The Stablecoin Future, Milei's Memecoin, DOGE for the DoD, Grok 3, Why Stripe Stays Private

Summary

All-In Podcast Episode Summary Title: The Stablecoin Future, Milei's Memecoin, DOGE for the DoD, Grok 3, Why Stripe Stays Private
Release Date: February 21, 2025
Participants: Jason Calacanis (Host), David Friedberg, Chamath Palihapitiya, John Collison, Patrick Collison

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of the All-In Podcast, industry veterans and best friends—Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks, and David Friedberg—delve into a diverse array of topics ranging from the future of stablecoins and meme coins to advancements in AI and the strategic decisions behind Stripe's private status. The conversation is rich with insights, expert opinions, and lively banter, offering listeners a comprehensive look into the intersecting worlds of economics, technology, politics, and social dynamics.

---

The Future of Stablecoins

Patrick Collison and John Collison from Stripe lead the discussion on the evolving landscape of stablecoins. They emphasize the growing importance of stablecoins in facilitating cross-border transactions and corporate treasury management.

John Collison [03:28]: “Stripe processes more than a trillion dollars a year, which works out to around 1% of global GDP.”

Stablecoins like USDC are becoming integral in providing reliable payment methods, especially in regions with unstable local currencies. The Collison brothers highlight Stripe's acquisition of Bridge, a company building the "Stripe of stablecoins," aiming to streamline stablecoin integration for businesses globally.

Patrick Collison [07:49]: “Stablecoins are finally happening and they're really useful... We've never been offered to sponsor the event.”

They discuss the regulatory environment, stressing the importance of regulated stablecoins over less stable alternatives like Tether. The conversation underscores the potential of stablecoins to reinforce the U.S. dollar's status as the world's reserve currency while enabling more efficient and secure financial transactions.

---

Milei's Memecoin and the Downfall

The episode takes a dramatic turn as Jason Calacanis brings up the controversial case of Argentine President Milei, who promoted a meme coin named Libra$. This endorsement led to catastrophic market behavior, resulting in a 95% crash and significant losses for traders.

Chamath Palihapitiya [35:23]: “It's a complete waste of time and effort... he becomes a failure on all of those fronts.”

Chamath Palihapitiya condemns Milei's actions, labeling them as a failure in leadership and ethics. He criticizes Milei for not taking ownership of the fallout, comparing it to political scandals where leaders deflect responsibility.

Jason Calacanis [49:48]: “People got to put some pants on and get back to work.”

David Friedberg echoes this sentiment, viewing meme coins as largely unproductive and akin to digital gambling. He expresses concern over the lack of value creation, highlighting the deceptive practices often associated with such coins.

David Friedberg [47:08]: “I think these are just... entertainment mechanisms, just like any other kind of gambling system might be.”

The discussion reflects on the broader implications of political figures endorsing volatile financial instruments without due diligence, emphasizing the responsibility leaders hold in safeguarding their constituents' interests.

---

DOGE for the Department of Defense

Chamath Palihapitiya initiates a dialogue on military spending and the potential integration of cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin into Department of Defense (DoD) operations. He argues for aligning military expenditure with technological advancements to create a modernized war machine.

Chamath Palihapitiya [35:23]: “Military spending needs to sit downstream from technology... otherwise, you're misappropriating the money.”

The conversation explores the inefficiencies in current defense procurement and the challenges posed by emerging technologies such as AI and autonomous systems. John Collison and Patrick Collison discuss the historical context of defense budget cuts and the bipartisan recognition of procurement inefficiencies.

John Collison [41:01]: “One of the most ecumenical, uniformly shared bipartisan issues in Washington is the inefficiency and the profligacy of defense procurement.”

The panel debates the necessity of maintaining traditional defense infrastructures versus transitioning to technology-driven models that could potentially reduce costs and enhance operational effectiveness.

---

Organizational Efficiency and Bloat

The topic shifts to organizational structures and efficiency, sparked by Jamie Dimon's critical remarks on remote work and excessive meetings.

Jamie Dimon Clip [20:42]: “Every area should be looking to be 10% more efficient... I can't stand it anymore.”

David Friedberg and Chamath Palihapitiya discuss the evolving leadership styles and the impact of remote work on organizational productivity. Friedberg notes a shift towards more direct and assertive leadership, moving away from employee-centric approaches.

David Friedberg [23:36]: “Leaders are starting to step up and speak their mind and lead more directly.”

Chamath Palihapitiya critiques the reliance on organizational tools that inadvertently promote bureaucratic bloat, arguing that technology solutions often exacerbate inefficiency rather than resolve the root causes.

Chamath Palihapitiya [28:27]: “Tool upon sales tool, organizational bloat.”

John and Patrick Collison emphasize the importance of aggressive performance management and maintaining a high bar for employee performance to mitigate organizational inefficiencies.

John Collison [32:23]: “You need to have an aggressive performance management culture and to stay on top of that.”

---

Grok 3: Advancements in AI

Grok 3, an advanced AI model, becomes a focal point as the panel compares it with other leading AI models like ChatGPT and DeepMind's Gemini.

Patrick Collison [60:18]: “It's trained on 9 trillion base pair gene tokens... it's state of the art at predicting the pathogenicity of human genome mutations.”

The discussion highlights the groundbreaking capabilities of Grok 3 in the field of biology, particularly its proficiency in understanding genetic sequences and predicting their implications. John Collison explains the model's unsupervised training process, emphasizing its potential to revolutionize biological research and medical diagnostics.

John Collison [63:55]: “The training code is public and people can go read the blog post or the paper, whatever.”

Chamath Palihapitiya reflects on the continual advancements in AI, praising the engineering feats required to build and deploy such large-scale models. He underscores the necessity of constraints to drive innovation, drawing parallels with historical industrial achievements.

Chamath Palihapitiya [83:07]: “Innovation needs a constraint. Sometimes it's capital, sometimes it's talent, and sometimes it's time.”

The panel expresses enthusiasm about the future applications of Grok 3 and similar models, anticipating a surge in innovative solutions across various scientific disciplines.

---

Science Corner: ARK Institute and Evo2

John Collison and Patrick Collison introduce the ARK Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to basic biology research. They discuss their motivation for founding the institute, aiming to foster curiosity-driven research unbounded by traditional grant limitations.

Patrick Collison [60:46]: “We're trying to solve some of these previously intractable diseases.”

The focus is on Evo2, ARK Institute's latest foundation model for biology, which surpasses existing models in predicting pathogenic mutations despite limited human genome data exposure.

John Collison [63:55]: “It's state of the art at predicting the pathogenicity of human genome mutations.”

Chamath Palihapitiya lauds the open-source nature of Evo2, recognizing its potential to democratize biological research and accelerate breakthroughs in understanding complex diseases.

Chamath Palihapitiya [66:59]: “Where does it stand in the spectrum of different tools... We're in a really exciting time.”

The conversation delves into the practical applications of Evo2, including efforts to combat plant diseases like ash dieback in Ireland and the destructive TR4 fungus affecting banana crops. David Friedberg highlights the role of genetic diversity in enhancing disease resistance, advocating for modern genomic techniques to address ecological challenges.

David Friedberg [75:24]: “We've gotta improve genetic diversity.”

---

Planetary Defense: Near-Earth Asteroid Threat

The panel addresses the imminent threat of a near-Earth asteroid projected to cross Earth’s orbit in 2032, discussing its potential impact and the probability of collision.

David Friedberg [90:26]: “NASA dropped the probability of it hitting Earth to one and a half percent.”

Comparisons are drawn with the historical Tunguska event, emphasizing the catastrophic potential of such an asteroid if it were to strike a populated region.

Patrick Collison [92:17]: “In 1908, an asteroid hit the Earth... no one was killed because it was so uninhabited.”

Chamath Palihapitiya envisions a future where AI plays a crucial role in planetary defense, assisting in tracking and mitigating asteroid threats through advanced computational models and automation.

Chamath Palihapitiya [91:50]: “AI can play an important role in these Planetary Defense Initiative concepts.”

The discussion concludes with a sense of cautious optimism, acknowledging the advancements in tracking and modeling that reduce the perceived risk, allowing humanity to sleep more peacefully.

David Friedberg [90:26]: “We're not losing sleep over it.”

---

Why Stripe Stays Private

A significant portion of the conversation centers on Stripe's decision to remain a private company despite market pressures and the allure of public markets. Patrick Collison explains that Stripe prioritizes long-term growth and customer-centric approaches over the short-term demands of public shareholders.

Patrick Collison [96:03]: “We feel like so many other people out there in the world are dogmatic and we just try to be pragmatic on it.”

The founders dismiss the notion that public markets enforce better discipline, arguing that private company structures allow for more strategic flexibility and focus on compounding growth over decades.

John Collison [99:16]: “We think private is better for us. There's no dogma from our point.”

They draw parallels with other successful private financial institutions, such as Bloomberg and Fidelity, emphasizing that being private is a norm within financial services. The Collisons argue that remaining private enables Stripe to dedicate resources to innovation and customer service without the burden of daily market fluctuations.

John Collison [100:19]: “Just recognize there's a lot of heterogeneity... no, tribal shoulds in this space.”

Chamath Palihapitiya praises Stripe's approach, suggesting that their focus on customer needs and long-term goals aligns with effective leadership.

Chamath Palihapitiya [101:51]: “They found that the public markets do that more than anything else. That's probably the most compelling for the folks that would otherwise maybe get distracted.”

---

Closing Remarks

The episode wraps up with lighthearted banter and announcements about upcoming events, including their participation in South by Southwest and a mention of Celebrity Jeopardy appearances. The hosts reflect on the importance of maintaining strong friendships and the dynamic nature of the podcast.

Jason Calacanis [105:04]: “Love you guys. I gotta go.”

---

Notable Quotes

• John Collison [03:28]: “Stripe processes more than a trillion dollars a year, which works out to around 1% of global GDP.”
• Chamath Palihapitiya [35:23]: “Military spending needs to sit downstream from technology... otherwise, you're misappropriating the money.”
• David Friedberg [47:08]: “These are not helping the financial system get rebuilt as we talked about earlier. They're not creating productive value.”
• Jamie Dimon Clip [20:42]: “Every area should be looking to be 10% more efficient... I can't stand it anymore.”

---

Conclusion

This episode of the All-In Podcast offers a multifaceted exploration of contemporary issues in finance, technology, and governance. From dissecting the strategic choices behind Stripe's private status to evaluating the volatile nature of meme coins and the transformative potential of AI in biology and planetary defense, the panel provides invaluable insights. Their candid discussions underscore the complexities of modern economic and technological landscapes, making this episode a must-listen for enthusiasts seeking depth and clarity on these critical topics.

Transcript

[Jason Calacanis]

All right, everybody, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world. I am your host, Jason Calacanis, and with me again, a couple of my besties, David Friedberg. You know him as our sultan of science. Lots to get into today. Sultan, huh? How you doing?

[David Friedberg]

I'm keeping busy, thank you.

[Jason Calacanis]

Keeping busy. Jamath and I, on Valentine's Day, we had a little trio. We were on MK Ultra's podcast and it hit number four. All in podcast, of course. Number one, Chamath. Reflections on our Megyn Kelly. Our triumphant Megyn Kelly Valentine's spectacular.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

It was fine. It was good.

[Jason Calacanis]

Okay. Wow. Thanks. You're such a great performer, giving me so much to work with Chamath, as always. But it was a great, great pod. Shout out to our friend and friend of the pod, Megyn Kelly. And also we've got an incredible duo. For the first time, we've invited a duo to join us in the Red Throne, David Sacks's seat. He's busy saving the country, but we're really excited. The Coulson brothers are with us.

[John Collison]

Thank you for having us.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You guys want to hear a great lost porn story? John has one for you.

[Patrick Collison]

The last time we met Chamath was 18 years ago when we were working on our prior startup, Octomattic, with Harj and Ankul Taggar.

[John Collison]

You were how old they were?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

17, 18, 19.

[Patrick Collison]

It was one of these San Francisco setups where it was like a two bedroom apartment. There was a few of us living there, I think maybe six people working out of there.

[John Collison]

A normal number.

[Patrick Collison]

Exactly. Normal numbers to load up a two bed apartment with. And then Chamath, you came and visited.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

This is what's so brutal about this, okay? I could have invested a dollar, one single dollar, and I would have made a billion dollars. I remember meeting these guys and I was with Alan Morgan, who was my boss at the time. I was a junior principal at Mayfield.

[Jason Calacanis]

Shout Out Al.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And I think we tried to. Guys, I don't know if you remember Patrick and John, I think we tried to invest in the business or it didn't happen, or then you ended up shutting it down, but right away you spun back up and started Stripe. And I just watched from the sidelines the whole way. It is such a. First of all, no, it's an amazing place for Silicon Valley where you can see these people just keep pushing the boundaries up and up and up. Number one. Number two, the thing that is such a learning for me is why didn't I just pick up the phone and call them? At any point in the last 17 years. What am I thinking?

[Jason Calacanis]

It's so brutal.

[David Friedberg]

Yes. Let your winners ride Rain Man.

[Jason Calacanis]

David Satch.

[David Friedberg]

And instead we open source it to.

[Jason Calacanis]

The fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, Queen of K. It is.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh my God, it's so brutal.

[John Collison]

Two things. One, first, you probably don't remember this, but I remember that meeting that we offered you. Do you want something to drink? We did not have a broad selection. I think we had water or milk in the fridge and you asked for a glass of water. And so I went over to the sink and I realized that we hadn't really been on top of the washing up, so I had to sort of gingerly wash a glass for you to get your glass of water, which can't remember if you touched it over the course of that meeting. But then secondly, when we started out with Stripe, the fintech sector basically didn't exist. I mean the word hardly existed.

[Patrick Collison]

Didn't exist.

[John Collison]

Yeah, yeah, people just didn't think that. I mean teenagers weren't actually teenagers at the time, but people in their early 20s, college kids taking on PayPal or the incumbents or regulated financial services or whatever. People just didn't think it was a good idea. So I don't know, you certainly were. The vast majority of investors we spoke with in the first year or two of Stripe turned us down. So you were not anomalous.

[Jason Calacanis]

John, tell us what that meeting was like. And to just take you back to the moment. Here's a picture.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Stop, stop.

[Jason Calacanis]

Here's a picture. No, striking. Here's a picture of pre nine figure chamath.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Oh my God.

[Jason Calacanis]

And this is when he shopped at Macy's. Does that maybe that jogs some memories. John, when that guy walked in with his khakis and that light pink Brooks Brothers shirt, what did you think?

[Patrick Collison]

I don't know. I think you can go back and find historical photos of anyone and use them too. Like if that's the worst historical photo you have, that's pretty lightweight stuff. Exactly.

[David Friedberg]

Jason, do you want to tell everyone in the audience what Stripe is?

[Jason Calacanis]

I mean, do we have to? Okay, Stripe processes payments. This is a 10 plus year old startup that basically if you're a startup company and you want to do transactions, you use Stripe. For example, the all in startup uses Stripe to pay for the tickets. And then we give these guys for some reason a half million dollars every year, no discount. They don't sponsor the event and they're making a Fortune. They got 10,000 employees and the Company changed the world.

[Patrick Collison]

We've never been offered to sponsor the event. I didn't know this was, this was an option.

[Jason Calacanis]

You hit us up for a half milli last year. I mean, maybe this year we can hit you up and we'll negotiate it live.

[Patrick Collison]

That's broadly accurate. I would just fact check that it's nowadays not just startups, even though they run on Stripe, but also the world's largest enterprises. Hertz, Amazon, Ford, all these kind of companies. When we started out with Stripe, we thought it would only be for startups. We thought those were the people who needed a problem solved and we thought payments was broken for them. And as time went on, we just found out it was kind of broken for everyone.

[David Friedberg]

Is it public? How much volume you guys do a year? Do you guys talk about that?

[Patrick Collison]

It's more than a trillion dollars a year.

[David Friedberg]

A trillion dollars a year is processed through your network. Yeah.

[John Collison]

Which works out. Global GDP is around 100 trillion years, so it works out to around 1% of global GDP.

[David Friedberg]

Incredible.

[John Collison]

And you could say, well, GDP is final goods and Stripe processes more than only final goods. So it's not.

[Patrick Collison]

No one says that kind of the right. Only you say that.

[John Collison]

Okay, well, look, you could say it's not exactly the right or a fair comparison or something, but Stripe mostly is used to sell final goods. So I think it's reasonable. And just the other thing I'd say is people, I think reasonably think of Stripe as a payments company because that is certainly what we started out doing and it's certainly the largest line of our business. But the thing we kind of realized a couple of years in is that the structural secular thing that's happening is that every kind of money movement is going from being manually orchestrated to being orchestrated by software, and there's some program somewhere making the thing happen. And so because of that, just because of what we hear from customers and the pull there, we're now helping with lending, we're helping with card issuance, we're helping with treasury and money storage, we're helping with cross border money movement.

[Patrick Collison]

Stablecoins, We've got to talk about stablecoins.

[Jason Calacanis]

Guys got a stable. Why'd you do a stablecoin?

[Patrick Collison]

Stablecoins are finally happening and they're really useful. We followed crypto for a long time. The bitcoin white paper dropped in 2008, the year before we started working on Stripe. And so it's been funny where Stripe and crypto have grown up together and we tried to make bitcoin happen as a payment Method on stripe just wasn't that good as a payment method. I mean it's good as a store of value, as kind of a gold substitute. But transactions are slow, transactions are expensive, you never know exactly how much you're going to get because it's not denominated in dollars. The stablecoins are now really good if you look at something on an Ethereum L2 or Solana or something like that. And so we bought a company called Bridge late last year who is building the stripe of stablecoins. And so if you're, I mean I think you guys have talked about them a little bit but you know, people like SpaceX using them for treasury management, people using them to offer US dollar services to people all around the world, just stablecoins are I think the first really big payments use case and I think it's finally coming because the tech is good enough.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Is there a moment guys? Where is it a regulatory event where you'll say Visa, MasterCard, duopoly can get challenged? Is there a set of boundary conditions that you have written down where when you can check a few of these boxes, you know that it's time for those companies to get dismantled?

[Patrick Collison]

The behavior we're seeing right now is that stablecoins are most interesting and seeing most adoption where there is some cross border component. And so you need to manage corporate treasury around the world. You want to send remittances to people in other countries. Often it's people in other countries want to hold dollar bounces or things like that. What we've always seen is that, I don't know, in the US things work pretty well, in Europe things work pretty well. And so we even see this pre crypto where the way people pay for stuff has been radically changing. UPI in India, PIX in Brazil, you have all these designed by central banks actually really good kind of government run Venmo solutions. Those have all happened in emerging markets broadly and not in the US and Europe. We certainly keep our eyes peeled for that changing at some point. But I think right now, I don't know Patric, would you characterise it that way? That a lot of the interesting stuff we see is happening internationally?

[John Collison]

Yes. So with respect to Visa and MasterCard, I think an important thing to keep in mind is that most of the interchange fees that are charged to merchants and you mentioned what we charge the all in podcast, the vast majority of that flows right back to the issuing banks in the form of interchange and almost all of that flows right back to the consumers in the form of the lending that the cards themselves represent, but then also in card rewards card programs are not actually big profit pools for most of the major banks. And so I think any substitute for Visa and MasterCard in that sense the sort of a question of well, are the consumer rewards going to go down, are the consumer protections going to go down? Would we be extending less consumer credit? And maybe other points in that space are viable but it is a set of trade offs and it's not as simple as this enormous rent extraction happening. John's totally right. I think the interesting use of stablecoins is cross border is outside the U.S. i mean the big use case that's taking off right now is consumers in other countries seeking to hold dollars. We in the US here today, we obviously benefit from being able to do that. The vast majority of people in the world are subject to a worse currency. Worse in the sense that it's less stable, it's more inflationary, storing savings is much less favorable. If you look at the naira for example, there are a lot of people in Nigeria and the currency there has devalued by a factor of three or four over the last couple of years. And so that use case of consumers being able to store dollars is really exploding. And we think about this really as kind of an analogy to the Eurodollar system where the Eurodollar system in the 70s and 80s this was a way for companies to store dollars and to have something more stable and reliable and so forth. But it was only acceptable, I think the minimum transaction size was like a million dollars. And so there's kind of a very high barrier to entry. Whereas with stablecoins now you can be a consumer in Ecuador and you can have like a 10 year US dollar balance and that was just not a product that was accessible to you before. And so I think it's a really big deal certainly for people in those countries and in some sense also for the US because the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency I think is in the process of becoming much more deeply established.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah, that is the huge win for allowing stablecoins and making them legal, giving them rails, putting aside tether and all the bans and fugazi stuff they've been doing or have done and all the lawsuits that they've lost and the bans in different countries. Having USDC having yours and other ones in the United States means we can regulate them and they have to buy treasuries. And so okay, dollar supremacy continues and that's fantastic. But right now all in just using the example, could accept payment in stablecoin. Correct. With Stripe, we just check a button and we get Stable.

[John Collison]

Yes.

[Jason Calacanis]

Okay, so then the next piece I.

[John Collison]

Have, we'll follow up with you afterwards to make sure we get that going.

[David Friedberg]

Well, I'm actually really excited that Freebies are going to be sponsoring be all in summit this year. That's actually exciting.

[Jason Calacanis]

Both of you know, Freeburg is great at securing the bank.

[David Friedberg]

Yeah.

[Jason Calacanis]

The thing that's interesting though is if let's say we had a Millie sitting in our Stripe account and then we had to pay a venue or pay other vendors and we're sitting there in your coin. It's called Bridge. Is that what it's going to be called?

[John Collison]

Or it's called Bridge is the company that's the platform and the recipient. Okay, so they're not stablecoin for orchestrating. Correct, correct.

[Jason Calacanis]

But you'll have a Stripe stablecoin at some point. Yeah, like one.

[Patrick Collison]

Bridge actually has one already.

[John Collison]

Yeah, Bridge has a small stablecoin. But we don't need to get into the details. But Bridge is primarily a set of software APIs.

[Jason Calacanis]

Got it. But you'll obviously have a stripe stablecoin.

[John Collison]

The point is, if you turn on stablecoin acceptance for all in today, that'll use USDC.

[Jason Calacanis]

Perfect. Now could we then go pay people from our Stripe account and then you could lower our fees if they were also doing stablecoins. Does that exist today or is that something coming next year?

[Patrick Collison]

Look, you could pay people in stablecoins, but again, to the point of where you'll see adoption first, paying people via bank transfer in the US like, yeah, it's not great. It's kind of slow, everything like that. But it's fine. It's not the biggest problem.

[John Collison]

And it's really cheap today.

[Patrick Collison]

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

[John Collison]

I think you're answering narrowly to stablecoins. I think everything you just said is right. But I will say, I think, Jason, your intuition that man, it's really inefficient and annoying to engage in B2B transactions and to get these invoices paid and just like the whole system. And if you look at most companies, they're losing 1, 2, 3% of revenue to AP and AR. Now some of that might be because of the transaction Rails themselves, a lot of it just because of baroque inefficient processes where you have humans sending invoices, humans reconciling them, you're trying to line up transfers in your bank account statement and figure out what corresponds to what and so on. And that's super inefficient. And so we're separately. I mean silicones would be part of the solution here, but there's more to it. Separately, we're trying to solve that with a product called Stripe Billing, which we actually just announced last week has passed half a billion in ARR. And so we, we can send an.

[Jason Calacanis]

Invoice to somebody with Stripe.

[David Friedberg]

Exactly.

[Jason Calacanis]

So it's like FreshBooks or whatever. Those other products in the market are awesome, amazing.

[Patrick Collison]

All the back office.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Is there a version of a network effect inside of Stripe for their customers where if I just allowed you guys to just be integrated into my GL somehow and you gave me some kind of phantom bank account, why isn't it just a ledger entry if I'm just making a payment from me to somebody else that's also on Stripe?

[John Collison]

The thing we really want to solve is all the calculation, the ID verification, the risk. Those are the things that are actually expensive. If you look at this flow, it's where companies lose their money today. Having said that, you're right. The fraction of money movement on Stripe where the two counterparties are both part of the Stripe network is obviously growing. And so I think that'll be another way we can reduce fees over time. Although again, I actually think the biggest part of that is it's going to be because we reduce fraud. Both counterparts are known. And I talked to a payroll company recently and they were describing how big a deal it is for them that people sign up fraudulent companies, whatever, and they can lose millions of dollars in a single attack. And so having some kind of trusted node rather than just a routing, routing in an account number, that would be a really big deal for them.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Look, you have a very good pulse. And what I would say is that as a subset of the economy, you probably reflect a large part of the global economy. Have you ever been approached or have you ever considered on a regular basis publishing some sort of economic sentiment? One of the big things that we've talked about is how many backward revisions there are to everything from non farm payrolls to GDP that they've become so unreliable. And so it's very difficult for people that are transacting in market to know what to do. Have you guys ever thought about that? Because I'm sure that you have a much more accurate sense of where the economy is than many other people we have.

[John Collison]

And I feel a bit rueful with you asking the question because I feel like on some level we should have done it. And the thing that makes it kind of tricky is because two things. One, stripe is not like a full cross section of the economy. We're more biased towards online, we're more biased towards innovative companies, whatever. It's kind of net that out somehow. And there can be these stories where, I mean, during COVID the online economy was doing great. The offline economy is sort of a different story. So the interpretation can be a bit tricky. But then just the second thing is the stripe business is growing so quickly and changing so fast that again, it's not necessarily representative of the economy. And even if stripe is way up year over year, you have to be a bit hesitant in drawing conclusions from that. Having said that, I think in principle you could draw some conclusions. And one thing we did look at was just inflationary data over the last couple of years. And I think you can construct, and the team did construct a pretty reliable kind of leading indicator for inflation. And so we would like to share that openly because, you know, I think it's. I think it's a public good for there to be better and more reliable economic data.

[Jason Calacanis]

All right, Freeburg, before we get into the doc, you got any question for the boys here?

[David Friedberg]

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

[Patrick Collison]

I'll give my view. And then I'm curious what Patrick has. I would say firstly, there is just general tech scalability. The finance industry has its version of the mineshafts for sure, where everything should be highly scalable and real time. And I think in a way, stablecoins are solving something that you don't technically need full decentralization to do, but the ability to make kind of real time payments any hour of the day or night is a useful property. And again, some private systems have also built that. I think a big one for us is trust and the fact that the fraud problem hasn't really been solved in online payments. A big reason people come to Stripe is basically we are a reputation network across the internal economy. And so when someone comes and buys something from a Stripe user, 93% of the time we have seen that card before and so the merchant can know something and know that they can trust this end user. And it's gotten to the stage now where if someone comes along and buys with a credit card, if they're signing up with an email address or a phone number or something that we haven't seen before, that is just ipso facto suspicious because know they are coming along and maybe trying to it's a stolen credit card or something like that. And so a big part of what Stripe ends up doing is acting as a reputation network to keep fraud out of the system that maybe you would have wanted to design in from, from day one.

[Jason Calacanis]

Well, in fairness, Chamath told me I could use that credit card anytime I wanted. I don't think he remembered, but I think you need to turn my account back on. And Freeberg, I just got news from our CEO John mastercard just canceled their sponsorship of all incident. So this is costing us a fortune this podcast so far.

[John Collison]

Two things. One, to your point about just all these different networks and so forth, I think stablecoins are going to be a big part of the solution. I actually don't think that's going to supplant all the consumer facing networks. I think we're going to see consumer facing networks built upon and substantially leverage these things. But I think stablecoins will probably be the common rail. And then just secondly, I think part of what you're hearing is most businesses lose more money to fraud than they do to the kind of pure transaction cost themselves. And you're hearing us talk a lot about fraud here. And that's because one, it's a huge economic cost for these businesses today and there's even indirect costs where you make the consumer experience more hostile because you have to protect against possible fraud. Why do you have to type in all this stuff?

[Patrick Collison]

Am I going to be locked out of my bank account?

[John Collison]

All this stuff? Exactly. But then secondly, I think we can just see it in the data. These problems are actually getting worse and harder because ML AI globalization. Yeah, exactly. And so various fraud metrics across the industry and the ecosystem are way up over the last couple of years now, and Stripe's actually down by 80%. But it's really becoming an acute issue.

[Jason Calacanis]

All right, and we'll get into staying private longer and when you guys are going to pull the IPO trigger later in the show. But we got to get through this docket. We got so many great topics to talk about. Let's get to our first story here. It's kind of a fun one. Jamie Dimon went on a rant about remote work and zoom in a town hall. And here's a snippet.

[Jamie Dimon]

A lot of you were on the zoom, and you were doing the following. Okay, you know, looking at your mail, sending texts to each other about what an ass the other person is. Okay? Not paying attention, not reading your stuff. You know, and if you don't think that slows down efficiency, creativity creates rudeness and stuff. It does. Okay. And when I found out that people are doing that, you don't do that in my goddamn meetings. You go to a meeting with me, you got my attention. You got my focus. I don't bring my goddamn phone. I'm not sending texts to people, okay? It's. It doesn't work. The young generation is being damaged by this. They may or may not be in your particular staff, but they are being left behind. They're being left behind socially, ideas, meeting people. In fact, my guess is most of you live in communities a hell of a lot less diverse than this room. That's not how you run a great company. We didn't build this great company by doing that, by doing the same semi disease that everybody else does.

[Jason Calacanis]

Colson Brothers, tell us about how you run stripe. Are you remote? Does this resonate with you? Four years after we've come out of.

[Patrick Collison]

The pandemic, I love listening to Jamie Dimon rants like, I feel like that's business asmr.

[John Collison]

Business asmr, that itself could be a great podcast.

[Jason Calacanis]

I was about to say, I'm subscribing. That's an instant $10 a month subscription. What do you think, John?

[Patrick Collison]

Yeah, I don't know. People just said a lot of during the pandemic. Like, do you remember? It's like, oh, handshakes are going to be over. Business travel is going to be over. Every company is going to be fully remote. I would say stripe, broadly, is in a pretty similar spot to where it was beforehand, which is most people go into an office. Most people are part of our San Francisco office or New York or Dublin or Singapore or wherever. And then we have a bunch of people also who work remotely. I think obviously Jamie is right on some points. I think also working remotely has had a bunch of benefits where there's a way larger talent pool available to companies like Stripe. And there's a lot of people, you see kind of the two body problem where it allows a lot of couples, where maybe one partner is assigned to some hospital in Idaho and they don't get to choose what hospital necessarily they got assigned to and the other person gets to work a high paying tech job. And so I don't know.

[John Collison]

I think when one of the theories for declining dynamism in the US and declining TFP is that allocative efficiency of people declined as women entered the workforce. Because now you have what John describes this two body problem where both people have to make coordinated switches and remote work solves it. Exactly.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah. Friedberg, you're running a company now, you're the CEO of Ohalo. Tell us, does this resonate with you? What do you think? Especially by younger people, his point and being rude or being focused, being in the meeting and then maybe there's too many meetings where people are partially paying attention. Maybe there should be half as many meetings and people should be paying attention. What do you think?

[David Friedberg]

Well, there's always room for optimization there. We, we deal with this too. Too many meetings, too many people. I think what was most striking for me about the Jamie Dimon rant and the resonance it seems to be having, particularly in Silicon Valley and particularly with folks that are in leadership positions or on boards, is that this is another example of what I think is kind of a different tenor for leaders in business right now relative to where we were a few years ago. Leaders are starting to step up and speak their mind and speak more directly and lead from the front rather than lead from the back. I think the last couple of years, and I would say that the whole kind of transition away from wokeism and coddled employee workforces, which is something that a lot of folks talk about, I'm not trying to just characterize it, I'm just saying that's the characterization that's been placed on it, is that the employees made the decisions and then the leaders kind of said, okay, I'm subjugated to the employees whims and needs. And look at what's gone on with Zuck. He said, you're with me, you're against me, here's a buyout option. Elon obviously was an exemplar of this at Twitter. We've now seen this become coinbase, Brian and his letter. And we've now seen this become, I think, a bit more of a standard in the kind of emergence in the post Covid era that leaders can lead from the front, speak directly and say, this is the way things are going to be. My job is not to coddle my employees. My job is to lead my employees so that our organization, our team, wins and we achieve our mission. That's the objective. It's not to create a family workplace for everyone to be happy all the time. It's to help the organization succeed. And so I think I have heard from people individually, I've seen this tenor shift underway right now. And I think that Jamie Dimon is another kind of exemplar of this that seems to have some resonance.

[Jason Calacanis]

All right, Shamath, I want you to respond specifically to this next clip. Let's play the second clip about organizational bloat.

[Jamie Dimon]

Every area should be looking to be 10% more efficient. If I was running a department of 100 people, I guarantee you if I wanted to, I could run it with 90 and be more efficient. I guarantee you I could do it in my sleep. And the notion these bureaucracies, I need more people, I can't get it done. No, because you're filling out requests that don't need to be done. Your people are going to meetings they don't need to go to. Someone told me to prove something as wealth management that they had to go to 14 committees. I am dying to get the name of the 14 committees. And I feel like firing 14 chairmen of committees. I can't stand it anymore.

[Jason Calacanis]

All right, Chamath the bloated bureaucracy at big companies. Your thoughts?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Well, there's that adage that says something akin to 50% of advertising is useless. We just don't know which 50%. I think it's probably true for most corporate structures in general, which is that a lot of the organizational bloat has evolved because of the way that people have responded to how you use technology. So, meaning if you look back 50 years ago, if you look at that famous picture of the Microsoft early team, they didn't rely on software necessarily. There wasn't Salesforce, there wasn't workday, there wasn't all of this infrastructure. And so instead, they probably organized by what they were good at and they just tried to do things efficiently. And I suspect that many companies, in the absence of technology, found a way to just be very efficient. That started to change when you had these rigid demarcations of where one job ended and another job started. And part of why that happened is because you had all this software that went in and convinced people this will create efficiency. But in return, the chief marketing officer's job is X, Y and Z. This is how the roles are defined. This is how people do it. And so I think that the reason why things have become so bureaucratic and bloated is that there is just this propensity to run towards software because you think it's a solution at best, it's a symptomatic aid. It doesn't address the root cause. And in fact, it promotes bureaucracy and it promotes the bloat that Jamie's talking about. And if you look at Jamie's P and l, he spends $16 billion a year on it. And I suspect that if you streamline that, you'd actually have half as many people because they'd be doing the job in a wholly different way. And by the way, the counterfactual to it is if you look at companies like Facebook or Google or Tesla or SpaceX, who designs, and I'm sure Stripe is the same, who designs a lot of stuff internally that's custom built for their org. I think the way that you see this in the revenue per employee and a bunch of these other metrics in terms of the efficiency of those companies. So I think what he is talking about is that he is a victim of this push to productivity because he would look like a Luddite if he didn't adopt technology. But by adopting the off the shelf stuff, he introduces organizational bloat because these things are demarked very, very rigidly.

[Jason Calacanis]

You got the marketing team, as you mentioned, using HubSpot and then you got the sales team using, I don't know.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Tool upon sales tool, organizational bloat. The other thing I just want to say on the first topic is I've mentioned this before. Other than engineers who are naive but can be extremely productive from day one, there are very few other job types where naivety is an asset. Most people early in their career are in a J curve where they are negatively contributing and the whole goal is slowing everybody down. And the whole goal is that you invest in these people so that they come out of the J curve. There are probably other jobs that are like engineering, but many, many are not. And so I think it's important to get the kind of mentoring you get by being in an office. And in the absence of that, I think these young people, like Jamie said, are totally Lost, that's on them. But then for the company they're completely unproductive and useless, which is on us.

[Jason Calacanis]

Hey, John. Toby. I don't know if you know Toby from Shopify, but he did this like zero based budgeting kind of concept for meetings. He just purged all meetings at the beginning of the year. He just like deleted everybody's meetings from the top down. I'm curious how you think about bloat and just all of these meetings and committees. Do you worry about that at Stripe?

[Patrick Collison]

We know Toby very well and I don't know, I always feel like, yeah, we should. I'm tempted to take some of the ideas like we haven't done the meeting deletion one and you just say, oh, the meetings get recreated. But they measured it and they didn't. It sounds like. And I do always enjoy Toby's perspective, which I think that, you know, many organizational problems are in fact software problems. And you just need to write a script to literally, I think he wrote the script to delete all the meetings from the Google Calendar instance. But there's kind of this purity that you're over intellectualizing your problems. And I do agree with Chamath on the remote thing where it's very dangerous. One thing that can be dangerous as CEOs think about this stuff is I think there is these unfair anecdotes that feel unfair, that get people really riled up. The quiet quitters, the anti work subreddit, all these talk of people working two jobs and that generates a lot of energy with corporate leaders. But you don't want to design your policies around the bottom 5% of the company. That would be a horrible mistake. Yeah, you want to design your policies against the top talent. And we have some outrageously productive remote people. And they're off. And again, the cabin in Idaho somewhere, just coding up a storm. The thing that we have seen, and interestingly we measured this before COVID because we were doing a lot of remote hiring and we wanted to see how much we should lean into it is that it is not good for early career people. We can actually measure it in our productivity data before the whole discussion about remote work happened during COVID And it's bad from a work point of view. It's also just bad from a personal point of view where they go mad because they're 23 years old and they're.

[Jason Calacanis]

Not in solitary confinement. Exactly. It's literally solitary confusion confinement. It's ridiculous. And by the way, breaking news here, Jamie Dimon now knows which 2,000 or I'm sorry, 1,739 employees to lay off. First there is a coworker.org petition to get Jamie to retract his statement. So the opt in has been created.

[Patrick Collison]

If I know Jamie, I know he'll be retracting that statement right away.

[Jason Calacanis]

Absolutely. He will bend to the pressure of those 1700 midsummer Patrick, how do you deal with mids at stripe? How do you deal with the mids? The people who. I'm not saying you have any, but maybe you've run into because you've got over 10,000 employees when somebody's average, that must make you crazy. How do you deal with it?

[John Collison]

No, the median employee at stripe is awesome. The median employee at Stripe is not the median person in the population at large. Although I think the median person in the countries we employ people at work.

[Patrick Collison]

Is also quite a good.

[Jason Calacanis]

Well no, I was using the term mids. Mids are people who are just average people, not the above average stripe people who operate into that. But how do you deal with low performance is kind of what I'm getting at.

[John Collison]

Well look, you need to have an aggressive performance management culture and to stay on top of that. And look, it's not good for anyone to keep those people around because nobody likes feeling that they aren't succeeding. And so if those people are, their careers aren't advancing, they're not getting positive feedback from their manager or from their peers, they aren't shipping things like whatever. This is just not a good equilibrium for anyone. So we really try to stay on top of that. We track it closely. The thing just on this discussion broadly to say is I think people very readily fall into a kind of normative moralizing perspective on this stuff of people should be in the office, they shouldn't be in the office. But there's a lot of should here. I think it's helpful to just one as John referenced with some of the analyses, just be quite empirical and objective and just look at what the data says and then second, just recognize there's a lot of heterogeneity as in people have different preferences, people have different abilities to work effectively when they're by themselves and some don't. Organizations are doing different kinds of work. Nvidia, last I checked is doing pretty damn well and Jensen is on the record as saying he doesn't give a shit about where you work. Coinbase, Shopify, they're all these remote first companies and then I recently chatted to folks at Jane street and they really believe that being co located and to Be able to share ideas on the trading floor and so forth is really important. But I don't think these pictures or these worldviews are necessarily contradictory. They probably hire different kinds of people or in different kinds of businesses and so on. And so I don't know, I guess I'm just skeptical of flat shoulds in this space.

[Patrick Collison]

There's many paths.

[Jason Calacanis]

Many paths to heaven. All right, so let's move on to our next story.

[John Collison]

Last, keep in mind, labor productivity in the US is up like 20% in the last 10 years. And so just like again, you just look at the data, just the median person in the economy or the average person is producing 20% on an inflation adjusted basis more than they were 10 years ago.

[Jason Calacanis]

That's going to keep ramping up with AI and all these amazing tools that are coming out. We'll leave that on the side for now because that would be an hour long rabbit hole we could jump down. But we got to get back into Doge the number. Well, I've heard a couple of criticisms of Doge. One of them is it's one sided. We're only hearing about, you know, people on the left doing Griffs and usaid. The other one is, hey, you're, you're pointing at little tiny things like usaid. When are you going to get to defense spending and Social Security? Well, here we are. Washington Post is reporting that in between doing sets of 47 push ups, defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asked senior leadership at the Pentagon to develop a plan to cut 8% from the defense budget each of the next five years. That's compounding 8%. Here's a chart. We're talking about close to 300 billion in savings over five years if they hit, which isn't a crazy target, 8% a year, it's just crazy in our country where we haven't even been able to have our Defense department pass a basic audit. If you've seen those type of reports. Let's pause there and just talk about military spending. Chamath.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I think that military spending needs to sit downstream from technology because if it doesn't, you're sort of misappropriating the money. And what I mean is that we're inventing incredible capabilities in AI and autonomy. I think that you need to take those things first and figure out how to projectize them because I think that builds the kind of modern war machine we need. Otherwise, what happens? I tweeted about this Nick, maybe you can find it. But like the CBO red flagged a project where the Navy was about to appropriate $1.2 trillion to build frigates. Now, there's a body, I think, of military planning that says this is a projection of power. And so you need to spend this kind of money because people want to see the big boats and the big iron in the water, okay? And maybe there's something about that, but the reality is you can't be spending three or four billion dollars a boat and taking eight, nine, ten years to build these things. So this is not sustainable. And part of why they do that is it's not coupled to what's actually happening with respect to innovation, where there are core pockets of companies. Saronic just announced a $600 million raise today. Saildrone announced hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts with the Navy. Anduril is doing that with the Army. So I think that military spending needs to happen downstream from what's actually happening in technology. Broadly speaking. We don't have that. What you have instead are system integrators with extremely deep connectivity that are able to contract. Well, not necessarily to invent. Well.

[Jason Calacanis]

Freeberg, any thoughts there on cutting defense spending? Obviously, we have to chamat's point. Amazing founders like my guy, Palmer Luckey, cutting the cost of very important. He's not armaments.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

He hates you.

[Jason Calacanis]

That's my guy, my bestie. Oh, no. It's all a joke. Everybody calm down. You just have a little bag.

[David Friedberg]

He literally hates you, Jason.

[Jason Calacanis]

No, literally.

[David Friedberg]

Listen, I know all the boards ended.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

He's going to do everything to your ranch.

[Jason Calacanis]

He loves jc. He loves it. Everybody needs a foil.

[David Friedberg]

Creates all sorts of problems for the rest of us. When you go out and talk about people for no reason, it's great.

[John Collison]

What are you talking about?

[Jason Calacanis]

I never talk about stripe guys.

[David Friedberg]

We don't have any beef with JAM employees. Mids for no reason. For no reason. You just like, oh, what about your.

[Jason Calacanis]

That was a hypothetical. Okay, I did say that you guys pocketed 500 large.

[Patrick Collison]

Look, we can come to the summit and, you know, Palmer style just like, oh, my God.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yeah.

[Jason Calacanis]

Long list of things I've said about you.

[Patrick Collison]

Please.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yes, absolutely. Shout out to my guy, Palmer. Lucky. But what do you think? Freeburg, for serious. Let's get back on track here.

[David Friedberg]

Okay, so here's what I think. If you take defense down to first principles, there was an excellent tweet that we were all texting about yesterday. It may be observation that Trump's negotiations with Russia and China, where there's all of this hemming and hawing about those negotiations being complying with the wants and needs of dictators may actually be a shift in strategy on the global relationship the United States has with other global powers. In particular, a shift from the objective being about US Primacy and the US Being kind of the sole great power on earth, to recognizing that that's no longer the case and that in a multipolar world, we no longer need to invest in wars, need to invest in conflicts, need to invest in defense with supposed allies to try and build up our strength across the globe. And I'm not saying that this is necessarily the right strategy, but it was an observation that maybe the strategic imperative is now to have kind of a multipolar stance in the world rather than a stance of primacy. And in that framing, you then ask the question, okay, make that the case. Now, if we do agree that we are all going to settle into a new world where China, Russia, the United States are not necessarily equal powers, but shared powers across the globe, in that context, do we need to have as much of an investment in global defense? Do we need to continue to pour dollars into building up arsenals and military bases and troops and stations and positions all around the world? Perhaps not. Perhaps the world gets divided peacefully and we open up global trade relationships, and everyone benefits economically from the advances in technology and improvements in productivity. And the world order is peaceful but multipolar. Maybe that's the new era that we're entering. And in that context, you don't need as much of a defense. And separately, to Chamath's point, there's different technology that's now in play. We've seen it in the Ukraine, Russia context that a $10,000 drone can destroy a $10 million piece of equipment. And China now has drone factories that can output millions of drones each month. So if China develops this new type of arsenal with millions of autonomous flying systems that can go and attack troops and attack expensive pieces of equipment, do we really need aircraft carriers? Do we really need tanks? And I think that's the whole Hegseth led Trump led conversation that's underway in defense right now. Number one, multipolar. Number two, therefore, we don't need as much defense spending. Number three, maybe the defense spending that we do do should account for the new technology in play in the battlefield. And that really changes the character of how the Defense Department is structured and how funding is structured. So that's really, I think, the way to look at it versus, hey, let's just cut defense spending for cutting sake. And that might be what's going on right now.

[Jason Calacanis]

A holistic view of it. Patrick, any thoughts on what we're seeing in Defense Tech and saving money through Doge?

[John Collison]

Well, obviously what Anduril and others are doing is pretty amazing, but we're obviously not defense experts. But just bringing the credit card merchant perspective to bear here, we naturally just go and look at the time series and the data around it, and I guess I'm struck by. And again, maybe I'm getting some of the details wrong here. This is outside of our zone. But as far as I can tell, the cuts proposed over the next couple of years for the Defense Department are of approximately the same magnitude as the reduction in the defense budget that occurred between 2010 and today. And so it's not like this is some unprecedented transformation in DoD budget. We've done this. And then secondly, as far as I can tell, one of the most ecumenical, uniformly shared bipartisan issues in Washington is the inefficiency and the profligacy of defence procurement. You had James Fallow is writing a book about this. In the late 80s. You had Augustine's Laws, another whole book about this. Just everyone seems to fervently believe that defence procurement is monstrously inefficient. Now, it's possible to make budgetary changes without fixing that, but obviously the prospect of meaningful improvement there seems like would be really beneficial.

[Patrick Collison]

And if I can just give a quick book recommendation, this book, Boyd by Robert Coram, about John Boyd, the Air Force colonel who is part of the reformist movement. I feel like everyone in Silicon Valley has that book on their shelf and no one's actually read it, but it is a. Exactly. It is kind of referencing.

[John Collison]

Sprinkling some OODA loops into your remarks always helps.

[Patrick Collison]

Exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sounds smart. But that is a great book. And it's a book about Air Force procurement. Essentially where he had his, you know, basically the story was that the Air Force generals of the time wanted planes that were bad. And he had a theory about better fighter jets. And he had his fingerprints all over the F16 and the A10 and the F15 and various aircraft. And it was a real battle to get the Air Force to produce better aircraft. And they really, you know, the generals really wanted these bad aircraft that they had planned. And so that's a fun read at this moment in time when it feels like we have this similar transition from man to other man.

[Jason Calacanis]

Tell us the name of the book again. I know there's many books about it.

[Patrick Collison]

It's called Boyd by Robert Coram and it's a really engaging read. It's also just very well written. It's this kind of narrative nonfiction style.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah, there it is. Okay, everybody. And another book selection from the all in book club brought to you by Stripe. Use the code all in to get a year free of stripe.

[Patrick Collison]

If you got into the Stripe Press books, absolutely.

[Jason Calacanis]

Oh, you do actually have a series of cool books. Yeah, we'll plug those towards the end. All right, Chamath, you added a crypto update. Crypto corner is back. We had an exciting week of innovation in the crypto space. Last week, Argentine President Milei, who is a hero to a lot of people on the right or for government efficiency, promoted a meme coin. It was called Libra$libra. And he originally tweeted, this private project will be dedicated to encouraging the growth of the Argentine economy with a link to Libra for his citizens to go buy it. And buy it they did. But he deleted that tweet when this whole thing came apart and said, I was not aware of the details of the project. And after having become aware of it, I decided to not continue spreading it. The market cap ripped 4 billion. It crashed 95% as these meme coins always do. 74,000 traders lost almost 300 million. 24 wallets had losses over a million. And Milei has been sued 100 plus times already. And this just happened last week. He's being investigated by his own government now, and there is an impeachment attempt underway by the opposition. Milei's team told CNN that his endorsement of the coin was a mistake. Really? Oh, wow, going on a limb there. According to insiders, Millay never actually owned any Libra and was not associated with the coin. I think family members maybe put him up to it. The details of why he promoted it remain a little bit unclear. There's a lot of speculation. Jamath, your thoughts?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

It's kind of crazy. I mean, he was on such a positive upswing of momentum. It doesn't make much sense why he got embroiled in all of this. The. The problem with this, though, is I think that the COVID up is always worse than the crime itself. So the first message was, you know, very Clintonesque, like, I did not have sexual relations with that woman. He was like, I did not endorse it. I just shared it was his justification for how he. How he could rationalize what he did. The kid that's behind this thing, Hayden Davis, I think is his name, he.

[Jason Calacanis]

Was on Coffeezilla was an incredible one hour. Did you see that, the Coffeezilla interview?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Well, I saw some of the clips on X. And it was pretty brazen because he essentially said that he had Javier Millet in his pocket. And then there were text messages that used some pretty colorful language to basically say the same thing. Then on top of that, there were some text messages that seemed to implicate Malay's sister as having got some of the money from all of this. I don't know. The whole thing just makes absolutely no sense. He was doing so much good, and now he's going to go through this whole cycle of trying to wash his hands of this whole thing. It's a complete waste of time and effort. I don't know why he did this.

[Jason Calacanis]

And there was another interesting little tidbit. Friedberg, friend of the pod, David Portnoy. Supposedly he's been getting in on this, and he's a gambler, and he loves gambling, and he looks at it as gambling. Obviously, he had put reportedly millions of dollars into this, and this guy we're talking about gave him his money back. This guy also has something like $100 million sitting in a bank account anywhere. What's your take on all these meme coins, Reaper?

[David Friedberg]

I don't like them. I don't think that they're good. I don't think they're productive. I think that a bunch of people are going to put money in and lose money, and a few people are going to make a lot of money. And, you know, but at the end of the day, it's no different than the people that sell trading cards or the people that create and sell collectibles and get paid for them. And this is just effectively a digital collectibles business. Unfortunately, I think it's, like, amplified by, like a thousand X because collectibles businesses have friction and they're manual and you got to ship them. And this creates a bit more of a digital frenzy where you see the social feedback loop happen really quickly in real time, and that drives these things to a high value, which means people have the ability to lose a lot more than they otherwise would. But look, I mean, these are not helping the financial system get rebuilt as we talked about earlier. They're not creating productive value. They're entertainment mechanisms, just like any other kind of gambling system might be. And, you know, people can choose to do that if they want. But personally, I'm not into it. I just think it's stupid. But whatever.

[Jason Calacanis]

Patrick, Each did their own.

[David Friedberg]

Yeah.

[Jason Calacanis]

Do you think these are like collectibles, or do you think they are perceived by the people buying them more like securities and more Like Bitcoin, they do to steal me. On the other side of the argument, they do trade with a ticker symbol. They are traded on major platforms like Coinbase and Robinhood, and people share charts about them. So where do you stand on it? You're in the finance business. Meme coin's good, Meme coin's bad.

[John Collison]

I'm basically with Dave. I mean, well, they seem to me to be maybe analogous to gambling, which, I don't know, that we want to ban gambling. If you're able to do it responsibly and you understand what you're getting into and so forth, I guess that's fine. But as you say, judging by the tweets that I see, there are awful lot of ticker symbols and charts and prognostications about future price trajectories and so forth that lead me to think that people are placing somewhat more weight on the asset and security value of these as compared to the, I don't know, some numinous intrinsic aesthetic value.

[Jason Calacanis]

John, maybe two things could be true here. People are gambling and they are being presented as financial instruments and they're trying to trick the suckers at the table. The suckers in this case being the people who voted for Milei. To Chamat's point, this is the unbelievable cell foam of the decade.

[Patrick Collison]

Yeah, look, I don't like meme coins. I think they're bad, and I think they're part of, like Patrick said, a broader swathe of things that we need to figure out societally, where the legalization of sports betting combined with highly targeted advertising. I don't know if you guys have seen the stats on whales in sports betting losing very large amounts of money. And it's just these heartbreaking tales. And there's a very large number of them, of people losing much more than they expected. And I don't know, we have to reckon with these societal questions. I don't think the super easy answers, they come along from time to time. I only learned recently that state lotteries are a relatively recent phenomenon. I think it was one state started doing it in the 1970s, and then a bunch of the other states followed suit. But it's kind of odd when you step back that I've passed a billboard on 101 for the state of California trying to get me to buy lottery.

[John Collison]

Negative EV bet.

[Patrick Collison]

Yeah, but that's become very normalized. And so I think it's a bucket of hard questions here around meme coins, sports gambling, whatever. I don't know what you do, but there's a lot of meme coins are not the only place you find these very heartbreaking stories.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

This is the first time where they've actually talked about or at least where I saw the details of how this stuff happens because he laid it out. And there's these people called snipers that go and pump up the bids right as soon as the coin gets launched and then they're able to. So there's this entire mechanism. It's also shady.

[John Collison]

I was going to say some there where I feel like the specific thing within meme coins that's probably most pernicious is like the rugging dynamic. And if you could have meme coins to a girl, but without the pump and rug, if it was like, I don't know, just some mimetic tracker of some sentiment or something, maybe that'd be okay. But the particular way in which they seem to be employed is like, yeah, some sort of discontinuous run up and then, well, the rug.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

What do you think? Jk, I agree with you.

[Jason Calacanis]

Chamath Milei had the greatest PR run of all time, I think. I mean he became an inspiration to all of us here in America who were concerned about the deficit and out of control spending and ridiculous departments. We heard Jamie Dimon talking about ridiculous committees and all this nonsense. I don't know if you guys remember, but remember he was like Minister of Culture Affuera and Minister of Gender Affuera. This was the precursor TO of course, Doge, where now we're like USA deleted, Department of Education deleted, you know, Defense Department minus 8%. And you know what I really find terrible about this? Is that what it means for leadership. What Milei did was he rug pulled the people who put him in office, the people who voted for Milei are the ones who got hurt here. And when you think about leadership at its core, it really is about putting the needs of your constituents ahead of your own interest, the needs of your investors. In the case of if you were running stripe, you got to think about all these shareholders. Leadership at its core is, I think, setting the example. You set the standard, the moral, the ethical, the vibes, the culture. You set that standard. He had set such a great standard that we all love. And the appearance of impropriety is impropriety. In my mind, that's the leadership standard that should be here. So even being near this, your sister launching it, your brother launching whatever it is, he then went on to taunt, this is where I've really. People make mistakes and this is a stupid one to make but the taunting of his own followers. I'm out on Milei right now. This is what he said. The reality is, if you go to the casino and lose money, I mean, what is the claim if you knew that it had these characteristics? This is another failure of leadership. Leaders own their mistakes. They don't attack the victims. You take ownership of it. And the way you should judge people, I think, is what they do when they're given a lot of power and what they do when they make mistakes. Milei is a failure on all of those fronts. It's absolutely abhorrent. That's it. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. No, I'm just. I'm on fire about it. I just think it's, like, really terrible.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Do you need help getting off your moral grandstand now?

[Jason Calacanis]

I do. I do, actually.

[John Collison]

Yeah.

[Jason Calacanis]

I'm over. I'm sorry. I actually care about morals, ethics and leadership. I think that there's a standard set by these people.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

That's what I think about when I think about you.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yes, of course. Thank you.

[David Friedberg]

All right.

[Jason Calacanis]

With friends like these, call some brothers. Can you imagine? Imagine.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Can you please sit there and. I'm so annoyed. Can you please say their name right? Pronounce the goddamn eye.

[Jason Calacanis]

Okay, There's. I'm pronouncing the Irish. Okay. We speed things up a little bit. We put them together. It's a little bit different. You wouldn't know this from being from Sri Lanka. A great country in and of itself.

[David Friedberg]

You guys wouldn't know why anyone watches this show, would you?

[Jason Calacanis]

I don't know. Everybody says you had no context for this.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Why do you make every show a train wreck? And we have to get it out of the.

[Patrick Collison]

The banter is why people come, people listen. You know, so many TV shows are about. It's nice to have friends. I mean, you look at Friends or How I Met yout Mother. My wife and I are rewatching the West Wing right now, and it's bas. You know. Yeah, but it's just like buddies and loyal to each other and everything. And I think the underlying idea behind lots of TV shows is it's nice to have friends. And I think that's the success. The all impress.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

West Wing, by the way, is an incredible. Is an incredible. Which season are you on? It's an incredible show.

[Patrick Collison]

We're up to season four now.

[David Friedberg]

God, I gotta get in five or seven.

[Jason Calacanis]

I never got in on the West Wing.

[Patrick Collison]

But of course, Sorkin left after season four. And so many people said the whole.

[David Friedberg]

Thing about the great debate that America needs to have, I think, is still like the missing aspect of modern politics is.

[Jason Calacanis]

Explain the great debate.

[David Friedberg]

Yeah, well, the great debate is like, let's talk about the topic that's at hand and talk about it on the merits of what's right for the country as opposed to everything being about attacking because the other side brought the idea forward and now we have to attack the other side and frame the idea as being beneficial to them and hurtful to us. Nothing actually gets resolved because we don't end up having objectivity around these conversations, around some of the major issues that the country faces, many of which, by the way, both sides have valid points of view. And if we can kind of have the great debate, if we can have these conversations, like Doge. Right. Like abortion, like, you know, the rights of states, like spending, like, there are all these things that we should be talking about rather than use that moment as a way to attack the other side politically so I can make sure I've got points and kudos leading into the next election cycle. It's just awful. Anyway, I missed that about the West Wing. It feels like a purist, like just a beautiful way of thinking about this could wear that.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I wonder what it would be like to watch the West Wing and then House of Cards back to back. That's something I should. No, but it's really a juxtaposition, those two different shows.

[John Collison]

But, Dave, isn't the West Wing kind of the opposite of what you just said you want the all in to represent? Because I see the West Wing as being sort of fully immersed in and representing one sort of particular worldview. In some sense, we look back on the 90s or the Clinton years or something as this period of great harmony in the country. And that harmony might have been great and the economy was doing well and all the things, but it wasn't exactly a period. Whatever. I wasn't here in the 90s, but from afar. It did not feel to me when I was 8 or whatever as a period of tremendous ideological debate and fervor and schisms and all the rest.

[David Friedberg]

During the 90s, during the Clinton era, you're saying. Yeah, yeah.

[John Collison]

And I think. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I think of the West Wing as, you know, a kind of recapitulation of the 10 years.

[David Friedberg]

Maybe they were. I mean, maybe they were the compromising party, because, I mean, tell me another modern Democrat president that's had any point of view on balancing the budget and creating a surplus, which I think was aligned with the Reagan point of view at the time. And he kind of, you know, again, as yeah, Jake Al said he was a centrist and he brought, brought the parties closer together rather than farther apart with.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I agree with Patrick. The thing that makes the West Wing a great show is that it's about the insider nature of the White House and the West Wing and where you see these characters like Toby, who would never be a star in any other show under any other circumstance on any network ever. And instead he's one of these central quasi good, quasi nefarious bully kind of. He was like a, the precursor to the Rahm Emanuel archetype in the Obama White House.

[Patrick Collison]

I think I also find it funny where, you know, the way Dominic Cummings has talked about just his experience of life in government was that it's so distracting trying to get anything done because you know, you have some plan, you get up in the morning and you're going to go do something that matters for the country and then you're just instantly by 8am sideswiped by some kind of silly controversy of the day. That's basically many of the episodes of the West Wing where they have some actual important thing that they want to get done and then they just get waylaid by a silly controversy.

[Jason Calacanis]

It seems to me like you're also the product of the technological innovation that occurred during your presidency and during your term. And if you think about Clinton, he got to ride the Internet and this massive economic boom. And you look at Reagan, the PC boom, I mean, sometimes the timing really matters, I think.

[John Collison]

And again, I'm not any grand expert on the Clinton years, but I think it is interesting where one of the first acts of the Clinton presidency was the deficit reduction Act. Dave, to your point, when's the last time that a Democratic president really cared about the deficit? And I think federal spending fell by 5 points of GDP over the course of the Clinton presidency, which is really not a small amount. So obviously there were some kind of structural tailwinds from technology and the Internet and all the rest. Yeah, a bunch of that was defense. But nonetheless he did it.

[Jason Calacanis]

And the last two administrations and you look at California, there were massive windows of surplus and there were massive windows of a surging stock market over the last eight years. And we plundered and we wasted them by adding 16 trillion to the debt during a good time. Like what's going to happen during a bad time? Just absolutely brutal. Let's move on. Where do we want to go here? We got Grok 3, we got the China private sector, we got A victory lap for Freeberg. You heard this?

[David Friedberg]

I want to ask you guys questions about Ark Institute and the EVO model.

[John Collison]

We should do that.

[Jason Calacanis]

Patrick, let's do the ARK Institute. Friedberg, why don't you ask the question?

[David Friedberg]

Patrick runs the Ark Institute, right?

[Jason Calacanis]

Okay.

[John Collison]

Yes, I'm one of the co founders. And then there are two.

[David Friedberg]

And you guys are funders of it or. Yeah, maybe you guys give us the introduction.

[Jason Calacanis]

A lot of money into this.

[John Collison]

Yeah, yeah. So the institute is a nonprofit. It does basic biology research. It's in Palo Alto next to stanford. It's about 230 people today. And yeah, John and I are among the funders of it, but there's a bunch of other very generous donors.

[Patrick Collison]

Can you explain this idea of curiosity driven research that's on the website?

[John Collison]

Yeah, there's kind of two things behind it. So the first is the vast majority of biology scientists today receive NIH grants through basic research. And the NIH grants are one just hard to get and annoying to get. Scientists spend 40% of their time working on grant overhead and so forth. But worse, even more perniciously, the grants are very restrictive in terms of the kind of science they can do. And so we ran a survey of scientists back a couple years ago of top scientists, and four out of five, like 79% of them told us that if they could just spend money however they wanted, if they weren't kind of limited by what they're prescribed by these NIH grants, 4 to 5 told us they would change the research agenda a lot. And so I think the analogy here is imagine if there was only one VC firm and it was run by the government, how would that change?

[Patrick Collison]

And that VC firm had strong opinions on what kind of companies people should build.

[John Collison]

Exactly. Literally. The grant panels at the NIH are consensus based explicitly, they've consensus based scoring mechanisms and they penalise you if you're doing work outside of your field and so forth. We go to all this work to train these amazing scientists and then we sort of don't let them pursue their best ideas. That's kind of problem one. And the ARC investigators, they're fun to do whatever they want. Curiosity driven research. And then the second thing behind ARC is this idea that you can kind of divide diseases into three categories. You have infectious diseases and we, broadly speaking, know how to generate cures for and treatments for infectious diseases. We've monogenic diseases, like one genetic mutation or something, and we don't know how to cure those in most cases, but we can at least screen for them. And so on. And then we have what the biologists call complex diseases where there's some kind of gene environment interaction. That's most cancers, most autoimmune diseases, most neurodegenerative diseases and so forth.

[Patrick Collison]

Alzheimer's, things like that.

[John Collison]

Exactly. And we've never cured a complex disease. And many of these diseases are very tragic precisely because not only have we not cured them, we don't even have treatments, as John says, in the case of Alzheimer's, for example. And so the question is, can we do something about this? And what would a research agenda and program that can help shine some light on these complex diseases look like? And our hypothesis, we'll see how much it's borne out. But our hypothesis is that we've gotten a couple of new technologies over the last couple of years. Single cell sequencing. We can sequence the DNA or the RNA just in one cell. We've fancied new functional genomics and CRISPR technologies. So you can make these fine edits and perturbations again, even just in a single cell. And then obviously you have transformers and AI and ML and all this stuff. And this is kind of a new read, think, write, loop in biology that just didn't exist a decade ago. And again, the question is, is this powerful enough now to solve some of these previously intractable diseases? And so yesterday, ARC released this new foundation model for biology. It's the largest biology ML model ever. It's actually, I think, the largest open source AI model ever.

[Jason Calacanis]

This is Evo 2. You're talking about Evo, the number two Evo 2?

[John Collison]

Yeah. And so it's not just open weights, like the deep SEQ model or LLAMA or something. It's actually, it's open source, since the training code is public and people can go read the blog post or the paper, whatever. The thing I find amazing about evo, and that just really surprised me, is so it's trained on 9 trillion base pair gene tokens. So ChatGPT LLMs are normally trained on human language. This is a language model, but it's trained on DNA, the language of life. And there's only one human genome in the training set. It's mostly other species. And even though it's only seen one human genome, it's state of the art at predicting the pathogenicity of human genome mutations. And so, you know, a famous mutation is the BRCA mutation for breast cancer. Like, it's state of the art at predicting the pathogenicity, the harmfulness of BRCA mutations. Again, it only saw, despite never having.

[Patrick Collison]

Seen one in humans, it's only seen.

[John Collison]

One human genome and that human did not have these pathogenic mutations. And so it's kind of learning something deep across the tree of life. And I don't know, I find that pretty cool.

[David Friedberg]

And sorry, is there a phenotypic data set that's used in training? So I think like, you know, totally unsupervised. Right. And so when you're building models in typical like genotype by phenotype models, you're trying to look at the phenotype, the physical characteristics of the organism, what can it do, what does it look like, what are the features? And then you look at the genome and so that tells you, hey, these are the specific genes or alterations or mutations that drove this particular phenotype is kind of what the model tries to learn over time with the objective being, hey, can I ask it to define a genotype or a genome based on a phenotype based on a physical set of characteristics. I'm looking for vice versa. Maybe you can just help us understand what is it trained on and how did that kind of prediction in brca, how is that possible?

[John Collison]

Great question. So it's totally unsupervised. That is to say, you're just showing us lots of genomes and any kind of latent structure that it learns is just based on trying to figure out how to kind of organize that knowledge. But we're not showing it any labeled data or phenotypic kind of outcome data or what have you. And so then you're able to, you can give it a genetic sequence and ask relative to its understanding of the genetic universe, how likely is this particular sequence? And so then you can do things like predict anomalousness or pathogenicity or whatever. You can also then kind of using the embeddings of the upper layers, we don't need to get too technical here, but you can train another model on top of the model. And even if you showed maybe only a couple of examples, it learns very quickly. Okay, kind of here's how the weights of Evo2 correspond to this particular task. And those sort of models trained on top turn out to be really accurate.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

You guys open source the base model or you open sourced the fine tuned or both.

[John Collison]

We open sourced the base model, but there's no kind of proprietary reason that we didn't open source the fine tunes. It's really easy to produce them and yeah, if anyone wanted one of them, we'd happily share it.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Where does it stand in the spectrum of different tools that folks would use to solve these life sciences problems. There's cell models that are being developed by some, then there's these protein models. Where does this fit this kind of.

[John Collison]

Landscape of foundation models in biology? It's obviously very new, so it's a bit of an open question sort of how exactly people are going to find ways to use it and applications for it. Part of what I think is cool is that proteins and RNA and phenotypic expression and everything, all these things sit on top of the DNA. Like in some sense the DNA encodes everything because the whole organism comes from the DNA. And so I guess the question would be, and we don't really know yet, is DNA all you need? And with evo1 we saw some encouraging suggestions that for example, you can build really good protein structure prediction models out of a DNA foundation model, even if you don't train on a lot of protein structure data. But I'd say it's a really exciting time and it's kind of an open question. And I don't know if you analogize Evo2 to. I don't know whether it's GPT2 or 3 or something, but I think we're going to see a similar Cambrian explosion of applications over the next couple of years. The thing we are really excited about at ARC is training cell state models and trying to better understand how cells what causes them to change states. And so we're thinking a lot about that. But the reason the weights are on hugging face and hopefully we'll be surprised in what happens.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And Patrick, do you just expect that over time as Stripe continues to grow, you can just take some of your own excess capital and other people will do the same and keep funding ark. And then if there's something that ARK creates or innovates on, if it can generate some amount of money, it would just kind of flow back. Is it meant to be self sustaining or is it always just going to be via patronage from successful folks that just want to keep it going?

[John Collison]

John and I are, we are ourselves very committed to it and we're kind of underwriting it in that regard. But. Well, one, we're just lucky where there's a growing donor pool of other people supporting it. I think it's just better for an institution if it's not kind of beholden to the whims of one donor or one group of donors or something. So I think that's just a much healthier structure for it. I think there's also a larger group of people who are just becoming interested in science and realizing Jason was on his moral pulpit. My pulpit is that all is not well in basic research in the US today. And again, the way to see this is to just talk to the scientists themselves and they tell you how inhibited they are and the problems caused by the strictures and structures around them. And we don't see ARK as the answer. Hopefully it can be sort of one point in the space. But then there's other people doing cool stuff. Brian Armstrong, of course, started a company in the longevity space and Yuri Milner and others started altos. And this is the Chan Zuckerberg Institute. And so people are trying different things, but no, our ARC is happy to support it. And then it's possible that ARK over the long term becomes self sustaining. But that's.

[Jason Calacanis]

Well, that was my next question is.

[John Collison]

It takes a while to get that things into the clinic. So we're not holding out for that.

[Jason Calacanis]

Tomorrow when they have this technology transfer department at every major university where when scientists get grants and they work on some innovation, it gets monetized. And so what happens here? Who owns the innovations? How do you license them? Because it would be amazing if it just wasn't based on. I believe you guys have put over a billion dollars into this. That was my understanding. Is that true? You guys are over a billion dollars into this effort?

[John Collison]

Not quite the numbers. Yeah, not quite. The numbers are public. So ark spends around 100 million a year.

[Jason Calacanis]

Oh, okay.

[John Collison]

And it started about three years ago.

[Jason Calacanis]

So hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a really significant thing.

[David Friedberg]

Yeah.

[John Collison]

And again, I want to emphasize there are other donors. It's not just us, but I mean, it's a nonprofit. There have been spin outs and there will continue to be. And so if one of those, really, if one of those becomes moderna or the next Ozempic or something, then that can be really good for ark. And ARK might have an endowment and be able to self sustain and so forth. There's no prospect for us to make money on it in the sense that it's a nonprofit.

[Jason Calacanis]

Well, John, just one thing there. I was talking to a friend of mine. If this thing actually hits, you could flip this nonprofit for profit. I got a guy you could talk to anyway. John, go ahead.

[David Friedberg]

Oh, strays on the whole modeling world. We talk a lot about the idea that you can kind of use a computer, state the phenotype or the physical characteristics you want in a biological organism and have the software resolve the whole genome, all the DNA needed to make that physical organism real. And it can do it from its prediction Ability on what genes, what combinations. But we're a couple orders away from that, right? I mean, I think like, ultimately we always talk about, hey, we want to be able to define or have the software define the plant that can grow on the surface of Mars. It knows the soil type of Mars. It knows the air. You know, it knows that it's carbon dioxide based. It's 10% of the Earth's atmosphere. This is what the day, the daylight structure looks like. It needs to be wind tolerant. And then the software predicts an organism that might be able to do that. You know, and obviously there's a lot of this predictive work going on in proteins. Then the higher order is cells, so single cell organisms, microbial organisms, and then ultimately multicellular organisms. So plants and then finally animals, where you could basically create organisms from scratch using software because we have all the other tools to biologically put these pieces together today. But this is a great kind of. I view it as a pyramid. There's a ton of phenotypic data that still needs to be fed in ultimately to kind of have us all understand protein, protein models and a lot more to it. But it's a great.

[John Collison]

I think that's right. There's a certain amount you can probably derive from first principles just by looking at genomes. But I think the really powerful models are going to need to do exactly what you say and to feed in a lot of ancillary phenotypic and just kind of other data, how they fare in different environments.

[David Friedberg]

And the sequencing data got ahead of the phenotyping data because there's so much sequencing data that's come in. So you can do a beautiful job predicting correctness in a genome, but.

[John Collison]

And the sequencing data is really nicely digital, whereas the phenotypic stuff, it's like. Well, it even is the data. Yeah, totally, Dave.

[Jason Calacanis]

Sorry.

[Patrick Collison]

While we're in the science corner, I have a question for you, Dave, which are strawberries. You might know the answer to this. A bunch of tree species around the world are under attack. So in Ireland we have this problem of the ash dieback. Ash is kind of Ireland's national tree. They use it to make hurleys, which is for the national species. And since the mid-2010s, you know, especially as the live plant trade has ramped up.

[John Collison]

We need to get a hurl for Jason.

[Patrick Collison]

Obviously.

[Jason Calacanis]

I put this right here on the.

[David Friedberg]

Shelf to the American chestnut here.

[Patrick Collison]

Yeah, no, exactly. I was going to reference the American chestnut as well in the US but it feels like we have this real problem and it's so sad where so many beautiful trees are under attack.

[John Collison]

The bark beetle in California and, you know, the various conifers that we're losing.

[Patrick Collison]

So we got to solve this.

[David Friedberg]

And the black pod disease, the black pod fungus and cacao and coffee is being destroyed. TR4 is destroying Banana right now.

[Jason Calacanis]

Dr. Doom, let's go.

[John Collison]

No, no.

[Patrick Collison]

Like, it's a real.

[Jason Calacanis]

Like, it is a real.

[David Friedberg]

This is a real issue.

[Jason Calacanis]

We're down to the science corner here.

[David Friedberg]

So this is. Yeah, I mean, this is exactly what we aim to address at Ohalo. So in some cases you can actually silence a gene that's a suppressor of immune function of the organism, which can actually improve disease resistance.

[John Collison]

But how do you do delivery of that? Do you like this airborne sprays or what's the. Yeah, how do you, how do you. How do you treat the tree?

[David Friedberg]

Yep. So ultimately, if you're going to use a genomic method, you would transform the genome, so you would edit the genome and you would regenerate a plant or regenerate a tree and then propagate that tree.

[John Collison]

Okay. But then, like, we have to replant all the trees.

[Patrick Collison]

We have to replant the trees.

[David Friedberg]

We'd have to replant the trees. And ultimately, do you do custom projects?

[Patrick Collison]

Can we do a little thing on ash in Ireland?

[David Friedberg]

Absolutely. That is some of the work we do. So we announced a few weeks ago a partnership with the University of Florida to use our methods to basically introduce disease resistance for major fungal pathogen that's destroying the Florida strawberry crop. And so that's what we call a trait program at Ohalo, where we can identify a specific genomic trait that we can go and introduce into that plant. But then you're right, you do have to grow all the plants back and then put them back in the ground.

[Patrick Collison]

That's the second best to pure extinction. But I have, in Ireland, I ended up owning this kind of country house and virgin woodlands where, you know, woodlands that Ireland used to be fully forested and then was denuded with the arrival of agriculture. And there's some kind of ancient woodlands on it that are from the original when Ireland was fully kind of covered in trees. And I find the die off of species very sad. And so we gotta get.

[David Friedberg]

Yeah, but no, I'm very optimistic. Like, we know how to address these solutions. We know how to regenerate the trees. We can, we can do this quickly. We can resolve these problems. But you are right, I think you.

[John Collison]

Should be selling askew to the people in Tahoe. Like, you know, The Tahoe Basin has been so worse than decimated, as in decimation is only 1 in 10, which is like, you know, half the trees in Tahoe have been hit by bark beetle.

[David Friedberg]

So those are very interesting ones because insects, you can actually build very specific defense mechanisms against insects. But we generally have to improve genetic diversity. And in doing so, you know, there, there's a natural resistance because the evolutionary like, like the reason we have a TR4 problem in banana. All the world's banana that we grow commercially comes from one original banana clone called Dwarf Cavendish. And they took that one plant, they cut clippings of it, put it in the ground, grow another plant, cut clippings of that, and they kept multiplying it. So all the bananas we eat and all the bananas that are planted across tens of millions of acres worldwide come from one original clone. And because of that, this fungus has been exceptionally capable of evolving itself to better eat that banana plant. And so 60 cents of every dollar we spend on bananas today goes towards fungicide. We're spraying these banana trees once or multiple times a week to kill this fungus. We're consuming that. It's super expensive. And if we had genetic diversity, if we had better genetics in the banana programs around the world, we'd be able to radically.

[John Collison]

No matter what the administration says, you think we need more diversity.

[Jason Calacanis]

Are you in favor of dei Friedberg? They cornered you. Friedberg. You got to make one promise to me.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Here it comes.

[Jason Calacanis]

You're not going to start working on Raptors. I don't want to see any of these raptors running around San Francisco. Okay, Chamath, your thoughts here on Science Corner here. It's been a really enthralling one.

[David Friedberg]

The Raptors are coming for you.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I find it incredibly inspiring that there's just so much movement in these foundational models. It's incredible. Every day just seems like there's something new. The biggest problem that I think that the commercial community is going to deal with is how to actually take advantage of it, because you're kind of head spins because you don't exactly know where to start. The biological models are different in that I think it's a much smaller population of people that will use it. And I think they do have to figure out how to take these models and complement the existing pipeline they have. The pipeline they have right now I think is pretty brittle. I think we all know that in life sciences. My wife struggles with this a lot, is how to complement a very traditional pipeline with this kind of stuff. So I see it firsthand in how she tries to allocate capital towards these problems on the other side. I just think these foundational models are really incredible and I think that I was completely wrong on a couple of my earlier thoughts. One thought that I had for a long time was it just seemed like all these base models were asymptoting and so I was not convinced where all this capex would go in a productive way. Like why are you buying all these Nvidia GPUs? And then I think if you looked at Colossus, the Elon's Colossus XAI built.

[Jason Calacanis]

The largest Data center over 100,000 GPUs going to 200,000 in 122 days.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I mean basically what he proved was that there are still valuable gains in pre training. And so the larger the cluster the more value that there is. Now he also benefits I guess from the X feed, but that was really interesting. So now I'm like a little bullish on Nvidia. I'm like oh my God, if this is true then all this capex may be justified. You could be buying a lot of stuff then. Look, I actually also just to maybe riff on this Grok3 thing for one second, I had three takeaways. My first takeaway was I was sneakily surprised on the pre training upside on having a larger cluster. So I think that that's very pro Nvidia actually and it's actually also just really good in general for foundational model makers. So I think that's a really positive thing. The second thing is, I don't know if you watched the live stream, but did you guys hear some of the stuff that these guys had to pull to pull this thing off? One of the most incredible. So the way that Elon narrated it was we first had a physical problem so we just had to search all around the country for one single location where we could actually put 100,000 GPUs. And they found it, which was an old Electrolux factory in Memphis. Okay, that's kind of interesting. He only had like 15 megawatts and he had to get a quarter gigawatt. And so he had to basically buy every useful generator that was available. But then they had to liquid cool it. And so they bought one third of all the portable liquid cooling capacity in America and located it on prem. But then they figured out that there was a power problem. So then they took all these Tesla power packs and then had to do power smoothing which had them had to rewrite all of the power pack firmware in all of this, you know how we talked about Deep SEQ being this moment where we had lost sight in America of capital being the source of innovation, he proves actually a more generalized rule that I took away from this, which is you always have to have a constraint. So, meaning, let's say that there's infinite capital in his case and infinite talent, because he can basically recruit anybody he wants. What did he do instead? He created this artificial constraint of time. And so he was just able to say, you're going to get this done in a moment. And Nick, the third graph that the guys at Artificial Analysis sent to me, I just want to put it up here because it shows you guys the quality of Grok 3 relative to the amount of time that they've spent on this problem is, to me, what's staggering. So if you just project the rate of change of this, and this is without judging OpenAI or anthropic or anything else, those guys have been doing it for years. These guys have been doing it for a year, and they did all of this MacGyver engineering and were able to pull this off. So that's my second takeaway, is that innovation needs a constraint. Sometimes it's capital, sometimes it's talent, and sometimes it's time. And so if you can basically be just completely rigid on one of those dimensions, you can get a great team to create something. So that was an interesting takeaway. And then the third is, I think what this also speaks to is the notion of like a kuretsu, right. Which is like the Japanese word for companies that work together while still remaining independent conglomerates.

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah, loose part.

[Patrick Collison]

It's more interlinked.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

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

[Jason Calacanis]

18.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And then when it looked like we need to rewrite the firmware, it would take another 18 months, to your point, Jason. So it's really incredible what these guys are able to do together. Those were my. It was really, really inspiring.

[Patrick Collison]

Chamath, a book I think you might find really fun is it's Called Henry Kaiser builder in the American West. But Kaiser is kind of underappreciated these days. He was the Elon of his time. He started as a road builder of all things. He won the contract to build the Hoover Dam. He built the Hoover Dam. He started a shipyard during World War II. Yeah, exactly this.

[John Collison]

He made cars.

[Patrick Collison]

He decided to make cars. He decided to make airplanes stations. The famous four day liberty ship. Remember the propaganda win during World War II of, you know, they were able to lay down. That was at the Kaiser shipyards. Kaiser Permanente spun out of them as part of their.

[John Collison]

I was literally as Tramath was saying that, pulling up my notes from the book and just.

[Patrick Collison]

He was just a complete phenom and he just kept finding new industries. It's like, oh, building cars, how hard can it be? Building airplanes, how hard can it be?

[Jason Calacanis]

Yeah, I mean, that is the nature of entrepreneurship. The nature of entrepreneurship is doing something delusional and then just letting you know.

[Patrick Collison]

But most entrepreneurs just do one delusional thing once and just stay in that. Like again, Elon and Henry Kaiser back in the day, it's in the world of atoms, very hard things, short timelines.

[John Collison]

And San Francisco now kind of, at least in the physical domain, stands for a kind of stasis. You know, it takes you 10 years to build anything. But when he had the ship, build the toilet, the shipbuilding yards here, he went from 0 to 100,000 people in Richmond in one year.

[Patrick Collison]

He basically built the city of Richmond, California.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

How do you. But guys, okay, let's just double. How do you think these guys pull this off?

[David Friedberg]

I don't know.

[Jason Calacanis]

Personal sacrifice. Massive personal sacrifice.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I understand that, Jason, but I'm talking about like tactically pull this off where you have to be on site at some point, organizing this team, directing this team, being able to help isolate these problems, fix them. It just seems impossible to do it once, let alone six. I don't understand how they do it.

[Jason Calacanis]

I actually have some insight into this just from knowing Elon. A lot of these things compound a lot of what he learned in material science, doing SpaceX and about making the engines and then working with metal. You see, in his production at Tesla and specifically in the cybertruck, he has learned so much about factories. I don't think there's a person on the planet who knows more about factories now having built a battery factory, a space factory, an engine factory and a car factory, and now building Optimus on top of that. So these things compound and then a lot of the engineers will float between the companies. So there are folks who have worked at SpaceX who then go do a tour over at Tesla, et cetera. And a number of those wound up coming into dozens.

[John Collison]

I'm going to read you a few quotes from this book. I'm just going to see if they remind you of anyone. Kaiser's managers challenged convention from the start. As builders, they were expert at coordinating workers and materials. Kaiser was almost contemptuous of traditional methods. His partners had long since despaired of getting him to follow customary procedures. In preparing his bids. For each new job, Kaiser would try to conceive every possible technique that might justify making a bid low enough to win the job. Once the construction was underway, he was forever trying to come up with ideas that would expedite the work. Perhaps more than any other builder, he believed that the faster a job gets done, the lower the costs can be.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

That's incredible.

[Jason Calacanis]

Incredible. Well, and what happened with Colossus is they had told Elon that it would when he wanted to use other network operation centers to host Colossus, you know, and he looked, there were none available. And when he did find quotes from them, they told him 18 to 24 months. He just determined, hey, if this, there's no reason to even do this. If I can't get this done in, you know, 100 days or something, why even join the race? I'm going to be so far behind. And if you look just to wrap this segment up and get onto our final two segments, if you look at these two charts about Grok, it's now and you know, listen, these benchmarks and these arenas and testing, there's a lot of controversy around them and people keep leapfrogging each other, but they do give us, I think, our best shot at looking at progress. This is the benchmark here for Grok on a bunch of different tests, math, science and coding. And as you can see, Grok3 has now eclipsed Gemini, which is Google's LLM and Deep SEQ from China, Claude and ChatGPT 4.0. And so to your point, Chamath, it's pretty impressive.

[John Collison]

Yeah, top of the LMSYS leaderboard.

[Jason Calacanis]

The thing here, I think Freeberg, I'd like to get your comment on, is if hardware is the constraint, does that mean that the person who understands hardware and build outs, as Chamath was pointing to, does that mean that they by default win?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No, but Jason, hold on. This is what's counterintuitive. It wasn't clear because.

[Jason Calacanis]

No, it was not.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Yes, I would guess that the last couple of Iterations. It seemed like OpenAI has moved to what comes after the base model, meaning in the allocation of resources in terms of what they were creating. And so this is what's so counterintuitive. He was like, no. And so I don't understand what he knew that everybody else didn't know. But the size of that cluster made no sense. And it could only be a result like this where he basically proved that there was still value in pre training where size actually led to better outcomes.

[Jason Calacanis]

I think that was counterintuitive, super consequential. I mean, complete agreement with the chamath and just Friedberg to wrap the segment up and put a bow on it. We see these LLMs, they've made incredible progress as we just heard from EV2 or EVO2, I'm sorry, Grok. And we're making these giant gains in space, you know, in work and specifically in space. Dave, do you think this will get us any closer to Uranus?

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

So sad.

[Jason Calacanis]

So sad. It didn't even land. Okay, let's do our.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Don't even, don't even acknowledge.

[Jason Calacanis]

Don't even acknowledge it. Do not acknowledge it because we'll just do more of it. I tried to get your mouth to do one. He wouldn't do it. Okay, last two segments, we're going to talk about staying private longer and when you guys are going to go public. And then there's an asteroid coming. What do we want to do first, boys? You want to talk about this asteroid coming? Dave, is it the end of the world if it hits us? What's going on?

[David Friedberg]

NASA dropped the probability of it hitting Earth to one and a half percent. So every day when the sky gets dark, they can do a better job seeing this asteroid that everyone's freaking out about. So we finally got a good night sky two nights ago. The telescopes were able to get a better trajectory reading on it. And that allows the models to make estimates on the probability of this asteroid hitting Earth in 2032 when it's projected to cross our orbit. And so right now the probability is estimated at 1.5% that it will hit the Earth. And based on the size of this asteroid, there's this range, it goes up to 320ft in diameter, as small as 80ft in diameter, which actually can have a pretty big effect on how big of an energy release there would be if it actually, you know, hit the Earth. So even on the high end, if it was, call it 300ft, it would be the equivalent of, call it a 20 megaton bomb, which is not insignificant. If it were that big, it would hit the Earth. If it was smaller than that, it would probably just detonate in the air and create a massive shockwave and, and firestorm. But the region that it would decimate would be limited to probably a couple dozen miles up to a thousand miles of effect. And if you look at the total surface area of the Earth, you know, we're talking about 10 to 15% of the Earth having people that habitate, you know, enough people to have probably going.

[Jason Calacanis]

To land in an ocean. Right. I mean.

[David Friedberg]

Right, yeah. So it's one and a half percent chance of hitting the Earth and then call it a 15% chance. If it hits the Earth causing lots.

[Jason Calacanis]

Of light, 10 basis points, it hits.

[David Friedberg]

A city 1 basis point and then. Right. And then it's a function of how big it is. If it's actually as small as 80ft, then it's not going to be that significant even if it does get close to habited areas. So yeah, I'm not losing sleep over, over the.

[Patrick Collison]

Did you come across in your research? I feel like this is a real boys are monitoring the situation moment. Do you come across the Tunguska event?

[David Friedberg]

Yeah, researching this. So that one. That's incredible. Yeah. So I don't you want to talk about it? Go ahead.

[Patrick Collison]

Yeah, just no one knows this. In 1908, an asteroid hit the Earth. It hit a relatively uninhabited part of Russia. It was a first off, the asteroid did not hit the Earth because it got so hot on reentry there was an air burst and it was a thousand Hiroshimas in size. The explosion. Yeah, they have here the 60 meter asteroid and they have the megatonage somewhere.

[Jason Calacanis]

Wow.

[Patrick Collison]

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

[David Friedberg]

That's right. It's about the same size.

[Patrick Collison]

Yep, exactly. And I think you can take a little bit of reassurance maybe that we have had similar size asteroids hit before and there is some existence proof that despite the giant explosion, you know, it doesn't show up in the climactic.

[David Friedberg]

The Tunguska asteroid was at like 160, 200ft. So if, if this asteroid is in that range and it hits the Earth, you have this kind of explosion in the air. If it gets above, I think 250 roughly is where they think that it doesn't burn up fully in the air and it actually will strike the Earth. But yeah, that's.

[Jason Calacanis]

There you go.

[David Friedberg]

This is roughly what we saw happen, what we think the size will be if it hits.

[Jason Calacanis]

Is there a countermeasure? I don't mean to get all sci fi here, great question. Yeah, but is there a countermeasure possible? And like if this thing was coming, let's say in five years.

[David Friedberg]

Yeah, yeah. But relative to the Earth, this is like tens of thousands of kilometers an hour. Right. It's a very fast moving object. It's pretty small, right? 160ft. So you've now got to figure out the exact trajectory, get it perfectly right, get a launch off of the Earth and intercept this thing at the exact moment that you need to, to push it off course or detonate something nearby it to redirect it. So technically very complicated, very hard to pull off. But this is exactly why we have this planetary defense funding at NASA, which is to track these objects. And this is another example, by the way, where I would say AI can play an important role. And I'd love Patrick and John to opine on this, but I have a, a thesis that like AI more than anything unlocks deeply complicated projects for humans that would otherwise be kind of infeasible in the pre AI era. I think in the post AI era we're going to be like, oh, here's all these projects that we do that are like, oh, you know, on a daily basis we mine to the center of the earth and we get cool like rare earth minerals from like 500 miles down and we go to space and colonize the moon and all these crazy things. Because AI unlocks these large scale projects that would require millions of people to do things in a coordinated way. And AI can be very smart in this way. But I think AI could play a role also in these Planetary Defense Initiative concepts, jcal in the future where you can actually build a complete project model in software on how you would actually address this problem and then, you know, go execute it with automation and. But yeah, there's a planetary defense function at NASA. They track these objects and they're funded to do it. So we hope that NASA continues to get funding to do this work. Very important. And guys, it just came through that NASA just dropped the probability of impact event to about a 1/3 of 1%. So it's gotten even smaller, which is we can all go to sleep comfortably tonight.

[Jason Calacanis]

All right now, the one everybody's been waiting for. Patrick, John, you founded the company in 2010. It's 15 years later, the entire LP industrial complex and venture capitalists everywhere. I'm sure some employees are wondering, when will Stripe go public and under what circumstances? And what's the holdup here? Why aren't you public already?

[Patrick Collison]

Yeah, look, I think people sometimes hold us out to be dogmatic or something on this topic, whereas we feel like so many other people out there in the world are dogmatic and we just try to be pragmatic on it. You know, Keith was on the show and he was saying, you know, he believes companies should go public as quickly as possible. I don't know, maybe that's the right thing for, for some companies, but in at least Stripe's case, that hasn't been the case. I also think the environment has changed quite a bit. Where it used to be the case that to do any return of capital to shareholders or if you needed any kind of large sums of money, you needed the public markets. That's obviously not true today where the stable private markets exist. But we look at and we say, is Stripe better off at the moment as a private or a public company? And up to this point we have determined private that could change at some point. But there's kind of no dogma from our point. The last thing I'll just say is I think Keith made the argument. People generally make the argument that it is critical for discipline to be public and public companies run in a more disciplined fashion. And I think that's hogwash. If you need a 25 year old fidelity analyst asking you to double click on your capex, blah, blah, blah blah to run the company with discipline, something is horribly wrong at the company and you need new management. And so that argument has never really resonated with me.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Basically what you guys are saying is for your intellectual perspective, you get a lot more return on the time you spend talking with the private investors you have and your team and then.

[Patrick Collison]

And customers.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

And customers. And it would just be dilutive and you would have your outcomes. Quite honestly, if you had to talk to these other folks who are talking to you and 50 other companies don't really know much of anything, may be very surface level and then may actually distract you and force you to make decisions you don't want to make.

[John Collison]

We're not even that negative.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

We're not even that negative.

[John Collison]

I was going to say, but there's no spiritual status associated with being public. Why be public? It is a cheaper source of deeper and more liquid capital. And so if you want cheaper and more liquid capital, then by all means go with it. But it's not more moral. And I think again, it's just helpful to get away from that kind of framing. I also think it's noteworthy that if you look at financial services in particular, and we're kind of a company at the intersection of financial services and technology, being private for a long time is the norm. So Bloomberg is a private company. Fidelity is a private company. Vanguard's a private company. Jane Street's a private company. Goldman, Citadel Securities. Citadel, Citadel, Yeah. Goldman waited 130 years to go public. JP Morgan waited 70 years to go public. Visa waited. Visa waited 50 years to go public. And again, those are all different times in history. So I'm not saying you can draw definitions from them. I think it's a thing of financial services where there's always a tendency uniquely here to be kind of pro cyclical. And I think you need to be kind of particularly careful as a public financial services company to avoid some of those temptations and some of those tendencies. And so I think that's a unique dynamic that applies in our space and then financial services regularly.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

If you look at companies like SpaceX, they're able to provide this yearly liquidity which actually is probably better because it smooths out a lot of the volume and then people can get back to work and just kind of.

[Jason Calacanis]

Are you guys profitable, by the way?

[Patrick Collison]

We are profitable, yeah. And profitable on like a fully loaded gap net income basis. Not like a community adjusted EBITDA stuff.

[Jason Calacanis]

But shout out Adam Newman, come on the prod anytime you got to wear shoes.

[Patrick Collison]

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

[John Collison]

The framework, if I'm trying to predict our actions, the framework we use is kind of two things. One, I think what matters is less the returns in a given year and more duration. And so the question is what enables the best compounding on sort of a 10 year time horizon and what's best for shareholders as you really take the longer term perspective and then just what's best for customers and what helps you build the best products? And Chamath, you kind of said it where at least at this juncture with the business growing at this rate, we want to spend the marginal hour with some customer.

[Patrick Collison]

And I think you guys have gotten this sense like this is our life's work. We're not going anywhere. We'll be very happily running stripe in 10 years time, in 20 years time. And there's so much going on in this space where we spend a bunch of time talking about stablecoins, talking about AI, everything like that. And it's hard enough to stay ahead in the world of business without all these distractions, like you said. And so it's just a question of how do you set yourself up to win and do right by anyone in a world the world's pretty competitive.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I think if you had to steel man, the Bill Gurley point of view, there are very few founders that are probably as steely eyed as you guys. And so what I think a lot of board members in most other situations that are not stripe deal with is what is a good forcing function to keep these folks on track and focused and thinking in a multi decade kind of way. And they found that the public markets I think do that more than anything else. That's probably the most compelling for the folks that would otherwise maybe get distracted. But then for guys like you that can frankly just do it, it's great. All right. Impressive. It's really impressive. Congratulations.

[Jason Calacanis]

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

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Read a lot of books, but I'm still kicking. Live and kicking, bro.

[Jason Calacanis]

He's still in the arena.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Got a lot of chips still to fire, so let's see what happens.

[David Friedberg]

Yes.

[Jason Calacanis]

Going to fire.

[David Friedberg]

Fire.

[Jason Calacanis]

Fire. South American president shouldn't have their own meme coins. And life finds a way. We are. And you pronounce a Collison. Obviously I said cornison because, you know, we're down the road in Cary and we go and get some eggs and bakey sometimes. Okay. Coming to south by Southwest, brought to you by the Collison brothers in Stripe A All in is headed to the south by Southwest. They're not sponsoring it. I'm joking. All in is headed to south by Southwest. On March 13, me and Freeberg are going to sit down and do Our interviews. Two besties on the future of media and building businesses in this new media ecosystem. We're going to have a casual party. Food, drinks, the whole thing. Event is going to be pretty intimate. A couple hundred seats.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

When are you guys doing this?

[Jason Calacanis]

March 13th. You opted out? Me and Freeberg want to do it Thursday.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

No can do.

[Jason Calacanis]

Poker. And it's by application only with a small $30 registration fee of which stripe will take $19. Go to all in.com events to apply. I'm not bitter about it. And programming note, the besties are on a tear. We were on Megyn Kelly last week and next week our bestie Friedberg is representing us on Celebrity Jeopardy. We can't say what happened but get the clips ready.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Get the clips ready.

[Jason Calacanis]

Get the clips ready. We are going to do a recap.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Of every single question. When does it air on Monday, next week?

[Jason Calacanis]

I think. I don't know.

[David Friedberg]

Wednesday at 9pm Wednesday at 9. Perfect.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Before the taping. Yum yum.

[Jason Calacanis]

Perfect. Perfect. There he is. Between Anna Navarro. She's from the View, right? Oh, she's pretty great. I've seen clips of her.

[David Friedberg]

She's. I should have gotten some counsel ahead of signing up for Celebrity Jeopardy on the lack of upside in doing this. And you will see why. We'll talk next.

[Jason Calacanis]

Oh no. Oh no. That's not good. You lost it.

[David Friedberg]

Lost to the View. You didn't lose to the View, did you? Look guys, I'm just telling you guys got 160 IQ.

[Jason Calacanis]

The view put together doesn't have 160 IQ.

[David Friedberg]

Let me just tell you. Well, we'll talk about it afterwards.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

I just love this.

[Jason Calacanis]

Don't tell me they got you on pop culture. You're pretty good on pop culture.

[David Friedberg]

Oh no comment.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Okay, love you guys. I gotta go.

[Jason Calacanis]

Love you. Bye bye. See you next time.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

Bye.

[David Friedberg]

Boys will let your winners ride Rain Man.

[Jason Calacanis]

David Satch.

[David Friedberg]

And it said we open source it to the fans and they've.

[Patrick Collison]

Just gone crazy with it.

[Jason Calacanis]

Love you Queen of Quinoa. Besties are gone 13th.

[David Friedberg]

That is my dog taking this in your driveway.

[Jason Calacanis]

Wait.

[David Friedberg]

Oh man.

[Chamath Palihapitiya]

My habit will meet me at. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy. Cuz they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

[David Friedberg]

Wet your.

[Jason Calacanis]

Be. We need to get merch.

[Patrick Collison]

I'm doing all it.