StarCloud is aiming for $16 billion. StarCloud at $200 a kilogram is around $10, $11 billion per gigawatt. Fastest aircraft speed ever recorded is Mach 9.6 by an unmanned NASA X-43 scramjet on November 16th, 2004. It's nearly 7,000 miles per hour. Okay, so we got a 5x that or something to get to, you know, 4X that to get to escape velocity, to escape the, to just like do the thing from interstellar and just drive the plane into the, into the atmosphere and just go to space. Maybe, maybe. Do you think we will have mass driver on the moon first or mass driver on the moon first or?

ZIT says the mid curve is definitely right. total victory mass driver on the moon first or atlantis first atlantis full society of people living underwater in like some sort of glass dome where it's fully sustained you can go you can move there and be like yeah i got a buddy who moved to the new atlantis and he i haven't seen him in three years because he's just been down there happy live in life which one do you think happens first. I've been very bullish on Atlantis data centers. Atlanta's data centers going to a ton of sense, right? Don't you get a ton of cooling for free? Yeah, there's

like all sorts of stuff that that you get no energy. No, the vents. The vents? Geothermal. Okay. No one's talking about underwater data centers. No one's doing this. Call up James Cameron. He'll be on this. Let me tell you about vibe.com. Where DTC brands, B2B startups, and AI companies advertise on streaming TV, pick channels, target audiences, and measure sales, just like on meta. And let me. else to tell you about Phantom Cash. Fund your wallet without exchanges or middlemen and spend with the Phantom Carp. Okay, so we have... So hard to be there on the technology business programming network. I'm sorry, everyone. I'm sorry.

We got a decel over here. Yeah, we got a desal over here. True desal with a crazy IP doom over here. No, I mean, 2100 is pretty acceleration-pilled if you look at the fact that going to the moon is now a lost art that we're trying to be discovered. I've talked to a lot of people in tech that say the 2100 milestone is Dyson sphere. And so, like, you probably get the mass driver before you get the Dyson Sphere. Like, full Dyson Sphere? Fold, maybe over 50% coverage. Yeah, 2,200. Because, like, this is based on superintelligence.

Yeah, well, this is like, you know, singularity. Every AI company is a Dyson Sphere company. At the end of the day, potentially, yeah. And then the question of, what is it, Kardashev 1 is all the sunlight that falls on the earth. Cardishchev 2 is all solar panels all the way around the entire sun. So we get the sunlight that doesn't just hit Earth. It also hits the Mars.

Also hits the backside. You know, you get all of that power. So much more power than just Cardishab 1. But then I think Cardishab 3 is every, you're harvesting energy from every sun in your solar, in your, not your solar system, but your galaxy or something like that. like everything in the Milky Way. It gets really crazy. In the galaxy.

In the galaxy. And that's a lot of power. That's a lot of power. By then, it's totally possible that like you won't be able to tell the difference between like AI generated imagery and like real imagery. With that much power, it's entirely possible that it could be funny. It'll be able to. The automated workflows.

It'll be able to do high school level. Yeah. Homework. For sure. Reliably. For sure. Well, we have a related prediction from Kalshi. about Tesla. Will the Tesla Optimus be released this year? It's sitting at a 25.4% chance.

And it jumped a little bit just over the past week. It was down at 19%. It's pumped to almost 30%. Now it's down at 25 based on the more recent announcements from Elon Musk. Anyways, to end on some positivity, I am glad that Tesla and Elon Inc. are going to be focused on chip manufacturing. I think we'll get some very, I think we'll get some real progress there. And it is good for America. It's good for the world that they are choosing to work on this very hard problem. I agree with that. I had a different positive conclusion as well, which is that I think it's fine to think in decades and share a vision that is decades away. The last thing I want is for technologists to be devoid of long-term vision. I really,

I really don't want there to be like an end of the tunnel. Oh, we're just working towards superintelligence and then we can all become complacent. I'd much rather get excited about projects many years away or decades away that only have a slight chance of working rather than the alternative, which is just stagnation. And so I'm cheering for the mass driver and there's that old phrase, shoot for the moon. If you miss, you'll land among the stars. And I couldn't agree more with that. I think it's the other shoot for the stars, you'll land on the moon.

No, it's not that. not that. But shoot for the moon. If you miss, you'll land amongst the stars. If you shoot for the stars, you're just going to randomly land anywhere. The chance that you land on the moon. The moon is closer than the stars. No. No, no, no, no. You shoot the moon. You shoot the moon. You shoot the moon. You shoot the moon. You shoot the moon. You shoot the moon. You shoot the moon. You'll just keep going until you hit a star. It might take you a long time. You don't get up. but you will land there. I think I'm right about it.

I don't think. Look it up. Look it up. So, uh, let's head over to take us somewhere else, George. Let's head over to suspended cap.

Okay. What do they have to say? Are they bullish on, it's suspended cap bullish on, the presentation? Perfab, suspended cap says, TerraFab is a blatant pump.

It actually discussed me. There will never be leading edge chips from them. There will never be data centers in space. It's such a blatant effort to IPO SpaceX on the back. of some pie in the sky BS and then merge with Tesla, do humongous rays and keep blah, blah, blah, blah, blah for five years. Anyway, not, specifically kept not a fan. D-cell.

Sissol. Sissetti caps of D-cell. Anyway, let me tell you about Railway. Railway is the all-in-one, intelligent cloud provider. Use your favorite agent to deploy web apps, servers, and databases, and more, while Railway automatically takes care of scaling, monitoring, and security. Should we go over to the Mall King? Where should we go next, Geordie?

Okay, so there was an obituary in the Wall Street Journal for David Simon. He was a mall king who was both feared and admired. He had ruthless negotiation tactics, an obsession with details in the sheer force of will that turned his family's real estate business into the largest mall owner in the country. He passed away on Sunday after a cancer diagnosis in 2024. he was diagnosed with cancer in 2024. He was 64 years old. During his more than three decades

as Simon Property Group's chief executive, the inveterate dealmaker gobbled up competitors and defied critics who said malls were obsolete. Over a decades-long buying spree, he cobbled together an empire that spanned 250 properties and 206 million square feet, giving Simon control of more retail space than anyone in the world.

His success helped propel the family to the wealthiest echelons with an estimated net worth of $11.6 billion, ranking number 38 on Forbes magazine's list of the richest American families. The Simon family, through a charitable donation, donates to many causes, including a $5 million gift to Columbia University. At a time when malls were failing and retailers were filing for bankruptcy, Simon invested in his properties, beefed up their luxury offerings, and added non-shopping tenants such as high-end fitness centers, high-tech mini golf courses, upscale residents. I feel like that has been the secret to success with the modern mall. There's a lot of malls that have sort of mid-tier or low-end retailers where it is actually pretty

comparable to shopping online. You go in, there's no one that's really going to talk to you, the stuff's just there, it might be on the floor, it's messy, but then there are certain malls that have leaned into the higher-end experience and they, oh, would you like a drink? Let's talk about what you're thinking. Let's, you know, show you all this stuff. Try this on. And, It's just in a completely different tier than e-commerce shopping. And so I feel like those properties and those chains have done very well. So along with partners, he snapped up ailing retailers, including Aero Pustel, Nautica, Eddie Bauer, J.C. Penny, Forever 21. Lucky Brand and Brooks Brothers.

The arrangement propped up the chains, prevented large vacancies in Simon Malls and turned out to be moneymakers for the company. Effective Monday, Simon's board appointed Eli Simon, one of David Simon's five children. as its CEO and president. The Mall King was both feared and admired and could be both charming and terrifying. Simon unleashed a tirade at coach executive Todd Kahn during their first meeting in the decade

of the 2000s after the handbag maker tried to renege on deals to open stores in Simon Mals. There was no shortage of profanity, Khan said. The two came to an agreement and became friends. Nothing like a screaming match

to kick off a lifelong friendship. David's word was his bond. You could have bang out meetings, but if you came to a resolution and you shook hands, it was golden. That's a good way of doing business. Well, RIP to the Mall King, and hopefully we'll get a chance to meet Eli at some point. Yes. Open AI is offering private equity firms, a guaranteed minimum return of 17.5% as well as early access to models not yet in public release. There was a lot of chatter on the timeline going back

and forth, like, is this some sort of weird guarantee? Is this not normal for private equity dealing? Market participant had a good breakdown to take you through it. So why don't you read through some of this? But first, I will tell everyone about MongoDB. What is the only thing faster than the AI market? Your business on MongoDB. Don't just build AI. Own the data platform that powers it. Many are saying opening eyes $10 billion private equity joint venture is giving a desperate feeling. A lot of people were thrown up the red flag emoji. I think vendor financing dressed up as venture capital, guaranteed returns that smell like a Ponzi, a company burning 14 billion this year, buying distribution, it can't earn organically. I'd push back. TPG, Bain, Capital,

Advent, and Brookfield put up 4 billion. They get preferred equity with a 17 and a half minimum return, board seats, and early access to Open AI's newest model. Open AI gets instant distribution into 100 to portfolio companies, no traditional enterprise sales cycles, no selling company by company. The part people are missing. A huge number of software companies are privately held. Toma Bravo, alone own 75 software companies generating 30 billion annual revenue. PE firms collectively did $1.8 trillion in buyouts last year. These companies are shifting to heavy token consumption. AWS knows this.

They run a dedicated PE sales function. Talk about a dream job. That, oh, I would kill for that. Yeah. Yeah, if you love private equity. Yes. Hard to imagine. Anyway.

Anything better. Advisory programs, transformation consultants, a whole apparatus. Azure and GCP do the same. Open AI is running the cloud. distribution playbook, wholesale tokens to PE portfolios at scale. The difference is exclusivity. AWS doesn't ask PE firms to put up $4 billion to take board seats. They give the advisory away. OpenAI is asking for capital commitment, which buys preferential access. Dedicated forward deployed engineers and a financial incentive for the PE firm to actually push adoption across its portfolio.

A PEF firm that invested $4 billion in this JV isn't running a parallel RFP with Anthropic. That's the point. The 17.5% return looks like a red, flag until you look at it closely. It's preferred at equity hurdle, not a coupon on debt. This is the main thing that the hundreds of posts I saw are missing. Priority on returns before a common shareholder. So it's preferred equity plus a return on top of that. Open AIs buying captive distribution channel into enterprises they'd otherwise spend years trying to reach. Anthropic is running a parallel deal with Blackstone, Hellman, Friedman, and per Mira. It's one billion common equity, no guaranteed return, more of a Palantir-style consulting venture. Both companies doing this simultaneously tells you where Enterprise AI is heading. The Bearcase is real. 95% of Enterprise AI pilots fail to deliver ROI. It's already gone. Yeah, that's not true anymore, but. Yeah, that was one study. And again, every agentic coding. Yeah. 14 billion in projected losses this year. Profitability, not a

expected until 2021. All true and opening eyes enterprise business is already 10 billion of 25 billion in revenue, 40% of growing to 50% by year end. The distribution problem is what's left to solve. And anyways, goes on and on. But yeah, overall, I think, like, people are taking one data point out of context, kind of spinning it into something

that looks, like, quite extreme and concerning when in reality is just giving them a preferred return, which is somewhat normal. Yeah, good, good takes here. Let me tell you about cognition. They're the makers of Devin, the AI software engineer. Crush your backlog with your personal AI engineering team. And let me also tell you about ACTA.

Octa helps you assign every AI agent a trusted identity. So you get the power of AI without the risk. Secure every agent, secure any agent. Financial Times had some reporting Saturday Open AI to double workforce as business push intensifies. I love a business push. So this is fantastic news. Matt Slot and says, TBH, the biggest risk to incumbents

may be that labs absorb all the top talent. Labs already get great engineering talent, but this will spread to product, sales, marketing, etc. When they become the optimal destination to solve the problems of your customers, it's going to get ugly. Yeah, basically, you know, you have a big enterprise instead of going and doing

and trying to figure out like the right SaaS solution for a specific problem, you can go to a lab, and get something similar. As part of that workforce push, OpenAI tapped former meta executive to lead their

ad push. Yeah, why is no one talking about Dave Dugan? The Duganator. The Duganator. It's crazy. Dave Dugan, a former top advertising executive at META is going to lead ad sales. Dugan, who announced earlier this month, he was stepping down from his

role as vice president of global clients and agencies at META has been named, named vice president of global ad solutions for opening I. He will report to Brad. Lightcap. The light capinator. The high profile higher underscores OpenAIs urgent push to generate new revenue streams

to support its enormous funding requirements for its computing needs. Yeah, Eric Suford had some good commentary around like the ad sales strategy. People were complaining that like the advertisers that bought the first ad campaigns on chat dbt, he said the process was low tax. and that they haven't received much data showing if their ads worked.

Two executives at agencies working with early chat GPT advertisers said they haven't yet been able to prove the ads have driven any measurable business out from their outcomes for their clients. Eric Sufert over at mobile dev memo shared two thoughts on reporting that early chat GPT ad campaigns lacked performance data. One, this is to be expected. Any early offering will feature limited functionality. Early adopters should be prepared to fill measurement gaps. themselves with polling, you know, or any other sort of pixels or tracking. You should be able to work this together. There's been plenty of times.

This was the early podcast ads. You'd run a bunch of podcast ads and be like, okay, some people use the coupon code, but a lot of people don't. What multiplier should I apply to that? And then you wind up surveying your customer base and being like, wait, we spent 10% of our marketing budget on podcast ads, but 20% of our customers that they found out about us from a podcast, like maybe we should spend more there, right? And that's the role of a good ad agency.

Measuring incredibly asserting performance is precisely what ad agencies are paid to do, says Eric Sufert. He says, if an ad agency says it can't provide performance data because the channel doesn't provide it, it is merely a media buying intermediary. If you're an ad agency, you've got to figure out whether or not the ads that you pitch to your clients are actually working. Quickly, let me tell you about 11 labs. Build intelligent real-time conversational agents.

Reimagined human technology interaction with 11 labs. Mark Zuckerberg. Big scoop. Huge. From Megan over at the journal. Mark Zuckerberg is building a CEO agent to help him do his job. Employees are also adopting AI agents and AI tools internally. Namely, my claw.

My claw. My claw. My do. And second brain. in a bid to speed up work as they get graded on AI use. And so... Tyler, where's our my claw and our second brain and our co-hosts? Chat, GBT, GBT.

Yeah, I don't know. I'm so interested to know what Mark Zuckerberg is prompting. Hope's Revenge says Z-Stack. Yeah, it is... Honestly, Z-Tack is like... It's like God mode. I mean, it does make sense in his position to have... a model that's fine-tuned on the internal KPI, the internal org chart, all this information

that's private. And he probably doesn't want to hand that off to another lab that's just going to maybe look at the data and be like, oh, okay. So Mark Zuckerberg just asked, how do I poach from all the other labs? Maybe we should go on the defense today. But there's got to be so many other questions that he's asking all the time when you're walking into a meeting with executives. You want to know, well, how is this division performing?

How much money am I spending on meta-ray band displays? What's the turn rate? Who are our biggest partners? There's a million questions. Yeah, we're joking around, but Z-stack does make sense. It does make sense. You should be able to have God mode. Yeah.

And I mean, this has the, there are companies that are starting to do this where they're pitching their, you know, agent stacks for CEOs. Boardy is sort of one version of that, right? but there's more and more people that are like, okay, we will come in and fine-tune something for your organization specifically and maybe do that on the fly. Maybe that's just Chagipa Enterprise

or Anthropic Enterprise or whatever. But Zuck clearly wants something built from the ground up. And it's also a great product demo because if it works really well for him, then it can probably, the lessons and the learnings from there will probably apply to other people in the ecosystem. So the agent, which is still, development is currently helping Zuckerberg get information faster, for instance, by retrieving

answers for him that he would typically have to go through layers of people to get. Zuckerberg's agent project reflects a drive across the 78,000 person company to accelerate the pace of work, eliminate layers from its organizational structure, and change the day-to-day jobs of its employees to remain competitive with AI-native startups with much smaller staffs. The company views AI adoption as critical to the future of success. Zuckerberg has been spending more time coding recently. He previewed some of the efforts of the company's earnings call in January.

Quote, we're investing in AI native tooling so individuals at Meta can get more done. We're elevating individual contributors and flattening teams, he said. If we do this, then I think we're gonna get a lot more done. And I think it'll be a lot more fun. I love that. We have our guests in the Restream waiting room,

I believe. First, let me tell you about Plaid. Plad powers the apps to use, dispense, borrow, and invest, securely connecting bank accounts to improve money, fight fraud, and improve lending now with AI. And let me also tell you about Gemini 3.1 Pro with a more cable baseline. It's great for super complex tasks like visualizing difficult concepts, synthesizing data into a single view, or bringing creative projects to life.

And without further ado, let's kick off the peptide debate. Welcome to the stream, guys. How are you guys? Hey, how's got you guys? Thank you so much for taking the time. Why don't you both start with an introduction on yourself and maybe your core thesis around peptides? Martin, why don't you go first?

Oh, Max. Okay, sure. Let's start with Martin. Yeah, so I'm the farmer bro. I represent the interests and the, I don't know, I guess, viewpoint of the pharmaceutical industry, including, but not limited to Pfizer, Merck, Eli, Lilly, et cetera. I'm sure those guys love that. You're the face of pharma, whether they like it or not.

There you go. Sort of a self-trained biopharmaceutical expert. I think I can speak at a pretty high level about every inch of the pharmaceutical industry. I've discovered brand new drugs. I've acquired drugs. I've commercialized drugs. I've just about anything you can do in the drug industry.

I've done it. And so I'm very concerned about the peptide craze. I think it comes mostly out of some. psychological issues, which we'll discuss, the need for identity, control, distrust of institutions, all kinds of things like that are leading to what we're seeing today. Great. And Max?

Hi, I'm Max. Former peptide skeptic turned peptide believer. I run a healthcare company called Superpower. And our thesis is that the health system today does a good job when you're sick. It doesn't do a fantastic job at preventing things and actually allowing people to be their best selves. I say a former peptide skeptic because they seem scary and I say a converted believer because I spoke to dozens of doctors and heard hundreds of clinical vignettes from people who had their lives change. Now, I don't believe all peptides are safe.

I do believe we need more research. But I think there are a subset of things. that have improved people's lives. I also think as a modality, peptides are one that are more interesting than before, now that injecting is normal, now the wellness and optimization is normal, not just treating disease, and now that we have AI for things like computational discovery.

So we're early, we need more research, but I think peptides are exciting. Martin, I'll let you just respond. Yeah, seems like you're ready to go. But it would be useful to at least define the conversation a little bit more because when we say peptides, we could mean Ozempic prescribed by a doctor for someone who has diabetes and is very overweight. It could also mean the Wolverine stack taken by a 15-year-old in a gym in Miami, right?

And like, there's a wide gap here. So let's maybe narrow it down a little bit to probably off-label use. I don't know exactly where things start to get fuzzy for you guys, but defining a little bit more of where the actual point of debate, because I imagine there's agreement with the extremes. Yeah, I mean, isn't there a problem when we have to redefine semantics that have been defined forever? Isn't this like somebody saying, you know,

I'm using, you know, GPT instead of using AI or something like that? Sure. There's a specific meaning, like peptide has this very specific meaning, And they're not new. They're 80 years old. People have been using peptides forever. And in fact, in pharma, you try to avoid peptides because of their inherent weaknesses.

You go for small molecules or really large molecules like antibodies. Peptides are sort of the worst of both worlds. So the idea that we've taken this kind of like last place drug class and then turn that into like the standard bearer for do-it-yourself medicine is kind of humorous to anybody who actually understands pharma. Except that the last drug class has the potentially most impactful drug of all time, or set of drugs of old time, the GLP1 receptor agonists. So I'm not saying we only have peptides in the toolkit.

I'm seeing the genies out of the bottle and we cannot ignore peptides as a tool in the toolkit. Small molecules, just like, I guess framing it for people who don't kind of understand the difference between these things. Small molecules are made synthetically. Peptides tend to be derived from what already is happening in the body. DNA is the building block of the body and encodes for RNA which produces proteins and peptides. So these peptides naturally occur. Now it can sometimes be hard to pattern to naturally occurring thing.

You can, but it's a little bit harder. Small molecules in the other hand are things that humans design to block biology, to block, typically block something that is happening in the body. And again, I'm not saying small molecules are bad, but they're kind of the two different modalities we're talking about here. And we've seen one category of peptides, GLP-1s already changed the world. My contention is that there are other categories of peptides that are under-researched, but have really interesting kind of clinical vignettes that might change the world going forward.

Martin? But I think, like, why we're having this conversation is because people are just, you know, injecting a number of them into themselves now, and you're saying they might change the world, but people are going through the process of self-experimentation, and there's a bunch of companies, private companies that are happily facilitating this and and profiting off of it when it seems to be a large number of risks that are still unknown. At least that's my my point of view. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I think that's right. So maybe let's start with stuff that's not fully FDA approved. I think the canonical example would be like the Chinese peptides, the retas, the stuff you buy online.

and inject, and it's based on some interesting scientific literature, but it hasn't actually been through the full FDA process yet. Where do both of you stand on that? Yeah, I mean, why do you have a right to pirate somebody's intellectual property? Oh. You know, this is the property of Eli Lilly. They discovered it. They spent billions of dollars on it. You want to steal it.

You want to work with a Chinese company stealing it? I mean, that's not good for America. That's not good for the drug industry. And guess where do these drugs come from? They come from American R&D labs. And if you keep stealing them and pirating them in this weird twilight, like, you know, DIY drug system, which is not very large, at least compared to pharma, you know, I don't know if you make a big impact, but if it went very large scale, you would. I mean, you would stop having drugs the same way pirating music would, you know, have huge ramifications for the music ecosystem. So you have to respect intellectual property to some extent.

And then taking a redidtriutide, which is just sort of a GLP Plus, if you will, instead of just waiting it for it to be FDA approved or like using OZMPIC, I think this is like the worst risk-reward decision you could possibly make. It's like some of the decisions I used to make in the past. You know, what is your upside to taking illegally manufactured reddish-tru-tide from some other place and you can't verify it, et cetera, versus just taking Ozempic? The people that are taking peptides and have these peptide stacks are mostly people in SF, maybe New York, they're very wealthy people, they don't know what the rest of the world looks like. Nobody else in Middle America's excited to do this. It's not normal max to inject yourself with things. You know, this isn't like a thing everyone should be doing. And so to me, the Red of Trutide case is really insane because this is a drug that Eli Lilly is going to get approved eventually. And the fact that, you know, there are people dying of certain terrible diseases, and they need compassionate use. They need to get on extension programs. But nobody needs Red and TrueTyne now right now before FDA-approved

so I think the things we agree on are that the existing FDA-approved GLP-1 receptor agonists are an interesting category of drug and they're a peptide and they're impactful. I think we also agree that companies should not do things illegally and infringed on the patent for RETA, right? I do think the patent system incentivizes innovation. I think the crux of the crux of the, of where we disagree is not, and just quickly on the, this is the, an SF thing, that is not true. If you speak, I know dozens of people who own these research use companies.

And if you speak to them, the majority of their audience is middle America, not, not SF Tech Bros, despite the tech pros being noisy on Twitter. I think the crux of where we probably disagree is the 14 or so peptides that RFK has said, they might move from category one to, meaning they cannot be compounded, back to category one, meaning they can be compounded.

And I guess my like general statement here, is that people are taking these compounds, right? They're already using them at scale, right? And the way to minimize risk, the way to minimize risk is to move them from category to category one, right, to legalize them. Because the risky thing is the dodgy supply chain we have today. The risky thing... Well, isn't the risky thing just doing like massive sort of unofficial, you know, human trials

when we don't know? No, I don't think so. So I think that is true for peptides that we do not have longitudinal clinical experience and patient experience with. But let's take something like BPC 157, which is one of the most controversial ones. So let's go right to the meat of things. Let's take something like BBC 157. My contention is that thousands of doctors prescribe this, they do, and have prescribed this for 10. You can prescribe this drug?

They give it to their patients, right? You can prescribe it to be semantic, give it to their patients. Not a drug. Thousands do that. Again, my statement is not the semantics of prescribing. My statement is thousands do this. My other statement is that millions of patients have taken this. At least hundreds of thousands, I believe millions, have taken this.

Yeah. That clinical experience, again, is not an RCT, but we cannot ignore it. Yes, you can. Yes, you can. Yes, you can absolutely. Wait, wait, wait, wait, it sounds like there. some sort of fundamental disagreement here about like the way BPC 157 is being distributed right now because I know people that have told me that they've taken it. I thought that they

were getting it prescribed or recommended to them. Like Martin, what is your... We can agree that it's being given to them. I think I think they're getting it. They're getting it. But what's actually what's actually happening here. How is this happening? Out in the back alley. Is that what's happening? Is that what's happening? It doesn't seem like that. It seems like it seems like there are doctors that do have the ability to... There are many of the best doctors in the world. So when I was first introduced to peptides, one of the most esteemed doctors in the U.S. said to me,

Max, you take so many supplements. If you explored peptides, because I think there are a really interesting modality with a few decades of clinical use. Sure. Right? And when he said that to me, I was like, no way, this is bullshit.

I'm not injecting myself with something. That was weird. So what I did is I went around to around 20 different doctors who's... Should have trusted your gut. Whose opinions I respect. And I asked them about peptides. And normally when you ask,

these doctors about anything. You're asking about red meat. You're asking about spinach. They're all divided. They're all like one view, enough of you, punches with peptides. Just about all of them except one said these are really interesting. I have used these in my patients. I believe the endogenous molecules, peptides that exist in our body are going to be the future of medicine. And those doctors have the incentive to not be wrong. If they're wrong, they could go to jail. If they're wrong, they can have their license stripped. If they're wrong, patients don't come back to them. So they have the maximum incentive. but 10 to 20 years, they still give this to their patients,

and their patients say my life changed. Now, you might say it's placebo. My statement is the patient says their life changes, and the doctor sees that. Okay, Martin, I want you to react, but I also want you to sort of set aside the intellectual property argument. I like that argument,

but let's focus on what doctors are doing, how BPCY157 is being delivered, that type of thing. So I'm a drug hunter, right? People like me, Vivek Ramoswami, we look all around the world for medicine to buy and medicine to put into companies that great firms like A16Z and founders fund and other more health care maybe focused firms will fund, take it to the IPO, which I've done before,

and get paid huge amounts of money. That's what I do. That's what I'm good at. That's why I'm the farmer bro. BPC 157 is the biggest scam I've ever seen. It does absolutely nothing. There's no redeemable value to this. Do you know the story about it?

Do you guys know, Dordi, no? Please tell us. This guy in Croatia made it, Cich, my, Hintra-Land brother. And, you know, the only publications about this drug are by him. Nobody else has published about this drug. It's not a drug, in fact. Nobody has even confirmed that it's a peptide from the gastric juice, as he claimed.

Nobody can find a sequence that matches that. And the gastric juice of human beings has been thoroughly profiled. It's a 15-mer peptide, so it's 15 amino acids. Half-life is minutes. There's no plausible physiological. basis for it to work. And it's been in clinical trials. PLEVA was a local drug company in the Balkans.

Very well respected my ad. PLEVA actually licensed BPC and tried to do clinical trials for it. And guess what? They failed. So this like weird like I want to be a doctor two thing is. Do you think placebo effect? Because yeah, I talk to people that say it's good for recovery. And I can imagine if you're sticking yourself with something, you might feel like,

I'm less sore today. Because it just. While you, while you are recovering. you think that the drug is helping you. And of course it isn't. It's the recovery process you're going through. And there's an app for this. If you want to make real money, go make BPC in CGMP conditions and go do a clinical trial.

And you can be a trillion dollar company like Eli Lilly. Instead, you can putz around, you know, buying fake Chinese stuff and then injecting yourself and dreaming that you're doing, well, I have a drug here that if I take my also aid my recovery. No, no, no. Should I try this? Should I tell you that it worked for me? It's an end of one. Oh my God, I did so great with this end of one. You know, it healed my recovery.

Like, this is nonsense. This is not science. Science is controlled experiments that are well done, very carefully documented, and so forth. Why are we going backwards? Why do we go forwards in civilization and society? What is this urge by the valley? And I blame the valley to go backwards in time and space. I hear of you, and I think other people will have it.

And we don't know whether these are placebo or not yet. We can't make a definitive statement. And we don't have the RCTs. Wait, but I thought you said there was studies done on BBC 157. No, there are no human studies done. There was one done by pleva and it failed. There were dozens of studies of drugs that become commercialized that previously fail. Anyway, my view is, we don't know whether it's placebo or not yet.

That is true. And some people will say it's placebo. Some will say it's not. My statement is really simple, which is you can have Martin's view, or you can have the view of thousands of doctors who have views this for 10 to 20 years and have their license in the line, the view of millions of patients who talk about their lives changing. You can have that view. My dad's visiting from Australia, and he's been taking painkillers for the past four months

and can't walk upstairs because he's back as bad. He took BBC 157 for three days, and he said to me, Max, this is the first time in four months I haven't taken a painkiller. Again, I'm not saying this isn't placebo. I'm saying we don't know. What I'm saying is I am God, I'm really happy my dad's not in a painkiller. Yeah. Right.

My co-founder, he lost three organs in hospital. He had an autoimmune disease. They put him in biologics. He took BPC 157. He's off biologics and he doesn't have an autoimmune disease anymore. Again, because I would say, we will put our money around the studies. Put your money where your mouth is. But we can't ignore the real world evidence.

Well, you are ignoring it if you're not putting your money where your mouth is. If you believe that's true. No, no, no, no. We are. Do what do I clinical? trial. We are. Tell me about it. We're in the process of chatting with the people required to set up a clinical trial for this because we will put our money where our mouth is because I've seen thousands of doctors, millions of patients and even the FDA, right, who has said they're going to

start legal license, even the FDA. Okay. But Max, you can have your view and I don't, that's okay. People will have that view. I will have an opportunity and I'll put my money where my mouth is. Max, you've never done a clinical trial before, right? You've never invested in drug companies before, but you want to do your first clinical trial on this drug, which you did in an event, you've heard anecdotal evidence about. Why? Because I have seen thousands of doctors, millions of patients over one to two decades, right? Go say to my friend, go back on biologics, go back to hospital, lose another organ. Go say to my dad, go back on painkillers every single day.

I don't want my dad on painkillers every single day. Now, you might say that's placebo. I say I don't know. But I say with the evidence that we currently have, I believe there is more to support. You should see what this galaxy gas does for me. It's amazing. It's really good. But what's your question?

Is your question, Martin, more that like, okay, you take- No pharma guy in their right mind would do this. Well, hold on, hold on. So no farmer guy would do it. Max clearly believes in this. And what is the intersection of these two things? Is it possible to do the type of study that you're talking about? with Silicon Valley backing is a $30 million series A enough to get started?

Or do you need to go to Wall Street, IPO, do the biotech thing? Yeah, you can explain. Plenty of private companies do this. There's hundreds, if not. Actually, I would say there's thousands of private biotechs. Generally, they would pass on something like this. Well, yeah, yeah, so why, so there's this body of, body of anecdotal evidence. Mm-hmm.

Yeah, there, yeah, unpublished evidence. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So certainly a drug hunter would have looked at this already, right? Martin, is you're saying that the only admissible evidence is an RCT? Yes. And what about all of the examples of when something works, before anything works with NARCT, there's a time when it works pre-RCT. Yes, in animals.

No, in humans, there are times. No, in animals. Before there's an RCT. Yes. It does happen sometimes, yes. Yes. They're intelligently, because they're intelligent. designed drugs that were designed to do a specific thing, and they do the specific thing,

and then they work. Yep. This is not that. And you think your statement, your singular statement of placebo outweighs the, again, we don't know, but I'm saying on the facts we have today, there is more to support the fact this is more likely than not placebo than the alternative thing. I would bet anything. I would bet anything.

No trial of BPC would work. Okay. I guess we'll see. What else? So, Max, are you, is superpower facilitating people getting BPC 157 today? No, we won't sell anything that is not legal to compound. But I believe the FDA will make it legal to compound soon. And then you'll sell it.

And I believe the FDA should make it legal to compound because the genies out of the bottle. People have seen their lives changed and they're getting it anyway. What else are, what else are you excited about? because when people say when people people people say peptides with an ass so bbc1 157 the timetumosin alpha one that thymotion alpha one is fascinating approved in 35 countries i take and i never get sick i used to get sick four or five times a year i had the most elaborate immune stacks none of those elaborate immune stacks the hundred things placeboed me thymosin alpha one everyone around me had covid a few months back and i didn't get it a bunch of people around me had

influenza i didn't get it every time i get a sore throat i take bbc15 sept by thymocinth and the sore throat disappears. Now, this is a drug that is approved in 35 countries, right, has some human data. Now, Farmer in the U.S. hasn't brought it through trials because they can't patent something that existed for several years. So I think Thymuson, Alpha One is a really interesting one as well. Okay, Martin, your reaction. Yeah. Well, drug companies can and do patent things that that have existed before. I agree with that. I did not say that. I said, Thay, most now for one, in the form that is approved in other countries, they can not patent. Yeah, you don't even have to patent a drug, right?

You can get seven years orphaned exclusivity, five years of NCE exclusivity. There's a lot of ways to make money in pharma. And pharma, if you haven't noticed. I agree with that. I agree that they could find some red disease indication and use thymosinaphyon one against them and get a patent. My statement is that they could not get a composition of matter patent for thymocinaphym 1 in the way that doctors and patients are using it today.

Sure. I mean, you can change molecules too. I mean, there's a lot of ways. I know. Why would they need? Do medicine. So we're saying the machinery of the FDA requires. Something works. We see it in 35 countries. The only way to get at patent is we've got to change the molecule and spend $300 million to $3 billion. What is that? What is that for a system? That's a regulatory capture by pharma to me. I wouldn't say that necessarily. I think that there are benefits to making drugs stronger. Like I said earlier, drugs, peptides are the weakest form of drug. They're not the- Except the the best, but maybe the best drug of all times of peptide. Yeah, but it's very, it's one of very few. I would say five percent of drugs by revenue. Today, today, right?

Five years ago, we didn't even have GLP-1. Ten years ago, we didn't. Yeah, peptides were and probably always will be a backwater just because they're, they're very weak. They have no pharmacological properties that are beneficial like a good half-life. And in fact, the naked peptide GLPs don't work either. They have to be heavily modified by pharmaceutical chemistry to get there. There's an FDA approved peptide with a very short half-life, Semorellon.

Thimusinaple 1 has a very short half-life. You don't need a long half-life to have an effect. We know this. We know this. The FDA, the FDA, the countries know this. There are some drugs that can work with short half-life, but almost every drug guy will tell you that you want a long half-life so you don't have to keep taking the drug.

There are some drugs. Correct. And that is fine. And we have methods now with science to extend the half-life of these compounds, and that's part of where the research is going. This is called pharmaceuticals. That's what the industry is. We have an FDA for it. We have all these rules for it. And I don't think we should change that.

I mean, these are the things that have made American pharmaceuticals, one of the greatest industries ever. To start to move away from evidence-based medicine is potentially very risky and scary thing. I think the riskier thing is they're being a gray market because the genius out of the bottle and people are getting these regardless. I think it's far safer to get them through GMP certified compounding pharmacies and the way that the FDA has oversight over rather than the state we're in today, which is the gray market. And this isn't a debate between no peptide and legal.

It's a debate between gray market or white market. And I contend white market is net less harm, net higher benefit for the U.S. people. I think we should treat them like we treat. controlled substances, right? I mean, there's a very specific set of laws that states what you're allowed to traffic on interstate commerce or not, and you need a BLA or an NDA or 505B2

to traffic a drug across interstate commerce in the United States of America. And then that changing that, I don't think is useful or helpful. No matter how many people on Reddit think that they want to play Dr. House today, that's not something that they should be engaged in. So this is why I think they need to be legalized, because I don't think what we have today is safe.

I don't think people going to gray market pharmacies and injecting anything into their body is safe. What I do think is far safer, a net lower harm and high benefit of the American people is these things being regulated in category one and produced in GMP certified facilities and prescribed by doctors. That is safer. So the net harm reducing case is making these category one illegal to be prescribed by doctors. Not all of them, but the ones where we have a sufficient safety signal and a sufficient safety signal and a sufficient. effectiveness signal. Well, yeah. There is an arbitrator for that already.

It's called the FDA. I mean, why, you want a second, I guess, special, like special ed version of the FDA for drugs that didn't quite make it so clearly efficacious? What I'm saying is many of these things the FDA might not ever want to research, because the patent is hard, because they target wellness and prevention and human optimization rather than disease. The FDA loves their cancer therapeutics. And my statement is if we have sufficient safety and efficacy signals, we reduce net harm

by making them legal today. We reduce net harm. And try saying to the person who used to be in biologics with autoimmune disease, you have to wait 20 years for something that might never be researched by big farmer, right? Try saying to my daddy was on painkillers for the past four months every single day that you know what, this compound you took for three days that has been used for two decades, go back your painkillers. Try saying that to them. And maybe, maybe one day farm, maybe in 10, 15 years of research this. We don't even know. Say that to them. Martin, it sounds like there's a,

there's a sort of a mischaracterization of your argument that I'll let you push back on, that you're arguing that the FDA has no problems, that the FDA is perfectly efficient. And that seems crazy. I feel like everyone's upset with every aspect of the government all the time. Are you saying that the FDA is anywhere near approving, anywhere near to the speed required to approve new drugs, new research as quickly as they could? I'd say they're pretty good. You know, I hate almost every part of the U.S. government. But that's one I do like.

And I advise the U.S. government. And I feel like this is something that, you know, could not be further from our collective benefit. Companies love making money. You think you prefer the gray market. You think the gray market? I prefer no market. We don't have the choice of no market. The genie is out of the bottle.

What does that mean? What does that mean? What that means? We can arrest the genie. We can give the genie's money. Cocaine in the 80s. Cocaine in the 80s. Doctors have prescribed these compounds.

And they're doing everything. everything they possibly can to get their hands in them. And that can be very risky. And what I'm saying is we have safety and efficacy signals and millions of patients with that in the 2010 to 20 years. So Max is arguing that like a war on drugs will not work. It hasn't worked in the past. It is impossible to show. Because if these are, if it's gray market, that means illegal.

Like Martin is arguing that we can arrest the genie. But can we have a law? Can we actually arrest the genie? Because it seems like there's a lot of genies. And you had a product behind you that I think might be not legal either. And that was probably available in a corner store. And I know that there are dozens of illegal flavored e-cigarettes and vaporizers that come over and they make their way into bodegas all over the United States. And like this just happens.

And those are provably harmful. And they still, the provably harmful things do it. I'm saying these things, doctors have their license on the line. I don't think doctors like, I don't think doctors want to recommend peptides. I don't think doctors like recommended. non-FDA-approved drugs. I've never met one that did. Well, I know thousands of doctors do, and I'm saying...

Thousands of thousands? I don't know thousands of doctors. I spent my whole... Thousands is such a big number. So many doctors. And what I'm saying is, I agree, they shouldn't recommend things gray market. What I'm saying is let's legalize because that is net safer for the American people. Yes, yes.

And you're saying that you're saying that you're saying that if we hang out in the gray market, you think it's actually possible to shut down gray market activity. Is that true? I think you can shut it down. And then I also think that we have a perfectly great system, which is the normal regulatory body we've had for 60 years. Yes. And creating, like I said, a new special ed version of it

for drugs that couldn't quite get on the school bus, you know, is not something that we should do because we have a rigorous way to determine if drugs work or not. Let's get rid of all gray market. And my friend can go back on biologics. May that go back in painkillers. You should. All of the,

a farmer can continue making hundreds of thousands of dollars from these biologics. Let's do that, sure. And you know what? We're not going to shut that. You get what I'm saying? Closing arguments.

One more thing. So Martin, your stance is generally that these drugs just haven't proven to be that good. They've been around for long enough that a bunch of smart pharma bros and sisters would have, like, you know, taken them through trials

already if they really show. We take a lot of bad. stuff through trials. You know, BPC isn't even doesn't even come close to the muster of a farmer bro. Yeah. Okay. And so it's it's weak. You're saying there's a placebo that you think is probably real, but then what is the risk, right? Because if somebody's saying like, okay, it's a weak drug, I maybe get a placebo effect. Maybe, maybe it just helps. But why should somebody avoid it? entirely, regardless of if they're available on the gray market or on this, like, you know, new version of the FDA.

I just think we shouldn't normalize making drugs in your bathtub. I think that, you know, there's no evidence that any of these things are well made. I think we should leave Madison to the experts. I think that's something as V is very reluctant to do. Many people want to feel in a world where maybe they feel like they're losing control, they want to control this thing, or the world where we're losing confidence in government, We want to take this into our own hands. And it's just not the way to do things.

Medicine has progressed dramatically thanks to the capitalist system and the biopharmaceutical system in league with the FDA, which doesn't always get it right, but is quite good. And thanks to that, we have drugs for cystic fibrosis. We have a cure for fiscic fibrosis. We have drugs for SMA. We have these terrible diseases. And one last thing is that a lot of these people in SV,

you're perfectly healthy. You're talking about two sick people there a second ago, But most of the people I know in these peptides, they're taking them a metafinil. They're taking drugs for diseases they don't have. And this is not a great use of people's time or great for their health. And to some extent, the government does exist to help protect people from themselves and their own stupidity. And then, Max, you're planning to take BBC 157 through clinical trials? Are you planning to take any of these other peptides through?

through. Where does that ultimately go? Yeah. So we're working with a handful of different biotech companies that are taking these through clinical trials. We're in the early days of setting that up. And my statement is not anti-FDA or anti-the-machine or we have. I think it solves a lot of purposes. I just think it doesn't solve all purposes. And my statement is not that the current system is always perfectly right. I think when new data comes along, when new science comes along, when there's a dangerous gray market, we need to accept that the times have changed and adapt the regulation. It solves a lot of purposes. There are many parts of it that are exceptional, but it is not complete.

And I'm saying that we should do what the FDA has said they're doing, which is legalize several of the category two peptides that have the strongest safety and efficacy signals because that reduces net harm for patients and increases net benefit, even if pharma doesn't necessarily like it because they're not making money from their $100,000 biological drug anymore.

Sure. Martin, any closing statements? It's been great to be able. Yeah, I just want to say pharma did try to develop BPC and failed. Yeah, yeah. Okay, we went through that. It's a good point. Well, thank you so much for joining today.

Thank you to you both. Everyone had a great time. Good job keeping it civil, boys. Yeah, very civil. Very civil. Very professional. I love to do this again. Again, the next time a new peptide goes viral, we'd love to have you both on this show.

Independently or together. Have a great rest of your day. Have a great week. And we will talk to you soon. Goodbye. Cheers. Let me tell you about console.com. Console builds AI agents that automate 70% of ITHR and finance support giving employees instant resolution

for access requests and password resets. And let me also tell you about Vanta, automate compliance and secure. Vanta is the leading AI trust management platform. Up next, we have Mitchell Green, the founder and managing partner at Lead Edge Capital. The news, Lead Edge has closed at $3.5 billion seven fun. What's going on, Mitchell? Great to see you. I was life.

By the way, somebody likes Diet Coke. I like Coke Zero. I got Coke Zero better. Coke Zero guy. Coke Zero. Did you go through a diet Coke phase? I did back in the day and then Coke Zero came out and I started drinking that. I'm pretty sure.

Both of them are going to kill us, but that's fine. Well, you and John are running the A-B test. I'm having the podcast in a can from Andrew Euberman. Congrats on the new fund. Big, big number. Take us through it. Yeah, so, no, it's good. So it's just a continuation of Fund 6, you know, Fund 7, $3.5 billion.

We really raised it late last fall. Raised it, raised it late last fall. But no, it was good. We really didn't know what to expect about the fundraising market. Everybody had said it had been really, really hard. But then you see these big giant funds get raised. And so, no, we had a lot of interest from existing LPs and some new LPs and things like that. What is contrarian about Lead Edge's stance as a fund or messaging to LPs?

you know, this is a software-focused fund. Some people, at least on X, would say you guys are crazy to have that positioning. But certainly the results have been fantastic. Yeah, look, prior history means something about the future as well. I think the things that make us contrarian and, like, different in the world,

one, our LP base and how unique it is, We have all these like, you know, well, we do have big institutions. 95% of our capital comes from people that are like, you know, world class execs and entrepreneurs. You guys have probably had a bunch of our LPs on the show. You could look at our website and see examples of a bunch of these people. And then how we leverage these people throughout the investment life cycle, whether they help with diligence, whether they help with, you know, helping customer intros, recruiting, advisory for companies. I think that makes us different than most people. what we invest in is, you know, look, we just take a very focused approach.

And we're just like, listen, you have to meet X number of our eight criteria, five criteria. And now it's like, are you $25 million, are you $10 million plus in revenue? Or you're growing 25% a year? Are you profitable? You know, are your revenues greater in your historical cash per in cumulatively? And again, you have to meet five of the eight. And that just kills a lot of companies we might, other. wise, you know, see. And again, we just find companies that meet those criteria. And so, you know,

a first couple of deals in the fund, you know, without naming the companies, you know, one is a $500 million, you know, last year it did $500 million of ARR software business, growing 50 plus percent a year. We funded another private equity fund that owned it. They're like, continuation vehicle because what makes us contrary is we're very unique in that way. We'll buy 10% of a company in a minority deal, put money on the balance sheet, we'll buy secondary from an early investor,

we'll buy 80% of the company, we'll do everything. It's really kind of just, we just want to get it into the best businesses. And look, we invest in businesses that grow that have super high gross, that have 70 plus percent gross margins that are hopefully capital efficient

that have like really happy customers with high gross dollar attention, software is one of those buckets, as well as, you know, financial information technology companies, information services companies, payments businesses, internet marketplaces, we've invested in logistics businesses. If it meets the criteria, we'll invest. There are still, the whole idea that software is all going to zero is a bunch of complete utter nonsense. Yeah, we were talking to Carl Eschenbach on the day he rejoined Sequoia last Thursday about the Sasspocalypse.

And he was just stressing the fact of how sticky these relationships are and the fact that people buy things from other people. They're not just going to overnight switch everything and how they do their business. What are you actually seeing? How have you processed the Sasspocalypse? Have you processed this idea of all these legacy systems just being up-end? it's like complete utter nonsense. I mean, it's like complete utter nonsense. I'll see even a board of board of Bored mate actually. Awesome. That's great. I think we're fine. I think I'm

literally going to go back with him from the war being. Um, no, no, he's fantastic. I mean, let's not forget that the U.S. government still runs, I think, like, I think we think the huge opportunity, we do some public stuff as well. So we actually own workday. Um, and by the way, I think a 99% gross dollar retention business. Yeah. Um, the U.S. government still runs on PeopleSoft, and most banks that people use in America run off of mainframe computers. Yeah. So, you know, open source, when people say the apocalypse, esphalcolics, all software is going to zero. I think what people fundamentally get wrong is that they think like R&D is the, is like the most

important thing in these companies, like writing the code. Yeah. It hasn't been for decades. Like open source software is a big industry. Yeah. Company like Gafana, data bricks, elastic, hashy corp, red hat. There's 20 more of them. You can get that stuff for free.

Yeah. The reason that enterprises pay for it is they need somebody to deal with, you know, customer support, security patches, user authentication. Stuff's like very complicated to do. I think I think with software companies are going to become, and by the way, there's going to be ones that survive, and there's going to be ones that don't. All that you see in periods of technological change is like things can happen really fast.

And it's not only software companies, like automotive companies, if you're Stalantis and you have tons of debt and you're, I'm totally making this up, and you're Ford and you have no debt, well, if you believe AI and robotics are going to come to manufacturing, well, like, Ford can invest, Stalantis cannot. And like, they very well may disrupt, you know, Ford may completely disrupt Stalantis. It's going to happen across industries here. You saw it 99 in 2000 with like, you know, e-commerce companies. Some traditional retailers like Walmart and Home Depot did great. Some people did not. The same thing is going to happen with, you know, with software companies. By the same thing is going to happen with accounting firms.

The same thing is going to happen with banks. Yeah. Like this stuff is going to completely revolutionize the world. It won't do it as fast as people think. It was funny. I asked Claude yesterday to try to like book me like an appointment. to get a haircut and I could do it online, it had no idea how to do it. Like, I literally could have just picked up the phone and made a phone call.

And I saved myself 15 minutes. Yeah. What has your interaction been with private credit throughout your career? There's a lot of headlines around the debt load for some of these software companies. And if the business model changes, if that retention does shift, that those private credit funds could be in trouble. How have you been processing the stories around? Yeah. So, look, about a third of what we do is control.

buyouts, a buyout tends to have debt on it. You know, that be, you know, what I would say is, now again, the buyouts we're doing are not big enough and they tend to be growth buyouts. Like our average portfolio company grows 50% a year. So we might just happen to find a company that's 25 of revenue owned by one guy that wants to sell 60% of his company, but still wants to run it. So we're not, our deals are not big enough where we need to go to the private credit funds. I agree with Jamie Diamond, though, but it's a canary in a coal mine, but it's not software.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is what people are getting wrong. Yeah. You don't think the private equity firms overpaid for industrial companies or services companies or anything. Like, I tend to believe where AI is going to be disruptive is if a private equity firm bought a company, put a ton of leverage on it, and it's been running it for margin because they need to drive margins to pay the debt load because they put too much debt on it. They won't be able to innovate. So their competitor that doesn't have a lot of debt is going to, you know, could win. I think that is, that doesn't apply to software companies.

It applies to everything. I suspect there were in any unregulated industry where you take a bunch of people to Wall Street, a bunch of people have done probably stupid things. It's probably not the people getting blamed for it. It's probably the one that's doing the blaming, frankly. If you've got to learn, you know, from history on Wall Street. Street. But again, it's if the private credit guys get paid, like they're going to get, they'll

get paid before the private equity funds. Like I think we're going to sit here in 2030 and there's going to be a ton of these deals that were done in 2019, 2018, 2018, 2020, 2020, 2021. That screw just software. It's like everybody at all the industries where like you're going to be looking at like very low single digit, you know, low single digit IRAs. What's the, what's the oldest company? What's the oldest company you've ever bought or invested in?

Have you ever looked at anything that's like over 50 years old? I mean, I've just seen some of these like vendors transactions that are like, you know, oh, you'll see like AOL is transacting now and we're, and I'm like, oh, we haven't heard that name in a long time.

We can hear you. That's only 30. I'm actually, I'm looking to see what a company. Okay, yeah. So we own a business. Okay. Um,

called growth zone. Okay. That makes like Chamber of Commerce Association management. software. To do business, nicely profitable. The company was founded in 1996. 1990s. Okay.

So we own another, we own another business that it's like that business started in 96. It's a different name. In 2019, it was bought by like a small private equity fund. We then bought that. But no, we own a business that we bought through an interest in a fund. called Work Human. And this is a huge business, super profitable, big company. That's an anti-A-A-G-I bet.

Yeah, yeah. And so Work Human used to be called Global Force. It's a big, like, HR software company. Sure. And like a Play Benefits Company based up in Boston. But I think the venture fund we bought out, it was like a 2002 vintage venture fund. Wow.

And the investment was made in like 2004. And the company has never raised capital since. And it's a very large, you know, nine-figure type, like, profit business. That's a remarkable. Well, thanks so much for taking the time to come and hang out. Congratulations. We got to hit the gong. Hit it.

Congratulations. Congrats to the whole team. Great to see you. We'll see you soon. Cheers. Goodbye. Let me tell you about a label box. R.

all environments, voice, robotics, e-vals, and expert human data, label box is the data factory behind the world's leading AI teams. And let me also tell you about Century. Century shows developers what's broken. It helps them fix it fast. That's why 150,000 organizations use it to keep their apps working. And let's kick off our Lambda Lightning Round. And we are going to be bringing in.

We nailed it. The cloud is active. We are now in the Lambda Lightning Round. Let's bring in. Shane from Air. Jane, how are you doing? How are you doing, guys? Thanks so much for having it.

Of course. Great to see you. Give us an update on what's going on. on your world? We just released a new ad campaign yesterday in New York Times. Yes. And have our our biggest product release we've ever pulled together here launching tomorrow. Amazing. Give us the pitch. What's the tagline for the ad? The tagline for the ad is, is AI will never smoke a cigarette with you. As someone who started a company that directly competes a cigarettes, I have to boo. But as someone who loves a good ad, I have to cheer.

You know, I want to be clear, I'm not endorsing smoking in any way, say, performed. No, I get it. I think, you know, look, I feel like, I feel like this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a, this is a goodwill hunting crowd, isn't it? I feel like you guys watch. Jordy definitely has seen goodwill hunting. No, he's never seen a movie in his life. He's only seen Borot. It's the only movie he's ever seen.

Well, I think, uh, the, the inspiration for the campaign came from, uh, a scene between Matt Damon, who's this cocky, overconfident. sort of orphan and his therapist, Robin Williams. And they're sitting on a park bench. And Matt Damon is just going off. He's doing his thing, you know, preaching the gospel of where the world is going. And Robin Williams looks at him and he says, look, if I asked you about art, you would give me every history of every artist, you would talk to me about Michelangelo, but you have

no idea of what it smells like below the Sistine Chapel. And if I asked you about love, you would probably send me a sonnet, but you have no idea what it feels like to be desperately vulnerable in front of someone else. And then he looks at Matt Damon and he says, look, if I needed to learn what it was like to be an orphan, do you think I would just read Oliver Twist? And I think the reality is today that there's so many of these generative AI companies right now emerging through YC or starting to raise money. and they're projecting what's going to happen with creative work. And let me be clear, I believe everything from nano-banana and seed dancing, these models are so powerful in what they can do today. But the reality is that creative work is deeply illogical.

It is two things. It is both extremely subjective and it starves for perfection all at the same time. And so, you know, the belief that we have at air fundamentally is that AI will never replace creative work. And we're saying this as a technology company that's on the precipice, you know, of launching its most AI-centric feature set ever tomorrow. So, I mean, I completely agree with you. Like, AI is a tool. I've loved using creative tools from the first version of Photoshop that I probably downloaded illegally all the way to After Effects and Cinema 4D, Houdini, and now generative AI tools. And I feel like there's every time there's a new tool, you just increase the amount of,

of, amount of art, the amount of creativity and things, we usually get the good ending. It feels like it. It feels like we're not, oh yeah, like we wish we could go back to the time before Photoshop, get rid of Figma. Like, no, no one wants to move backwards. Everyone's happy with the tools. Everyone's adapted. But it feels like there's still a lot of anxiety. Like how, how, how, what do you think it takes to get people into the mindset of, hey, as an artist, your job's just going to get more interesting, more creative, you're able to do so much more. And, yeah, That would mean putting food on your plate and earning recognition for your work and being all the things that you, why you do what you do will still be there in a decade, two decades, a century. Yeah.

Well, I think the first thing, John, is that as an industry within the tech industry or as technologists, we can't keep pontificating, you know, a narrative about like, about this reality that like creative work is the CMO killer. If I see one more billboard on the one-on-one about the CMO killer. You're going to become a killer yourself. I'm going to lose my mom. And I think that, you know, in what way, shape, or form? Is it a good idea to tell your customer that they're irrelevant? Yeah. And, you know, look, the fundamental belief that we have here at Air is that the work is changing.

It's going to be less humans and more machines. That's an acknowledgement that I will be the first to admit. But we have to stop imagining that these machines. machines, this AGI concept we have for the future, we'll get to a state where everything is automated and you don't need anybody in the loop. And instead, if we built both products and brands in this industry that meet humans where they are and start to actually attack jobs to be done with automation, then great. At Ayer, we talk about giving creative space to breathe, space to actually work on the stuff that they think matters and to deploy technology in time. to areas of their work that they think should be automated. Yeah.

What's the launch tomorrow? What's the exact product? Exactly product. All right. So five things. I'm going to be plain vanilla here. Five things. One is access to 50 models inside of our product.

Everything from Nanobananda is a C-Dance. You can now access that directly on air. Two, you can access those models through a canvas editor. So you can grab your assets, which are already on air. You can create variants of ad units. You can change out the text in something. You can take an image. and turn it into a gift for a quick video, whatever you need.

Three is agents who can go out and make those edits for you, should you want to communicate with a machine instead of doing it yourself. Four is a context layer. This is the sort of biggest differentiator for us. We, you know, today, organizations store and manage all of their assets inside of our product. We're their memory. And so we're taking that memory and allowing your creative team to deploy that. deploying the context means that the agents can start saying note edits or that when an agent makes an edit,

it can do something that's actually on brand and uses your font or your styling or your photography style. So this context layer is where creatives can actually add instructions so that non-creatives can create and compound assets from what they already have. And then the fifth one is what every organization, you know, like us, is going through right now. It's is we're transforming pricing, going fully to usage-based pricing across our product. So all of that hits tomorrow. What about search? I feel like there's, you know, I've watched my iPhone camera roll push the search bar bigger and bigger. They really want me to search.

Yeah. And it's okay. But if I know that there's a, I screen recorded a video and it has Arnold Schwarzenegger in it, but he's not in the still frame. He's not in the thumbnail. He's deeper in there. And I search Arnold's, it's probably not going to go inside the video, understand the context. And I feel like Ayer has all this like tagging infrastructure. There's an opportunity for just the best in class search.

You see people complaining about Gmail search. Same thing is true for Google Drive. At one point, I had every file name for every video in Google Drive was just like 75 keywords all the way out. So I could actually search through videos. Is AI accelerating you there? It's a good question. You know, my co-founder, Tyler and I've been building this business for eight years. and we've been very thoughtful.

Our approach is to try to build a system of record for creative work. So a Salesforce or GitHub specifically for visual data. Our AI journey began, to your point, with search, natural language search and the enrichment of assets. And from our perspective, the models got to a point over the last two years, products like BDA as an example from AWS, where you can do a lot of really powerful things, facial recognition, scene detection for videos, custom object detection.

And then you can power that through really elegant natural language search experience. That functionality exists in the product today. And we've been leaning into that work for the last two years. The shift for us into generative editing and variant creation really began in October as these models started to progress in the quality of the output. And we realized that the quality of the output was going to be decided by the quality of the context. around it. So, you know, starting tomorrow on air, we'll marry both of those things, both the amazing world-class search experience you can now have enabled by AI and the variant

creation that can stem from it. So that, you know, a year from now, if you want to look up Martin Schrelli, rage bait, you know, on TEPN, you'll find it. You can go and find that. I'm glad we're in the audience. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to come chat with. Congratulations for the launch and that campaign. Yeah, great to see you. Absolutely beautiful. We'll talk to you soon, Shane. Goodbye.

Cheers. Let me tell you about TurboPuffer, serverless vectoring full-tech search, build from first principles and object storage, fast, 10x cheaper, and extremely scalable. And let me also tell you about Figma, no matter where your idea starts, Figma may clog code, codex, or a sketch,

the Figma canvas is where ideas take shape and products connect. Build in the right direction with Figma. Without further ado, we have Doctronic. How are you doing? Dr. Doctronic. How are you? We're doing great.

please introduce yourself in the company a bit for us. Yeah, so Adam, I am one of the co-founders of Doctronic. Doctronic is an AI doctor. We call it that because it's easy for people to understand. We have an AI native care platform. You can come to it, chat with it 24-7. It's always free. And when you're ready, you can press a button and the AI conversation,

the summary and a doctor's note is sent off to one of our doctors and then get care. Okay. That could be perfect care, primary care, anything you need. So, yeah, I mean, WebMDs existed for a long time. ChatGPT has a health functionality, but the key insight here is that you're actually linking to a network of licensed doctors throughout America. Are there particular states that you're starting with? How does it actually work to onboard these doctors? Yeah, so we're actually live in all 50 states, 50 plus one, and we have a network of 50 doctors that are employed by Doctronic.

And that includes both primary care, urgent care, women's health, mental health. What does it look like if somebody already has their own doctor and they want to bring them to the platform? I imagine that the same way someone might show like, oh, here's my eight sleep, sleep data doctor. What do you think this says about the other symptom I'm having? Somebody might share, hey, I have this conversation with chat GPT. Can we use this as a jumping off point? What does it look like to bring your own doctor to the platform? Yeah, so our AI system's always free, and at the end of it, you get a doctor's note that you can take to your own doctor if you want.

Okay, cool. So there are some people that do that. Yeah, yeah, that's amazing. And then in terms of the actual business model, who's paying, how do you see that evolving? Where do you think that goes? Right. So right now, we pay money by providing care, and so when you see one of our doctors, you can either pay out of pocket, it's $39. or you can use your insurance.

And we take almost every insurance out there, including Medicare. Yeah. In addition, we're in the process of building out a number of different partnerships with other businesses that will both license our technology and use our physicians as well. Yeah. How do you think about the opportunity for prescription management? It feels like there's been a boom in telehealth. A lot of work has been done.

Some controversial, but some vary by the book where they're partnered with a pharmaceutical company and there's licensed doctors in all 50 states that can prescribe. Is that in the path or is that tangential to your work? Directly in the path. So we launched a program in Utah, first of its kind, where we actually are able to renew prescriptions without a doctor. Our AI makes a clinical decision. That was launched eight weeks ago. I think it was a big first step, and we're hoping to build upon that. That's awesome. Jordi. What is, yeah, so, so I'm trying to understand, like, are you guys kind of limited from a growth standpoint due to, like, like, how do you scale, basically? You have these 50 doctors that are employed by doctronic.

Do you need to scale that, or is the idea you can make them, you know, a hundred times more, you know, how are you doing that? Yeah, our physicians are, I would say, in order of magnitude, more efficient than a traditional telehealth practice. And so instead of a doctor being able to see four patients in an hour, they can all of a sudden see 15 or more. And that allows us to scale much faster than a traditional telehealth platform. And then you mentioned partnerships with other companies. Would that be with like major LLM providers? Is that where this is going? No, our partnerships come in three different flavors.

The first one would be with payers, TPAs or large employers that want to utilize our services because we're going to be cheap. than most other telehealth practices. There are large health systems that we're in discussions with that want to utilize our technology because we can make their doctors more efficient. And then there's a whole slew of digital health companies, hardware companies out there that are also interested in leveraging our technology to extend what they can do on their service potentially providing care. I was listening to Terence Tao, the mathematician on Dorcasht Patel, and Dorcasch was asking him

about the impact of AI on his job, which is mathematical research, and was trying to say, like, how much more efficient are you? And Terence Tao was saying, well, I use AI a lot, but I don't, it's not like it's helping me with the core work.

It's more like, in a paper, I would like to put a chart. Normally that chart would take me 10 hours or five hours to put together. So normally I just wouldn't put it in. Now, I can just put it in. Now I can just put it in. And so he was like, I'm doing five times the work,

but it's not replacing work that I was doing before. And it was this very like Jevin's paradox type of answer. And I'm wondering about the amount of medical advice that's being dispelled. How much of it is displacing conversations with existing doctors versus just purely additive conversations where someone would have said, you know what? I do have that, you know, I do have some sense. but I'm just going to go to work today and I'm not going to go take the time to schedule an appointment and meet with a doctor.

How much of what you're doing is seen as additive versus replacing labor? I think it's almost all additive, to be quite honest. And when you think about medicine, it's always had this fundamental supply demand mismatch. Think about how many times you've wanted to go see a doctor and you just didn't do it because it was too hard, right? I think there's probably 10, 100 times more care that could occur if there's zero friction in the system. and a lot of what we're seeing today is it's just so easy to utilize our system that you're going to come in and ask questions that you would never ask a doctor. We have people who use our system 10 times a day.

They'll come in and say, hey, I have high cholesterol. What should I eat for breakfast? You would never ask that of a doctor. But when there's no friction in the system, you can do that. Okay, we got to fire up Doctronic and ask whether or not we should take BPC 157 because it's been hotly debated on this show today. And I want a real doctor. I know exactly what you guys would say.

I think that they would probably fall back. I'm going to defer that to our system. I actually don't know what that is. It's a very controversial peptide that some people claim works very well. Other people's claim it's a placebo effect. But hopefully people are referring to real medical advice for this particular question. But you raise some money. Tell us.

How much did you raise? I want to hit the gong for you. We raised 40 million for our series B. Thank you so much for taking time to come. Give us the update. and I hope you have a fantastic rest of your day. Yeah, great to meet you, Adam. We'll talk to you soon. Goodbye.

Let me tell you about fin.a.i. The number one AI agent for customer service. If you want AI to handle your customer sport, go to fin.a.i. And we are in the Lambda Lightning Round. This concludes our Lambda Lightning Round, but let me tell you about Lambda. Lambda is the Superintelligence Cloud, building AI supercomputers for training in inference that scale from one GPU to hundreds of thousands. And without further ado, we have Robin Vince.

from the Bank of New York Mellon. Robin, how are you doing? What a wonderful backdrop. I think we are struggling. Really remarkable. Oh, how are you doing? Sorry, we missed you on that intro because of the audio. Can you introduce yourself and the company, I suppose?

Sure. Well, it's great to be with you. Congrats on you. And everything you've been achieving. It's been fun to watch your progress. So, being why, we are the world's real, Looking after the wiring and financial security of the financial system. We also are America's oldest banks.

We've been around for a while. We've seen a few cycles over time. There were just 20,000 people in New York. Yeah, who started the bank again? Alexander Hamilton, the now famous dude. That's incredible. Incredible. So obviously a lot of, a lot has changed over the, what, 250 roughly year history of the firm.

What is your day-to-day like? What is on the top of your list of goals for 2026? What are the challenges to running an institution as old as B&Y? Well, we've been really reimagining the company over the course of the past three years. We've been a strong and safe part of the financial services system and the U.S. financial system, as you say, for 250 years. We were the first stock ever traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Fantastic. Exactly. That's right.

There's value to longevity. to get old means that you learn how to adapt. And this is a world full of change. And so we've been laser focused on really bringing ourselves truly into the modern age, AI, very focused on AI and everything we're doing with our platform, we can get to that. But actually taking the company and making it be the performer that it can be, we do all these great things, these different businesses that we have,

living up to our potential has really been the motto of the past three years for us. Yeah. As you've witnessed AI progress over the last couple years, what do you think the biggest opportunities for AI within, I would say, just legacy financial institutions overall? You know, we had someone on earlier that was talking about, you know, a lot of some of this code still running on mainframe computers and how much modernization that I'm sure you've been working. on that's not even related to AI and then how can AI continue to serve that? I think for us there are three vectors. And to be fair, I think they're probably the same for most firms these days. And I think that's true for technology software firms.

I think it's true in the financial services sector as well. One is just doing what we do, but just doing it in a better and more efficient way. So that could be modernizing code. You're right. Cobalt, we have some mainframes. Mainframe is actually pretty good. super high volume use cases, but we don't want them to run on old code. So having the opportunity to make that change, and frankly just make it easier to be

able to make the change. We've been putting it off for a while. Now we've got great tech. It's cheaper and easier and quicker to be able to do it. But also, reimagining processes end to end, being able to essentially take multi-step things and collapse them down to be just more efficient, quicker. So running the company better using AI is number one. Second vector of change is actually the products and services, just enriching what we do and actually what we offer to clients with AI so that they perform better, provide additional insights, can actually be executing quicker for clients.

So we just become better as an institution in our actual delivery of our products and services. And then the third one, I think is actually expanding the perimeter of the firm. We're not trying to turn ourselves into fundamentally a different company, but we are interested in taking. inspiration from other things that have happened in the world, like Amazon is a good example, Amazon Web Services, once upon a time it just served Amazon, then they externalized it as a service and it essentially became their cloud service. We've got lots of things that we do at super scale for ourselves that we could also do for our clients. We are the number one custodian in the world. We custody $60 trillion of assets.

We have not the payment rails. Yeah. It's fun tab scale. You just said the biggest number ever of any company, any CEO on the show, and that's hard to do. Three trillion a day moves through B&Y. We touch 20% of all investable assets in the world. So that is mega scale. You could sound it again if you want that.

I love it. This throughput is a dip from that throughput. allows us to be able to deploy AI into really making a company kind of different. So this third one, spanning the perimeter, doing for other people, things that we currently can only do for ourselves is kind of an interesting thing too. There was an interesting story on the Wall Street Journal today about Mark Zuckerberg, looking to build a custom AI or use AI to answer questions in his role as the CEO of Meta Platforms. And I'm interested in how you as the CEO of BNY could either are currently using AI or think in the future you might be using AI as a co-pilot for what you do, answering questions about the business.

What's on the top of your wish list if someone were to build an AI system that knew everything about your business and could help you do your job as CEO better? Well, we have the beginning of that right now inside our company. So we have our own AI platform that we built. We started the journey three years ago. It's called Eliza, homage to Alexander Hamilton again. And LISA connected to all of the LLMs, but is really a multi-agentic platform that are people-build agents.

And we have live agents, multi-agent solutions in production doing work today. We also have digital employees that are essentially multi-agent solutions that wrapped with a user ID, a login, a persona, a name that actually make them addressable and deployable in the company to work alongside our human employees as teammates. And Eliza's an app, and I do exactly what you just asked, basically multiple times a day. Okay.

So I put the client earlier on, hey, I'm going to be seeing this client. Could you please tell me what are the additional things that I should be talking to them about. Give me the top three ideas that are meant to be my pitch to the client. It goes through, looks through every call report that we've interacted with the client, what I did last time I met with them, what's happened in the news so far, what's pertinent and news to their business, and actually just advises me on how to be a better kind of extension to the client rep team when I'm meeting with them. So I do that today. Yeah, wow. I mean, can you explain to us a little bit about what you're standing in front of? Is this some situation room?

to understand the global economy, your business particularly, it looks amazing, but I'd love to know more. So you can just see a glimpse of it behind me, but yes, it's a, it is exactly all of what you just said. It is a situation room. It's our cyber technology command center. It is AI powered. So AI is kind of the first line in actually looking at it, triaging it. So we're watching $3 trillion of money every day. We're watching $25 to $30 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury every day. We're watching our $3 trillion worth of wealth assets, and we're basically helping our clients to be able to get insights into their business that's running through our technology, because we're kind of a platforms company these days. We're a bit of a non-traditional

bank in terms of what we actually do. So this is a virtualization, so it's all real data, real time, that is actually, and we have this in three places in the world, that runs off private and public cloud that actually allows us to get the insight into what's happening in our business all the time, real time. I'm sure clients are asking you about disruption from artificial intelligence, geopolitical instability. What else is at the top of the minds of your clients as we go into 2026? It's an uncertain time. Where are people searching for certainty right now? Well, you know, it's an important question, John. And so AI is for sure. right, you're right about the geopolitics, the world's complicated place, digital assets is another

example. Oh, sure. We positioned our investment in digital assets, tokenization, tokenized deposits, stable coins, tokenization of other security types and frankly other financial assets or maybe welcoming new financial assets into the system. That is something that our clients are super interested in because they want us to help them manage that transition from the old or traditional. rail's into the new ones. And we can be a partner for them with that. What is, what do you think is

next? I mean, there was a lot of, there was a lot of talk years ago about tokenizing assets, bringing, you know, assets that we know and trade every day onto, you know, digital rails, cryptocurrency, on chain. That, it feels like that happened with the dollar. It feels like stable coins are here. They've arrived. Real estate has been slower. Stocks have been slower. What Do you think is the next? Is oil on chain now? I was not familiar with that. Yeah, people are trying oil on chain. But I'm sure I'm sure you see some, you have some questions around how it's actually being done. Yeah, well, remember with oil as well, it's a physical commodity at the end of the day. The whole constant of on chain, in terms of the mirror world is like if ever there was an example of just a reminder that it's a physical asset today, today.

But look, let me give you my gen 1, gen 2, gen 3 view of that. And even before I do, let's just acknowledge where we are in Gen 1. So tokenization, yes, we're underway. We're beginning. You mentioned stable coins. They have market share this big right now. And so it's early days. It's a little bit like AI.

You can see the promise of the tech. You can see the opportunity. But at the end of the day, adoption, full integration into the system is very different than just having the tech. And we talk all the time in our company about AI. Great, great, exciting. But it's got to be deeper. it's got to be everywhere, it's got to be for everything, for everyone.

So I'd say digital assets, similar situation, even in Gen 1. We're beginning. It's early days, a lot of promise opportunity. But just taking an existing asset or even a physical asset that exists that isn't really part of the financial system putting it on, that'd be the beginning. Then, how do we actually make things work better and differently? Because for some existing assets, they're not necessarily better just because we tokenize them. You know, we take a share of Microsoft and we declare victory because it's the token.

We haven't really changed much in the world. If you take a bond, the question is not only can you tokenize the security, but what can you do with the indenture? How can you have the if and therefore statements that are all part of that piece of documentation and actually encode them in a chain in a way that it actually is going to add additional value? That's a different thing that's just tokenizing the security itself. And then Gen 3, you actually think about financial securities is ultimately, being a cash flow and terms and conditions, then maybe you can just re-render financial assets

in entirely different ways because of the fact that you now actually have the blockchain and you actually have capabilities that didn't exist today in the traditional rails. Now, today's L-1s aren't really up to that task. So there's innovation that's required at the L-1-L-level as well as in the L-2s and then for participant firms. But that's how I see the world.

We're early. This is a five-year, 10-year journey. It'll happen, I think. It'll happen more slowly than AI. But that's another example of an innovation right now. Earlier in the show, we were talking to Mitchell Green from Lead Edge Capital about private credit. And there's been some reporting around just how big that non-bank lending industry is. How should average investors who aren't maybe specifically in a private credit fund,

but just, you know, your average American trying to make sure that. their portfolio goes up every year. How should they think about private credit, the risk in the system, how they can protect themselves or potentially benefit? Where is America when it comes to the private credit industry right now? So first of all, just a reminder that private credit is first of all credit. Yeah. And so we've got private credit, we've got public credit. And they're essentially two different markets, different investor types potentially go in. But at the end of the day, they're trying to solve the same thing, which is leaning in to being able to lend money into the financial markets and capital system give entrepreneurs and other business builders or

business runners access to more capital. And so there are some types of borrowers who are more suited to the private markets and some who are suited to the public markets and some who do both. There's a lot of drama at the moment in private credit. And there are some good reasons for it because there have been some exposures that have been a bit idiosyncratic to private credit. And also, there are always liquidity issues when people see headlines and they say, oh my gosh, is my money safe? And then people aren't their money back. And then you have the old elevator, elevated door problem.

More people want to get out. But there's not necessarily enough space and there's a bit of a rush for the exit. So that's exactly the problem that we're seeing right now. But the market I would observe is today still pretty strong because the credit market's strong. And ultimately, the economy drives the credit market. Now, we have high energy prices for a long period of time, or we have a real weakness in the economy, and we're going to have problems in the credit market, and then we're going to have real problems in the private credit market and public credit market.

So I think today we're in this spot where there's a lot of focus. It's a large but not huge market compared to the scale of the public credit market, but the underlying fundamentals are mostly pretty good. But there's a huge watch out with energy, and as a result, huge watch out into the readout into the real economy. And if we have high energy prices or other cracks and they persist, yet it's a different story. Yeah, with the health of the underlying economy, I feel like people track inflation, they track GDP, they track the stock market. If someone's trying to, you know, now today, they're an oil expert. If someone's just trying to get

an understanding of how the U.S. economy is growing, what are the signals that you would recommend that they actually look through or try and understand? Well, first of all, when you're really looking to the economy, you're looking at employment is super important. People who have jobs feel more comfortable, and people who feel more comfortable go about their lives and they spend, and they employ back and they help the economy to grow. So it's really important to watch employment and also to watch sentiment. then consumer sales and spending and kind of credit card health

and are people being over leveraged and how they're going about their spending? Those things are important. What is the profitability ultimately of companies? And are they growing? Are they investing? Are people capital deploying? Energy is a huge input. High energy prices have a very negative impact on the United States.

We sit here and we feel very good about the fact that we've got a lot of security and energy supply. And so actually having the molecules that can flow because we have access to supply is a really big deal. But we're an export market. So at the end of the day, the world prices sort of set the price domestically here as well. And if we have high energy prices, it ripples through into food. It ripples through all into all of the different things that are energy dependent. And these days, everything is energy dependent.

Yeah. Well, I guess the good news is that oil's down 10% today. I feel odd saying that. But it was very nerve-wracking. when oil seemed to be going up and up. And as you mentioned, high energy prices can really put a drag on the economy. So hopefully, I think we're all hoping

for stability in financial markets, stability in energy markets and all of the above. But thank you so much for taking the time. Yeah, really enjoyed your perspective. And come back on soon. Yeah, we'd love to talk to you more. Have a great rest of your day. Cheers, Robin.

We'll talk to you too soon, Robin. Let me tell you about graphite. Code review for the age of AI. Graphite helps teams on GitHub ship higher quality software faster. Our next guest is live in person in the TV. One and only. The one and only. David Senator, how are you doing? I miss you, man. Nice watch. Good to see you. Tell us, how are you, how are you feeling? How are you feeling? That's just the Yahoo button. Does that reflect your your inner feelings? I want to talk about your inner monologue. I want you to, I want you to

introspect. I want you to introspect. How are you feeling? You're doing well? Yeah. Like, unbelievable. And do you feel aligned? Do you feel like you're reaching your goals in life? Do you feel like you're doing what you're meant to be doing? Oh, I mean, you don't answer that question. What kind of questions? I'm just messing with you. Is it introspection questions?

Yeah. Yeah, it was funny. Do you want to give the background to what you're? Sure, sure. So David Senra, host of David Senra and host of founders, went viral last week after an interview with Mark Andreessen, where you were both in. in discussion, in agreement, around this idea of maybe you don't need to, you don't need to be constantly introspecting. You need to have some forward motion in your life. You need to be

ruminating. It wasn't like advice. It wasn't advice for other people. Oh yeah. At all. That's funny. Like, so it was an observation. Yeah. Like I wanted to talk to Mark for a long time. Yeah. And I actually had dinner with him last year in Miami. And it took him a while to warm up. But then once he gets going, the same person you see on the podcast is like the same person in person, right? And I've like consumed everything. I told him before. I was like, I think you and Palmer are like, the two best podcast guests on the planet. He's great.

Right? Yeah. And, you know, because he doesn't have any notes in front of him. I spent eight hours need to need with Palmer. And I couldn't, he was inexhaustible. I've never come across a mind like that before. And Mark's the same way. It's like you can ask him anything and he has this crazy recall. And the difference between like me and most people that talk to Mark is like, I

read all the same books that Mark has done. I read his blog archive like eight years ago. Yeah. And which was excellent. Long before he was like tweeting. Is he an episode about... Yes. I think it's episode 50 of founders. That's great. And I think this is in 2018. Episode 50, wow. Yeah, exactly. I should redo it because there's a lot of really good advice for founders in there. And so, like, I was just excited to talk to him. It was the, by far, I think we've done like 13 or 14 of these that we've

released so far. We've now recording like mad, so we have a ton banked. But it's like one of the people I was most excited to talk about just because, like, we have the same passions. and he was the only person that I've come across in today that came to the same conclusion that I would read all these biographies and these people that went on to build great companies and invent new technology and everything else, they talk about this all the time, they actively avoid introspection.

And so the reason I brought up, I was not trying to be provocative. I have a 10-year fucking history of not being provocative. So, I mean, I understand the pushback, which is that there's so many examples of history's greatest entrepreneurs introspecting. I think that maybe the nuance here is when does the introspection happen? I always go back to that Disney chart.

You know the Disney napkin map of how Disneyland fits into Disney films, fits into the radio business, fits into the merchandise business. It all is crystal clear right now. And a lot of founders, a lot of content creators, a lot of people like us will look at that and be like, I need seven things that all piece together. But Disney drew that map and then died like two years later. It was a reflection on his life. He was introspecting about what made his business successful,

but he did it after he had done all the things. I think people were confusing thinking with introspection. So I was actually thinking about you. We were like the, again, I went back and listened to the first like 10 minutes of that episode. There's nothing remotely like controversial about this. And I guess one part of you're like, yeah, there should be more nuanced. Yeah, no shit. The internet.

No one needs to contact. They're not going to watch the 10 minutes. They're just going to see the caption and then disagree with the caption. So what I would say is like, this is the difference between pre and post life's work. And so like you're a perfect example. Yeah.

This is like, we've talked about this a few times on the show. It's like there was a huge prehistory with me and you, pre-tpVN. Yeah. And where you're the EIR, a founder's fund, you're making these fucking incredible document. I can't cuss, right? You guys got on me last time about this.

You can. You can. It's up to you. Okay. Depends on how you want to trade. Why, if our kids start swearing. We're going to be mad at you. Yeah, I'm going to take the stand that none of history's greatest entrepreneurs have ever sworn.

Yeah. You'll go far with that. So what I would say is like the prehistory here is like you were EIR, I found this fun. You were making these incredible long-form documentaries on a lot of the same interests that you and I have. I found you, I started talking to you. I was like, you're gifted at this. Like you're a generational media talent. Because I was like the first thing I saw of you was your history of Silicon Valley documentary,

which I've read at least 40 books on the same topic. I'm learning stuff I didn't even know. So it's like, oh, this guy's like, this is incredible. And if you remember the time, you were trying to figure out, what's that? You were trying to figure out, it sounds like a sheep. You were trying to figure out, okay, do I start another company? Do I become a VC? So you were trying to figure out, do I start another company?

Do I become a VC, God forbid. Yes. Do I, and I was like trying to push you to podcast. Yeah, yeah. And then you went to me. It was a good business. And then you went through multiple different variations. Goddammit, Jority, stop.

This is your show. So you went to multiple different variations, right, of different forms of podcasts. You even tried something like this with like a co-host a few different times. I saw all of them. Lulu and Jason Carmen. And then I also had a solo show that was sort of a copy of yours, but about live people instead of dead people. And we were, I remember because we were walking in Miami. We were walking to dinner.

We actually ran into Keith Rubei on the way there, randomly. And we had this dinner and you're like, this show just doesn't feel right. You didn't like the power law. Yeah, it's true. Yeah, the power law was not like, it wasn't getting me out of bed because I would make an episode and then somebody would be like, I'm alive and I'm going to debate you about this. Like you got this wrong. And I was like, oh, okay, I don't want to do it.

Yeah, you're like, no, no, no. Rockefeller's not coming from the grave yelling at me. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah, you can say whatever. You can say, you know, Steve Jobs never introspected and then he's not going to hit you up and be like, I did. And again, we're not saying like, never. But even like Elon commented on this.

I sent it to our group chat. We should pull up the tweet that he even commented on it. Yeah, he said reinforcing negative neural pathways via therapy or introspection is a recipe for misery. Don't cut a rut in the road. But isn't this just like don't ruminate? Some people were saying, oh, you guys are using the term wrong. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it was like negative introspection.

Let me finish. We have friends that all they do is introspect. One of them has still not done his first deal. We will not name him. Like, he thinks too much and not enough action. That is the point. It's just like, yeah, people that built, this is not a controversial. People that built great shit turned out to do a lot of action.

Like, they take a lot of action. Sure. As opposed to, like, just sit in there thinking about how they feel. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Even the, isn't it Blackstone whose first deal? Like, Steve's first deal was like a total flop. If I remember correctly. I don't know.

I don't remember that, but let me go back to John. It's like, I wasn't sitting there thinking about, like, what's the perfect media product. I was trying things, being very forward motion, being very aggressive about these different things. about these different things. The important part is you were trying to figure out a business that fits for you. And then this is why when I immediately saw you guys, you were in like the wrinkled t-shirts,

you were filming at the Jonathan Club. I was like, this is it. You found it. The reason I bring that up for you is because I think it's a great illustration in the point. It's like, I talk to you guys every day. You don't wake up thinking about like, how do I feel today? Or like, what should I do? You guys just are unbelievably dedicated to, because you found your life's work.

And I know this because, like, how many people have tried to buy the show? How many people have tried to invest in the show? How many people try to get you to do other things? And you're like, no, like, we just want to do this and we just want to do this forever. And the example I used on the episode was Sam Walton. Like Sam Walton was figuring retail out. He had one store for the first five years of his life.

Right? But then you fast forward 25 years into his life. He wasn't waking up like, what should I do today? He's like, no, I like building Walmart. I'm going to make more Walmart. So just keep doing this until I die. That's the point we were making. And then I love that Mark just refused about it.

Oh, it was like day. You like 10x down. Oh, day after day after day after day of just not fighting this back. And then... Did very well. And then what I would say about this is like... Perfect. We hit on this weird, unintended, like, political divide.

We're like... A lot of, like, my liberal friends were texting me and saying, like, this is wrong. This is evil. And I'm just like... Oh, interesting. I think you know I'm not a wrong... Like, you know, more of my conservative friends, like, yeah, no shit. And again, that was unintentional.

So a lot of the hate comments came from, like, the socialist side of Twitter, which, okay, fuck them people. Like, I hate socialists. Like, good. Got canceled by the socialist. Good. Good. More. Yeah.

More, more inspiration to grind harder. Tell us more about the show. What's coming down the pipe? How are you thinking about it? How much are you on the road these days? A lot of people, so Jordy is seeing the new studio, which you've got to come out and see. It's crazy. Yeah, yeah.

It's crazy? Yeah. It's probably actually the craziest podcast studio ever. Really? Just like the actual dirt that it's on. Okay. Yeah. We just had Evan Spiego out there.

Thank you for making that connection. but he started watching the show and he's like, can I be on the show? And then he had known, because he's like, I love these guys. So the answer is just like, I'm not, I mean, we will travel if we have to. I'm trying to push as many people as possible to Malibu. We're having a lot of success with that. And we're all really friends with my, good friends of my co-founder, Rob Moore. And like every time, like, the Indreason one we did, I probably did that like three weeks before he came out.

And I was like, again, I don't do any drugs, but I was like, high as a kite. I was just like shaking Rob. I was like just put a founder in front of me every single day. Like that's the biggest thing. So, yeah, I definitely feel like I'm not waking up thinking, what should I do today? It's like I'm completely addicted to this. What's the pipeline of people that are coming on the new show that have never done a podcast? Okay, so one of, okay, so we all know.

Because that's the real alpha. Like, there's a thousand, there's not, not, I'm saying like all of it, but I'm just saying, like, there's a thousand people out there that are, that would break the internet if they did a show. And they just for one reason or another. Who's your Sarah Payne? Okay, so there's two things here. One, there's a lot of other podcasters. A few have tweeted this publicly, and I don't really respond anybody on Twitter, but I've said, hey, you know, I think of this differently. They're like, I don't like doing people that have the podcast circuit.

Sure. And when you say that, you're just admitting that you have no differentiation, you have no unique perspective. So, like, I really wanted to do Mark because... We would never interview someone here if they were, if they had done a different podcast. Yeah, exactly. But I wanted to interview... What? This is your sixth show today?

Let's ring the gong. I wanted to have conversation with Mark because of all the things that I knew about him that I had never heard anybody else. Of course, of course. We went on Jim Clark. So if you listen to that episode. And the virality is evidence

that you had a new conversation. You got to a different place. Well, not only that, but that was the stuff that was controversial, but there's stuff in there like, okay, the fact that when Mark was 20 years old, he was mentored by like the Elon of his day. Jim Clark was the first person to ever, in history, to ever found three separate billion dollar technology companies.

And he didn't start his first company who was 38 years old. At 38. He started his first company. And then, and check this out. And then there was this book from like 2001 that was published that I read by Michael Lewis. Before he was 38, was he just like introspecting or? No, no, no, no. He was an academic.

The moment he stopped. He was an academic, but. Straight to the top. He describes himself in the book. He just said as a self-described loser because he was smart. He had papers written and he was teaching, but he had no money. And then I think his second or third divorce, the guy's like, He was literally just...

Who is this again? Jim Clark. Jim Clark. Yeah. John her Silicon graphics. Yes. Netscape. The company that turns into WebMD.

Yes. And Mark Andreason was really young when he co-founded Netflix, but he had Jim Clark. Netflix. Or sorry. Netscape. But he had Jim Clark as like this older... He's mentor. He's co-founded.

He's a wild thing because normally if you walk into Adreson's office and you say like, I'm 20 and I have a 40-year-old co-founder, people would be like, this is odd. Like, normally we fund like two Stanford grads. So I read an entire book on this. Very interesting. He talks about it in his blog archive, and I did two other episodes on the same book, like two or three years apart.

I don't know how no one brought that up to Mark, but it was so fascinating. And he tells three different stories on the podcast spread by like 30 minutes in between each story about how formative this was. The reason he is the way he is is because he was mentored by Jim Clark O'20. How is that not interesting?

Yeah. So I want to have my own spin on people that, you know, or do other podcasts. There is another one coming out. We're actually flying to New York to do this one because it's going to be one of the craziest locations that you could possibly film in. This was suggested by somebody I can't name on the show.

He's a good friend of us three. He's probably the smartest person that we all know. And he's like, hey, we were at dinner in Miami, and he's like, He who shall not be named? Exactly. And so basically, he's like, what do you talk about this guy? I can't tell you who it is yet, but this guy's product, if you are wealthy in the world, you will know and probably have, you know,

frequented this guy's product. And it's outside of tech. It's nothing to do with technology. And so he's never, what did you say? Chrome hearts. No. No, but he's never done a podcast. He doesn't even have any,

this guy doesn't even have any social media. He designed wraps that go on Hurricanes. The chat is saying you're bringing vague posting to podcasts. Who? You're vague posting. Who? You're vague posting on a pod, which is, which is innovated. Let's be less vague.

What do you think about the AI podcast that's at the top of the charts right now? It is programming. all of us. It's putting us all out of a job. Is this the Epstein one? Yes. Yeah, but I think they're transitioning to... They're going to do more. They're going to do a bunch of stuff. Everything that you want, like, if it's a hot topic, they're going to have a podcast that's, you know, single narrator-like, very fact-based, deep research.

Yeah, and the reason that it's interesting is like it's not an AI app. It is like somebody used AI to make the media product and then just uploaded it to traditional channels. Yeah, Kareem from Ramp showed me this. like a month ago. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, obviously there's going to be great AI generated podcasts. Like, of course. Now, I think they got to the top of the charts,

not because they have a large listenership, if not mistaken, but the frequency in which you produce. And so that's a way to actually, like, manipulate that. Sure, sure, sure, sure. Where you see this with some other media companies doing this, where they essentially record for three hours and they just break up every, all the episodes are like 15 minutes long,

and they upload, like, you know, 15 a day or whatever. And they're like, look, we're on top of charts, but if you actually look at overall listenership, it's like really low. Yeah, we would know that. But yeah, like, there's obviously, like, three a day. I mean, I spent, I got to spend,

I think I could talk about this, pretty sure. I got to spend some time with Demis from DeepMine. And just like, you know, that is the most AGI-I-pilled fucking person I've ever come across my life. So he thinks it's coming for everything. So, yeah, obviously there's going to be great AI-generated podcasts. Yeah.

I think the people making AI podcasts would stop if they knew they were. competing against you. I found this hilarious. I was looking back. Like the Chuck Norris of podcasting. You guys are hilarious because I went through our, um, look at this. Here.

You guys texted me this when I did the new show and you didn't like the profile picture that I, that I originally picked. Yeah. Because you smile, you were smiling. I was like, you want to read it? Yeah, I said, uh, you, you created a new account for the new show and I just immediately texted it to you and I said, I think no smile and profile picture. John says, agree.

And I said, if you look good, it just doesn't seem on brand. You're more serious than 99% of people. And then John said, unless it's a deliberate ploy to make enemies underestimate how seriously you take podcasting. And I said, you look like you should look like you're going to kill someone. So anything, like, I think like being the best in the world, like trying to like dominate whatever niche you, like you guys are dominating your niche right now. I'm amazed.

I hear it. Listen to every single interview. guys do and like just your your relentless focus of like this is what we do you don't even want to travel which I heard like you changed something you know plans recently yeah I think like the key for us and anybody is just like whatever your core competency is like focus in on that try to get as far down that line as possible and then just say note everything yes and again is that even new like yeah it's interesting on the AI topic like the the speed with which AI can produce an audio deep dive on a hot topic like the Epstein files which drops it has that

thousands of thousands of pages of documents, like the human team's not going to be able to read through that, and people want to consume that media through audio. That makes a lot of sense. At the same time, it does feel like interviews, you know, with particular people that everyone knows is not AI, like Mark Andresen, and then they can react to that and feel something emotionally because it's a real person with a real impact on the world.

That feels very, very sticky. So I debate demos on that. We just had this conversation. So some of the stuff, like how we're, using AI for the new show, like I'm not going to talk about publicly. I obviously tell you guys because we share information, but it's just like I'm not giving an edge to competitors. It's not going to happen. What I would say is... Oh, you have a course. No, never do that. Never. Okay. So what I would say is like we had dinner like a month ago and this is exactly, it was with Kareem

and the guy that we can't mention. Yeah. And they're just like, you're moving way too fucking slow. These are close friends. So it's like they're not like being mean to me. Sure, sure. You're moving way too slow. You're not using AI enough. Founders is more, like, susceptible to being overtaken by AI than the new one. And you should drastically ramp up production on the new one. And they made the exact same point that you did. But I do think, again, like, everything, the world is, like, run on parallels.

And I think podcasting is the same way. And it's just like, yeah, you guys are making media and you're delivering news and commentary. But your audience has a relationship with you. Like, I see when they come up to you, like, how they act. act like you're, Jordy and John are my best friends. Like, that's what I can, I've been saying that you can go,

I've been going on podcasts for half a decade, but I'm not making media. I'm creating relationships at scale. And that's why your, your shows are not just like, you ask one, like, it would be very different to like use AI

and walk into an interview with Mark Andrews and just with like, 10 questions and be like, Mark, how did you start your career? I didn't have, AI will be able to be able to do. Mark can put up an insane podcast just with that format

where the guests could say like a total of a thousand words and he just like goes off. But no, But yours are more like, you know, all of your, I think a lot of your episodes will end up being like 50-50. I'm trying to, like, I didn't have anything. I think they're better if I don't have anything in front of me. Like I prepared for the last decade. Like, I can just sit down and talk to you.

We do have one. So I met Tony from DoorDash here. Remember, he came on your show. And we had this crazy conversation. You were writing the newsletter, but me, you and Patrick and Tony had this crazy conversation for like 45 minutes. And in 15 minutes, I was like, hold up, dude, you got to do more podcasts. Because he's so impressive. That one, I think it's coming out next weekend.

That one I had maybe too much in front of me, just because the way I think about Tony is just he's like, again, not financial advice, but he just gives me, out of anybody I've ever spoken to, I think he's 41. It just gives me like young Jeff Bezos vibes. Like I have no idea of the quality of DoorDash. I don't look into the stock, anything like that. All I know is if you think that guy's stopping a food deal.

Yeah, the other thing that's notable there is all three of the original co-founders are still working in the business, and it's, what are the, they 15 years in or something? It's a crazy crazy. Maybe a little bit less, but, but that, it's so, so rare to have that much success. Yeah. All the, all the founders, you know, but on somebody steps back normally. Somebody's got to start a venture five. Think about how humble he is though, right? And, you know, I even said this on the episode. It's like, you're not going to like what I'm about to say, Tony, but don't we say it anyways. It's just like, your competitors are afraid of you. Like, I've, I had a dinner in Stockholm with

the guy that sold his company for like $8 billion to Tony. His name's Mickey. The company's called Volt or something like that. It was like, he told this crazy story I tell him on the episode of Tony. He still reports directly to Tony to this day. And we're like, he's like, I thought of myself as an entrepreneur in my entire life.

I thought there's no way in hell it ever worked for anybody else. We had a term sheet right in front of me. We could raise a fresh billion dollars of capital to fight them. And I'm looking at it thinking about this. And something involuntarily came out of my mouth that I never thought I would made. And he's looking at it and he goes, I can't beat him. Whoa. You can't beat him. He's like, I can't beat him. So I either could like sell for life changing money and then learn from him or I could fight this ego and maybe like this billion

dollars on fire. And he did the difficult decision. It's like, I'm going to go and sell. He's still going to get stock in the new company and be able to grow that. Yeah. But I would say that out of all the conversations I've had so far, the one that they're all, like I've all enjoyed them. But what I would say is like Toby Luke. was, if the people listening to this have not listened to any of the new show yet, I would, if you want to go in tech, go Toby Louke. If you want to find these crazy people that are not in tech, go Todd Graves. Todd Graves.

But Toby Luque was very fascinating to me because he's your favorite founder's favorite founder. So everybody that you admire, you ask who they admire and they'll bring up Toby. And what they like about him is that he thinks to every single thing independently. So therefore, he has all these beliefs that are not correlated with one another, which means when you have a conversation with him, you are unable to predict what his response to your question or your statement is going to be.

And that, we talked for four hours. So we talked for a half hour before we recorded. Then we recorded for three hours. We added down to whatever it was. Then we recorded for another 30 minutes or talked for another 30 minutes after. And I could have kept talking. I was like, dude, I got to catch a flight.

I'm going to have dinner with Charlie Rose that night. I had to like fly down there. It was like we would have kept talking. Like he just blew my mind. And one thing he said that I think would be interesting to your audience is he believes, and I think he said this on the episode, that we're going to look back on the year 2026 as the year that every single business in the world was up for grabs.

That AI is coming for everything. Every single other business will have to be reimagined. And you're going to look back at this is the year. It should have been obvious to you that you can rebuild the AI-native version of whatever exists out there. Interesting. Meta has scaled back. Their Metaverse plans kind of refocus the company. A lot of people over the last couple weeks have been kind of dunking on Zuck for that.

Anything stand out in history where great entrepreneurs, CEOs made like massive, massive bets, and they didn't pan out. I would say as a meta-shareholder, I think it's great that Zuck is willing to like bet heavy, heavy, heavy on, you know, trends that he really believes in. And also, it's great if you kind of run it down and then realize you're hitting a dead end or need to refocus. But what's your view on, you know, swinging for the absolute fences and missing sometimes? I mean, it's obviously inevitable. Jeff Bezos has this great line in his shareholder letters where it's like the size of your failure has to scale the size of your company. So he's like, I can't make a $300 million mistake anymore.

I think the fire phone was like a $3 billion. Yeah, that's good. Like, okay. Because I want to, I'm going to somewhere. Like, I have to, like, it's just inevitable. What I will say is I've spent some time with Zuck. I don't think he has a peer. Like, I told him this.

It's like, who else is his age? And he's still somewhat of a puzzle and mystery to me, and that's why I'm, like, interested in, like, to continue to talk to him. Because it's just like, I've read every single book on Facebook. They're all bad. There's no good books on Facebook. There, some of his, you know, most of his interviews, like, they just, there's just certain things I want.

want to talk to him about that because I'm just naturally curious about. I think this is the whole point where, you know, people like, you guys are having this immoral conversation about introspection. It's just like, it's funny because, yeah, you actually want him to introspect. You want to, the interview that you would do with Zuck would be very reflective. It would not be, tell me how you're thinking about MSL's product roadmap. No, I don't even think it would be introspect. It would be like, just I want to know how, like, the reason I, I signaled out the Toby Lucke episode. Yeah. Because when I sat down with Toby and I did this for Brian Armstrong, too, who was awesome, just like, I want to make like a how Toby Lucke works episode.

Yes. Like, and this is what I just want to know, I'm not, there's no gotcha here. It's just like, how do you think about building businesses? How do you think about retaining talent? Why did you do this product? Like, just tell me the stuff that you have 25 years, in his case, I think 20 years experience as an entrepreneur. Like, that's one very rare, especially one in a single company. Like, you've learned all kinds of crazy stuff.

Like, just like, let's get some of this on record. and let's talk about this. So same thing with Zuck. I'd just be very interested. What I like about him is he has this just like interclock where he's going to make these massive bets. And, you know, obviously he knows. He's obviously not stupid.

Like some of them are going to fail. Of course. What do you think about retired interviews? People that are out of the game. The risk with a live player, someone who's actively running a public company is that the SEC is listening to the, what they're saying, that they want to stay on talking points, that they have a bunch of different

incentives. Well, if they say, oh, well, you know, the easiest thing I ever did was cut back my marketing spend because none of that stuff was working. Well, then their head of marketing is going to be upset. There's internal politics. Whereas when you do an interview with somebody who's retired and no longer in the game, sometimes they can speak a little bit more freely about their industry, their life's work, their career, etc. Yeah, I would, if I could have a show of just 80-year-old billionaires, like that would talk. Like, I got to spend time with Sam Hinkle before he died.

The fact that I was never able to record a podcast with him, like now that I have this new vehicle, it's like, man, because he's just like, doesn't care. He's dying of cancer. Yeah, yeah. He's going to say whatever. So my friend Sam Hinky, I just saw him like two weeks ago, and he actually gave me advice.

He's like, you should organize your guest list in reverse chronological order because. Oh, sure. Like there's one guy we're working on right now who's, you know, one of the most successful people. We already had to reschedule with him. He's 87. 87. And he is like unfiltered and incredible.

What about the tension between a name brand live player? Like a Toby look, he's somebody who has done other podcasts. People are, you know, know Shopify. Maybe they've built a business on Shopify. Like it is not fully a consumer brand, but it will draw a certain level of attention, versus 80-year-old billionaire who's been, you know, owns half the farmland in Montana might have had a fantastically rich life,

but one behind the scenes. Is there still an interview to be done there? Yeah. Like, how do you guys choose the people you want to talk to? Like, well, a lot of it's news-driven. So a lot of it's about, you know, what's happening right now in the world, who can we talk to to contextualize that?

And so I enjoy those reflective moments when they come up, But they aren't as much of a driving force at all. So I just like try to, so I went on a walk yesterday or maybe yesterday. I didn't know where I was yesterday. Yeah, it was yesterday morning. And a really good friend, really smart person. You're just like, you have one of your gifts is like, selling everything down to like what is actually essential.

And so, and he's like, you help me talk through all these issues I'm having in my business this way. But you do it for yourself where it's like this, I'm just going after things I'm intensely interested in, especially in the age of AI. If you're not following what you're obsessed with, I think you're doing it wrong. So founders is just the books that I'm intensely interested in reading, and the new show is just people I'm intensely interested in speaking to.

Some of those stuff, the people we have recorded, they'll, like, might be known in this, like, small niche thing. I'm not going after, like, just big names. That's not interested in me. It's like, the rubric is very, or the, like, the decision making here is very simple. It's just like, am I intensely interested to sit down

and talk to this person? Like Evan Spiegel, I showed him too, this. I did an episode of founders on him. I think it's episode like 25 or 24. It's like a long time ago. And there was like one thing that happened with Evan because I talk about Edwin Land all the time. Founder of Polaroid, Steve Jobs' hero.

Steve Jobs copied a lot of how Edwin Land built Polaroid and use those ideas in building Apple. Steve Jobs of mentoring technologists. Yeah, and like he's the patron saying of founders. And so I read this book about Evan, and Evan is 21 years old, and he's talking about that he's got two heroes. And it happens to be Steve Jobs, which makes sense. Every 21-year-old kid trying to be an entrepreneur at the time had Steve Jobs.

And then Edwin-Land. It's like, how the hell does a 21-year-old even know? We got enough land-head. Yeah, we had an incredible conversation about that. I know. It's a different land. Stop. Yeah, and so, like, you see what I mean?

Like, we have the same interest. This is a guy that has influenced my thinking. He influenced your thinking. And, of course, you wind up with a camera company. Yeah, yeah. Like, it made perfect sense to me. Oh, that makes sense. And I don't care.

Everybody's like, oh, market cap, I don't care about that. iPhone is also. But people are like, what about, what about like if the stock prices down on the market camp? So I don't give a shit. I want him to win. He's like a very interesting person to me. Yeah, totally, totally. Okay.

Saturday, I watched Elon's kind of new pitch for Tesla XAI and SpaceX. And one of the products that he was kind of presenting was a mass driver. Did you follow this at all? Do you think I did? I know you didn't. We have, hold on. We have two episodes. But we were having, so we were having a debate on the show at the beginning around the timeline for the products.

And we were pretty, John, where did we actually land? You were saying under 20 years. I said under 20, Tyler said under 30 and you said 75 or something. And so. Or you said 10, but then also 75. But also five. Also five. I had.

Five. No, I've literally, I have no idea. I'm not going to pretend that I think I have like an accurate read on it. But has there any entrepreneurs throughout history that were kind of pitching their business overall on timelines where the market was like, I don't know if this is probably like going back to like inventing flight, people telling the right for others like, you're never going to be able to fly. Is it possible? People were saying that for sure. No, I know, I know, I know. But at the same time, they did it on like a...

They weren't being like, like, this chain of events will lead to the 747 50 years from... Yeah, exactly, exactly. So get ready for the 747. This is like the Wright brothers pitching. So invest in my bicycle plane because the 747's coming. Like, it was coming in 50 years, right? So I would say about Elon in particular, I did this episode of Founders, which I'm really proud of. It's probably the most downloaded episode ever.

It's called How Elon Works. And it strips and rate all the biographical details and just. talks about him speaking about the way he runs his companies. And in that episode, I would said, like, usually there's some kind of, like, historical equivalent for everybody operating today. And, you know, you could name a person that I could find somebody in history that, you know, but for him, I do think he is, like, a singular character. I can't think of anybody living or dead that is like him. Yeah. It's weird because he's an industrialist, but he's also incredibly promotional and, like, very good at the marketing side as well as the building side.

The best in the world at that. That's very much. Maybe the best salesperson. Yeah. There are so many people that were amazing salespeople. That was why the The weekend presentation was tough because I didn't think all the technology was cool, and I have zero doubt that Elon can do hard things that no other set of companies can do. And you see it today because a decade ago, people were like roadsters coming next year. Everyone's talking about roadster and no one's really talking about mass driver. They didn't break through in the same way. Probably because it's the name.

Math driver? They got to get a new name. Yeah. They should call it. I didn't see it. I don't know what that means, but that's fine. Hold on. The answer the question of the majority, there is tons of examples from history

of somebody having an idea saying that they're going to dedicate to that life their life to making that idea come to fruition and taking multiple decades to actually do that. So the thing that comes to mind just because I'm rereading about him now and I'm probably going to do another episode on him. I've done like six episodes on Henry Ford. And Henry Ford had one idea. He would tell you.

I had one idea in my entire life and that was to figure out a way to make the car for an every man. Meaning at the time when you made less than a dollar a day, cars are like $6,000. You can't afford, the people making them cannot afford them. How can we learn to mass produce that? And it took them, you know, 20 years

of pounding on that idea until he actually accomplished that goal. So he probably thought it was going to be done three or five or ten. And it took 20. But yeah, you're going to find a ton of examples like that. It always takes longer. And that's why the Raptor R exists.

It's the car for the Everman. Henry Ford would love the Raptor R. Well, the thing that That example doesn't quite satisfy this example, because this pitch is like, these eight things need to happen perfectly synced together in order for this other thing to be possible. But again, betting against Elon has not worked yet.

Mid-curve alert. Mid-curve alert. There is, there's a book by our mutual friend Eric Jorgensen that's coming out tomorrow. Mid-curve. Mid-curve. Yeah, I think we, I mean, we can show the cover, can't we? You can read the whole thing right now live.

You guys want to spring for another seven hours? Let's do a table reading. This is the book of Elon with a forward by Naval Ravakant by none other than Eric Jorgensen. And the visuals are by Jack Butcher. Ooh, that's great. So in the book, Elon talks about the fact that he gets a lot of shit on the fact that his timelines are usually, you know, off. Yeah. And he explains why and everything else.

But I think what Eric, we're actually doing something. Eric was actually the first American to ever put me on a podcast. Really? And so like the first podcast I ever did of somebody else's podcast was this one that only went in like China. And so it was like really popular on WeChat. But Eric, he just like gave me a shot when no one really who I was. That's awesome. And they wound up being important because one of the listeners of that episode,

there's only like a thousand people who listened to it was Patrick. And Matt Russell, who was running Colossus. and there's a comment in the Colossus Slack, the Colossus Podcast Network Slack, which Patrick Coshanasi is the founder of, talking about the episode. This is before I was signed to them, and they said,

this guy sounds like he's going to bite the microphone. And so they're like, oh, he's actually like, might be good at this. But I think what Eric is, the reason, what I'm doing is I'm dropping an episode of founders on this book tomorrow, which is a normal solo episode. Then I did something different for the new show, which I think could be another,

another like not just having conversations with great founders, but conversations with charismatic authors who are writing about great founders. Eric, he's a friend, he's also very articulate and charismatic. And so we essentially, that episode's coming on the David Center feed tomorrow. You say because he's a friend, he's articulate and charismatic? No, because I've spent a lot of time talking to him.

We're like, you guys have interviewed authors. I just missed. Yeah, you know, some of them is like... Authors are almost universally fun to talk to in the moment that they're launching their book because they've spent more time than anyone else on Earth. Just thinking about that one.

So when you see the shot tomorrow, it's like we have, like, you know, I don't know, a thousand pages of Elon documents in front of us. And a lot of it is just me going through asking my notes and highlights with Eric and then you essentially can prompt him and then he can tell you crazy Elon stories.

Yeah. Do you think that there's a lot of the CEOs that you're talking to the ones that are kind of in their prime, let's say, you know, five to 10 years or 20 years, years into their company. Do you think they are more AGI-pilled than they let on on the internet? Because a lot of them will talk about how they're using AI and talk about how they're excited about it. But I feel like you've given me some examples where behind the scenes are actually

like much stronger believers. I mean, you guys had, I think Lulu, I think has been on here talking about that AI has like a communication, like a branding problem. It's like very unpopular with the general population. Yep. Actually, I spent over an hour with Kareem yesterday talking about this topic and about ways to actually get good information. What I would say is, like, yeah, like most of the stuff they're talking about,

they're not going to talk about a podcast, they're not going to talk about. You'll see this in group chats to some of the ones that you and I are in. But even that, like, yeah, most of them is like whispers and like private conversations and completely off the record stuff. Do you think you'll ever write a book? Do you think I'll ever write a book? I didn't know about you share. No, man.

The thing that we three share. No. The thing that we... That's a narrative violation. What we share is like, do you want to do anything else than the show? Why haven't you raised the fun yet? Why aren't you starting a new company? Why aren't you on a plane right now traveling? I'm just thinking like, I don't know, like the book of David Senra with Eric Jorgensen.

He's writing it. He's writing it. Oh, Eric's already writing it. Yeah, he tried to work on it with me and he's just like, you don't use my phone. And if I talk to you, because I can't get a hold of you. Then I talk to you, you have your idea changes all the time.

I was like, I can't be the bottleneck of anything. This is why I have to run my own shit. Yeah, that's fair. I'm just thinking about it in terms of like, are you trying to like sabotage me? You're trying to like get me to not focus on podcast. I thought we're friends.

I've just seen more and more, like Dworkash wrote that book with Stripe Press that was heavily based upon the interviews that he did. It had a bunch of interesting graphics. It was clearly a collaborative project. And I feel like there's an aura effect to writing that can work very well. I mean, we had a number of people on,

that have been able to stick the landing. No, I think, again, like, just focus is more important than ever in this age and focus on things that you think about all the time and that you're, like, obsessed with. And, like, the reason I could do a new episode every day is because I never get tired of talking about how people build their business

or think about their products or, like, I find that shit infinitely fascinating because you could do it. This is what I loved about Toby. Yeah. And it's just like, he's like, the reason he thinks, think he said this on the episode the reason he thinks through every single thing because he's like

there's not one right way to do it there's probably a hundred and i'm looking for the right way for me and so like talking about aGI build he said something that was shocking on that episode where you know because he's like i started shopify in my in i was he had no money he was living in this like mother-in-law's house at a small desk in a bedroom there it was inside of a cave right no i don't think so with scraps with scraps no he built the company with scraps and uh and then we It was interesting about that. Right before all the new innovation in AI happened, he said that he was like, he thought, like,

I'm not the right person to run this company anymore. I shouldn't be CEO anymore. And then he's like, if it wasn't for AI, I wouldn't be running the company anymore. So many stories of like that where someone had a really good business growing, and it's just stable growth, 20% top line. They're doing fine, but they're just lost for purpose or energy. And then AI happens, and they're like, I'm back in gear.

I love seeing it, especially with the folks who are at that, like, multi-billion-dollar phase. It's just been a remarkable, remarkable moment in tech. Yeah, I wouldn't, you want those people to be playing as long as possible. He's still relatively young. He's probably what, it's 40s, 45 or something like that? Like, that's way too early. But it's so easy to step back and think about something else to get distracted or do a fund or something or just retire.

Like, there's a lot of people who are stuck out. And also he went public really early. I think he said on the episode, they went public like 1.5, billion dollar valuation or it was like some crazy number. IPO for ants. It's high for Canada. There's a lot of stuff in the TSX that's like tiny. Yeah, but I think at one point he's at $200 billion.

I don't know what he's at now. Yeah, and so it had to feel like he was sprinting, you know, for 20 years. Totally. But no, you want, I'm glad those people are like that. And I do think that, you know, the point, somebody was making this point to me yesterday where it's just like these technical founders just have, you know, a massive advantage to everybody else. Yeah.

And you see this with like Toby constantly writing. more code. Brian Armstrong is doing the same thing. You just see it over and over again. There's a lot of folks. There was a peptide you could take that would allow you to podcast for 25 hours a day. Would you take it? Well, okay. Here's the thing. I keep hearing about peptides. I think I accidentally

took one one time. What happened? Justin, I think, had some. Oh, no, that was, yeah, Justin gave, Justin had like, I don't even know if we could talk about this. It was the rafters. He gave me and you. That's right. Justin Mares. It was some sleep. It was some sleep, peptide, but it was like something you get on Amazon.

Okay. But I thought his friend, he said his friend made it in like his own compound pharmacy. We might get getting Justin arrested for this. I don't think so. Us who were hanging out and then you text or maybe we hung out the next day and you text him, he's like I didn't feel anything about this. No, I am one of the benefits of partnering with Andrew Heerman

is you get access to like weird health shit. And so I was like over like I remember recording with like John Mackey. It was the day I recorded with John Mackey. It felt fine. We stop at like 1 p.m. by like 5 p.m. I feel like I'm going to die. And I had an unbelievable important thing to do.

Like 36 hours later, I could not mess around. And so I just text the group and they sent like this IV guy. And it was like a four-hour IV. And I was like, listen, and I don't know anything about it. So I was like, I was like, I trust you. So like you don't give me like I don't want to, this has to be good. Would you take this? And it's something they do to make sure that like they're when they're on the edge of getting sick.

Well, the next meta or goat. One of them, there was some kind of peptide in there. One of them, by the next morning, I woke up feeling 100%. Like, I went from deadly sick to, I feel like a completely normal person. Well, the next meta is leeches. No. You're going to be purifying. No, I walked in and all the guys.

You can get medical leeches. This is every podcaster. Stop, stop. Yeah, you don't like snakes. What happened? Because I walked in and all the guys were talking about, you guys had some kind of debate. We had a debate, Martin Screlly. What happened?

From superpower. Yeah, they just, you're just debating whether or not, like, the, the more out there peptides that are not fully FDA approved yet, maybe there's some data, should those be sold, what's the correct path to bring the next generation peptides to market? Martin Screlli's position was that the FDA has the path laid down. These companies should be, these products should be developed by biotech companies, approved by the FDA, then sold in the pharmaceutical context prescribed by a doctor, and Max from superpower had a more liberal view.

Does he sell, does one of the guys sell peptides? I don't know if superpower does, but a lot of Silicon Valley companies are getting into that market. And a lot of people in San Francisco and Silicon Valley broadly are like taking Chinese peptides, quote unquote, meaning that they're like going to a gray market marketplace that then manufactures these drugs that are not FDA approved and not made in FDA approved facilities. And certainly are not to the economic benefit of the pharmaceutical companies that spent a lot of money. developing these drugs. So there's some company out there that's been working on something. They develop the intellectual property.

They're hoping to recoup 100% of that because they have patent on it. And so that they should be able to sell it and get all the value. And there are a whole bunch of third parties that are going around copying the homework, maybe changing it a little bit, maybe making it worse, maybe making it less effective, maybe making it less safe, and then selling it. And so there's a big debate in Silicon Valley right now about like the pepper. Are you taking any of this stuff? You, like, protect your body like a temple.

I'm surprised you took what Justin gave you. I trust Justin. Justin and I have a very similar ethos around health. Anyway, this has been a fantastic conversation. I'm excited to continue this podcast as soon as we go off. For sure. The podcast never stopped. Leave us five stars on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

We are now the number two technology show on Spotify. Thank you to everyone who supported us. Who's ahead of you? Who's ahead of you? All in. All in's on a big run. you know, they're doing well, but we're coming for you all in. Watch out. Just kidding. Subscribe to our newsletter at TBPN.com. Leave us five stars. We're happy for them to be number one as long as they're running ads.

Yes, yes, they're running ads. So we know. Our job is finished. Our job is finished. Yeah, that was one of our early bits. We wanted all in to run ads and they're running ads. So we're happy. Anyway, a patriotic thing to do. Have a wonderful evening. Massive stream tomorrow, 11 a.m. Pacific. Throw that reaction to this.