All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg
00:22:40 · David Sacks, Jason Calacanis
[00:22:40] S1: Maybe. But I don't think that's the democratic party that we have today. I mean, the old Clinton Democrats... I mean, Bill Clinton Democrats are long gone. I don't think the abundance Democrats are picking up a lot of momentum. I mean, the Democrat Party is... As Gavin Newsom said, is becoming DSA dominated. So what is their agenda with respect to superintelligence? Either to ban it outright as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and AOC want to do. They basically want twenty year jail sentences for developers of superintelligence and they want corporate death penalty for companies that build superintelligence. Or they want to have some extremely draconian regulatory regime that would feature a federal department of AI or federal department of SI, I guess, that would review and approve every single model before its release. Basically, they wanna have a DMV for models. [00:23:37] S0: Let me [00:23:37] S1: challenge Look, that is that is the democratic agenda on this. Now, could that be shifted through oligarchs like, I don't know, Reid Hoffman or maybe some of these new Anthropic oligarchs like maybe a Dustin Moskowitz, something like that? Maybe they can, through their massive influence in democratic circles, could effectuate a change. But I tend to think that Chamath is right that democrats want to do anything they can to sabotage the Trump economy and this whole SI boom is what is driving the Trump economy right now. I tend to think that's gonna be the partisan that's gonna be the partisan impetus.
00:23:37 · David Sacks, Jason Calacanis
[00:23:37] S1: challenge Look, that is that is the democratic agenda on this. Now, could that be shifted through oligarchs like, I don't know, Reid Hoffman or maybe some of these new Anthropic oligarchs like maybe a Dustin Moskowitz, something like that? Maybe they can, through their massive influence in democratic circles, could effectuate a change. But I tend to think that Chamath is right that democrats want to do anything they can to sabotage the Trump economy and this whole SI boom is what is driving the Trump economy right now. I tend to think that's gonna be the partisan that's gonna be the partisan impetus. [00:24:18] S0: So you don't need to do much, I think, Friedberg, to scuttle the Trump economy since the the war, tariffs, and all that other stuff have driven inflation and all those problems. Wouldn't it be smarter for the Democrats I to [00:24:33] S1: mean, just just hold hold on a second. Mean, look. Calacanis, I think the latest numbers from like Fed GDP now, I think it was 3.7% in q three, and it was two and a half percent in the first half of the year. And you could also look at all the CapEx that's being spent right now on this build out and it's roughly 3% of GDP. So you could say that all of the economic growth in The United States right now is coming from this superintelligence build out.
00:24:33 · David Sacks, Jason Calacanis
[00:24:33] S1: mean, just just hold hold on a second. Mean, look. Calacanis, I think the latest numbers from like Fed GDP now, I think it was 3.7% in q three, and it was two and a half percent in the first half of the year. And you could also look at all the CapEx that's being spent right now on this build out and it's roughly 3% of GDP. So you could say that all of the economic growth in The United States right now is coming from this superintelligence build out. [00:25:03] S0: Concur with that. We can have fun with numbers, but the Trump economy is a disaster according to Trump's own supporters. So let's just call balls and strikes here. His own voters, the independents who flipped over and voted for him, they are very displeased with the economy and that can be seen very clearly in him having the worst approval rating of his entire career and there's been some doozies in that career. Friedberg, what should the Democrats... [00:25:30] S1: I don't think... Even even those critics, even... First of all, I don't know what Trump supporters you're talking about. [00:25:35] S0: I'm talking about the America First people who feel that he didn't deport the 20,000,000 people that they No. Know. I know. I'm just talking about that cohort that you could put Tucker in there, you could put Megan in there, you you know, all that sphere.
00:25:35 · Jason Calacanis, David Sacks
[00:25:35] S0: I'm talking about the America First people who feel that he didn't deport the 20,000,000 people that they No. Know. I know. I'm just talking about that cohort that you could put Tucker in there, you could put Megan in there, you you know, all that sphere. [00:25:47] S1: Yes. There are definitely people who don't like the war and they recognize that there is some inflation being caused by the war, but I don't think they've said the economy is a disaster. Anyway, whatever. I don't wanna put both of out of words. [00:26:00] S0: If you're not an equity holder, I think you look at this economy and say both parties, Biden and this Trump two point o, I think the the bottom half of the economy believes that both parties don't care about them. That... That's what all the feedback that you're getting, and and we'll confirm it all next Tuesday and see what happens with the actual voting. Chamath, let's continue your teardown.
00:26:21 · Chamath Palihapitiya
[00:26:21] S2: So that was section one, which is you always read the risk factors first, get a sense of what is management concerned about, right? So again, the takeaway is management is concerned really only about compute. This is a compute problem. Okay, the next thing that I always look at is I look at the revenue side of the ledger and I try to understand what kind of business they have, and this is an incredible, incredible business, exactly what Friedberg said. Why? Because at the growth that they have and the revenue that they have, they have barely scratched the surface of the commercial working world. And so this is a little bit more of a nuanced chart because what it does is it starts to really break down what we think the revenue stratification is by customers inside of Anthropic. So there's about 40,000,000 individuals and small businesses that are spending under 100 k. 40,000,000. Then there's about 10,000 that spend between 100 and 1,000,000. There's about sixteen fifty that spend between 1 and 10,000,000, and only 250 customers spend 10,000,000 and more. So to your point, I think what Friedberg said is right. The setup is is that these folks can negatively churn into these existing customers and grow and attract new customers at an incredible rate, which I think is just crazy. And so this allows me to think about what is the upper bound of revenue. And you you don't need to get to 100% of what's possible. You need to get to 25 or 30%, and then you need to have a reasonable distribution of negative churn assumptions. And what you start to see is that this can be a very large revenue business in the hundreds of billions of dollars in sort of this three to seven year timeframe. Now what slows that down? As far as I can tell, and this is more me putting the $80.90 hat on, the reason why you have so much traction in the million and under is when a company gets large enough, they allocate responsibility and budgets down. And at the director, manager, VP level, there are millions of humans running around with kind of million dollar budgets. And so there's a lot of experimentation that can happen inside of that bucket. They're willing to sign up for three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine things.
00:28:40 · Chamath Palihapitiya
The minute you sort of transition from a million to like multimillion dollar deals, and this data sort of confirms it, it's a much more thoughtful pitch, It's much more cross functional inside of a company. And you have to show some form of ROI or total cost of ownership advantage, right? So what's interesting about this, Jason, is 1,900 companies have been able to make the case. That's what I would say. I think there's a ton of experimentation, and I think about 1,900 companies can clearly see an ROI where they can now start to rip in big checks. Now of that 1,900, a big portion of those are gonna be AI natives, right, folks that are venture funded. So you have to strip those folks away. And then what's left over is probably a couple of 100 Global 2,000 type companies. So I think the ROI case is still a little speculative, but the potential is there. And as long as the potential is there, I think the market's gonna kinda price it up. So now that's revenue composition. So then the next thing I think about is capitalization. And I said this before. I said, Ant needs to have 200,000,000,000, and I really hope that they actually get close to $2.50. First of all, let me just say, the CFO of Ant, Krishna Rao, has done an unbelievable job. The fact that he, entering June, already had $125,000,000,000 is unbelievable. And there's a chart I didn't include, but their total net burn to get there has been like $9,000,000,000 or $10,000,000,000 It's just infinitesimally low relative to the market cap. So I thought that they had a lot less cash than this. So when I said they need to raise between 200 to $2.50 and they need to price closer to a trillion, I was assuming they had $30.40, 50,000,000,000 on the balance sheet. I was wrong. So these guys need to raise between, I would say, 80 to 120,000,000,000 to get to that 250,000,000,000. And I think in order to do that, the price is probably now gonna come in between 1.3 on the low end to 1.7 on the high end. So call 1.5 the midpoint. So if I had to price the IPO just eyeballing this, I kinda think it'll come in around $1.05 if I had to if I had to just kinda guess. And the other thing that I noticed is how much cash Alphabet has and also how much cash Meta does not have. I was shocked to to see that Meta had negative 1,200,000,000 of cash.