Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Technology's daily show (formerly the Technology Brothers Podcast). Streaming live on X and YouTube from 11 - 2 PM PST Monday - Friday. Available on X, Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.
Welcome to technology brothers. The number one live show in tech. We are live from the Temple Of Technology, the Fortress Of Finance. That's right. The capital of capital.
Speaker 1:It is Tuesday. What day is it? It's February 11, '3 days from Valentine's day. So get ready for that. This show starts now.
Speaker 1:We have a fantastic show for you. We're going through open AI's, crazy, fight with Elon And Earl launched the VR headset. They're working on the new IVAS system with the military, boom supersonic. They don't have a boom anymore. They're going boomless.
Speaker 1:We'll break it down. A 16 z launched a new market map. We're going through an alien technology ETF. You're gonna be able to bet on alien technology in the public markets. We're breaking down the GPU whisperer, a good buddy of mine who, helps build out GPU clusters.
Speaker 1:We're going through a defense tech op ed, pouring some cold water on all the defense tech hot companies right now in the Wall Street Journal, and we're breaking down the HIMSS Super Bowl ad. And then, of course, we have a fantastic timeline looking through a bunch of posts on x for you. Jordy, how is your day? How have you been? What's new with you?
Speaker 2:Four espressos so far. About to crack a Red Bull firing on all cylinders.
Speaker 1:Let's go.
Speaker 2:I got to, I got to hang out with Patrick O'Shaughnessy this morning, which was fun. And, yeah, just get got me really fired up on content. I love making it. I love listening to it, and, I'm very excited about what Colossus has coming up. I got some big stuff in the works, but, yeah, a lot of lot of news to cover.
Speaker 2:This, the time line the time line has been consistently in turmoil, and it's a blessing for,
Speaker 1:the 50, Jordy. Can you believe It's
Speaker 2:episode 50?
Speaker 1:Episode 50, baby.
Speaker 2:Can you I I can't honestly, genuinely can't wait for episode 5,000. That's really the one.
Speaker 1:That's the
Speaker 2:one I
Speaker 1:most podcasters a year. We've been doing it a couple months. We caught up.
Speaker 2:We caught up. We caught up. I love it.
Speaker 1:Bad day to be a weekly podcast. It's very weak. It's right in the name. Anyway, let's move on to yeah. Let's move on to the open AI news.
Speaker 1:We got a clip from Sam Altman. He is in France, at an AI summit. JD Vance is there. Emmanuel Macron is there. Lots of heavy hitters, lots of size lords.
Speaker 1:But, of course, they asked Sam about the craziness from yesterday. Elon submitted a bid to buy the OpenAI nonprofit for something like $97,100,000,000 or $97,400,000,000. Obviously, that complicates the, the not the for profit spin out and conversion process that's obviously kind of unprecedented at this scale. And so let's go to Sam. Let's hear what he had to say in France about this offer.
Speaker 3:The OpenAI is not for sale. The OpenAI mission is not for sale. Elon tries all sorts of things for a long time. This is the late you know, this week's episode.
Speaker 1:You take it seriously at all? What do you think he's trying to drive at with this?
Speaker 3:I think he's probably just trying to slow us down. He obviously is a competitor. It's you know, he's working hard and he's raised a lot of money for XAI, and they're trying to, compete with us from a technological perspective from, you know, getting the product into the market. And, I wish he would just compete by building a better product, but I think there's been a lot of tactics. You know, many, many law suits, all sorts of other crazy stuff.
Speaker 3:Now this, and we'll try to just put our head down and keep working.
Speaker 1:Do you think Musk's approach then is from a position of insecurity about x AI?
Speaker 3:Probably his whole life is from a position of insecurity. I feel for the guy.
Speaker 1:You feel fair?
Speaker 3:I do, actually. I don't think he's like a happy person. I do feel for him.
Speaker 1:Okay. Do you worry that he has this proximity to to to the president and he can influence the decision making of of the US presidency and and policies around this this agenda on AI?
Speaker 3:Not particular. Maybe I should, but not particularly. I mean, I I try to just wake up and think about, like, how we're gonna make our technology better.
Speaker 1:What'd you think, Jordy?
Speaker 2:Narrator. He wasn't just thinking about how to make the technology better. Like, you know, the the it you on like, here's the whole situation. Elon feels that Sam has played extremely dirty, you know, during the whole, I'm just doing this, because I love it bit, you know, senate, you know, and testifying in front of the senate to then converting into a for profit. Elon is frustrated because he was very early to this trend.
Speaker 2:Now he's, like, playing catch up with XAI. Mhmm. Both of them in their own ways have been playing dirty. Right? Elon's choosing to do that through law fair, and it's in, you know, it's in many ways, like, exactly what Elon should be doing.
Speaker 2:Right? He feels like he was feels like he was slighted, feels like he deserves some aspect of, you know, some position in the company. And then simultaneously, Sam is doing exactly what he should be doing, which is fighting the lawsuits, trying to keep the team focused on the mission and the product and winning. And when I look at every founding journey is like a roller coaster ride. Anybody that's built the company will tell you it's like a roller coaster ride.
Speaker 2:One day, you're, like, super stoked. The next day, you're, you know, questioning, like, is this gonna work? And if you think about Sam's, like, last two weeks, it's like, okay. Deep seek launches and, like so that's, like, a low moment. And then they launch, like, deep research, and then, you know, he's getting and then it's like a Super Bowl ad and then, like, a new law like, new lawsuit, new offer to buy the company.
Speaker 2:So it's like it's it's, you know, the the waves that he's going through, you know, I I I don't think, regardless of your position on Sam or OpenAI or Elon, as, you know, former, CEO of a much, much, much, much, you know, a company that that is, like, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the size. I feel for Sam in terms of, like, the roller coaster that he's going through and how difficult the job is where, you know, I just posted about this five minutes ago. Sam is actively competing with four of his former cofounders in OpenAI that have all raised more than, you know, that have all raised billions of dollars. So not only is he fighting, like, the world's richest man, he's, like, in lawsuits. He's getting attacked by DeepSeek.
Speaker 2:He's fighting for, you know, three other of his former partners. And so the pressure it can't be overstated how much pressure he's under. And so I think that he I I read this as, like, good talking points. He's nailing it. You know, he it it's a good response, but you can tell it's wearing on him.
Speaker 2:Like, getting to the point where he's saying, I wish that they would just focus on the product or the technology. So it's clearly wearing on him, and and I don't know. There's not many people on Earth that would be able to deal with this much pressure for this long while being this much in the spotlight while trying to, you know, innovate in a in a very meaningful way while trying to stay ahead of all these other labs, whilst trying to stay ahead of China, while facing you know, I didn't even bring up, like, Meta and Facebook and Llama. Right? Like, that's been a whole other aspect.
Speaker 2:And so, you know, Sam made a choice to play the biggest game in the most competitive space, and now he's dealing with the repercussions on that. But there's not a CEO on the planet that's under more pressure than Sam Altman.
Speaker 1:Yep. And it certainly does it pales in comparison to, like, Steve Jobs was not under the same level of pressure when he was launching the iPhone. Even Zuck I mean, they were making movies about him as a kid, basically. Yeah. Basically, hit piece movies about everything he did.
Speaker 1:It was rough. He did not have, the world's richest man going after him at that time. And In fact, he was partnering with Microsoft and Bill Gates, and it was somewhat of a friendly relationship. It wasn't that much of, like, Google wants to kill you. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Google launched, Google Circles or whatever that was. I I I can't even remember the name, but it was, like, kind of a shot across the bow. It was nowhere near as serious as what's going on right now. Yeah. And so what's interesting is that Sam actually has to kind of restate the fact that, hey.
Speaker 1:This, the nonprofit is still going to exist. Like, he people don't even understand what's going on there. It's not that the nonprofit is converting. It's that almost like you're running a nonprofit. You discover some, you know, gold in those hills that you happen to own or, like, you invent something brilliant, and then you're spinning it out as a company.
Speaker 1:You're effectively selling that asset off the balance sheet of the of the nonprofit. And it's very it's very confusing because the nonprofit does want to continue going on, and it's not really a full conversion. There's actually two organizations that are gonna split out, but it's all been so complicated from day one that it's been just there's been so many vectors to attack it. And it's not just Elon. Zuck has also put pressure on them in California for trying to do this.
Speaker 1:And what's interesting is that I think about the dawn of OpenAI, like what the initial, pitch was and what the initial strategy was. And it's very clear to me that no one actually predicted scaling laws would be as capital intensive as they wound up being. The thought was, let's get the smartest people in the world, the smartest computer scientists. Greg Brockman, he already he was the CTO of Stripe. He's already really, really rich, probably a billionaire.
Speaker 1:He he's gonna work for a nonprofit for whatever, you know, health care. It doesn't matter. And a lot of people Yeah. Are gonna say, hey. Yeah.
Speaker 1:I could make 2,000,000 a year Google doing ads, but, you know, this nonprofit's still gonna pay for my health insurance, pay for my kids. It's gonna be a fine life, and I get to work on the most important problem in human history. If it was just a human capital problem of just let's design the perfect algorithm for AI, game over. You don't need the capital. It works as a nonprofit.
Speaker 1:The original strategy works, but then they run into the scaling law, and all of a sudden, it's very funny to me. It it feels like the machine god of AGI is like, okay, humanity. If you wanna summon me fully, you have to be all in on capitalism. None of this nonprofit. This nonprofit stuff does not work.
Speaker 1:You have to be a highly tuned capital formation machine in order to make this happen because I demand GPUs. I demand sacrifice of GPUs to the Shogoth. And so Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:It's very interesting how it how it's played out. But but what else have you taken away? And then maybe let's move into some, some posts and some reactions to this Yeah.
Speaker 2:It's just it's an interesting scenario to think about. Would OpenAI be the company it is today if it didn't have this massive group of founders that now is is its biggest detractor. Right? The fact that you have Mira going and raising billions for a company to directly compete with the original company. You have Ilya doing the same thing.
Speaker 2:Right? You have John going to Anthropic, helping them out, now going and joining Mira. Right?
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:So in many ways, it's like the company probably wouldn't exist in its current form if it didn't have, like, all these brilliant minds working on it, but it also set it up because of how, you know, brilliant and independently gifted all those, you know, founders were. It also caused all of them to basically think I can do this better myself. Right? Yeah. And I'm going to do this better myself, and I can attract the capital.
Speaker 2:And, you know, if who knows? Right? And they're all sort of drafting off of OpenAI in terms of, like, the billions of dollars that were spent on, you know, research internally and the learnings from that and and just, like, genuinely, you know, generally being able to, go faster with their new ventures. But, it's certainly, completely unprecedented, and I can't wait to watch the the probably ash read the Ashley Vance book or documentary, because it's gonna be it's gonna be absolutely wild.
Speaker 1:For sure. Let's move on to some posts. Kevin Kwok says, Elon's OpenAI bid, of course, is to move FMV, fair market value for nonprofit conversion. Interestingly, this has been gray area in tech startups because, technically, anyone can screw up a company's four zero nine a slash option pool planning by sending unsolicited term sheet, which is very interesting. I didn't know that you could actually do this.
Speaker 1:Hasn't been a major issue because it would be a very aggressive move and burn bridges. Plus, mostly, companies are fuzzier on all this stuff with IRS than they should be. But this has been a known attack area for a while. Kevin follows up and says, I really do wanna spend one day, I I really want to one day spend a weekend talking with both OpenAI and Elon's legal slash tax people. Not about this thing.
Speaker 1:Just in general, they have such amazing structures they have navigated. Cy. And I love that he's just like, I wanna nerd out with these folks because they've done such crazy stuff. And it really is crazy. I know multiple, people that got early access to OpenAI in their first for profit, like, fundraising, and they just passed even though it's like, how could you pass on that team?
Speaker 1:Like, the initial team was like, Greg Brockman, Sam Altman. Like, it's just the most insane founding team, and it's like they're gonna make money. Like, you shouldn't it it's all green flags, and then you just see the biggest red flag ever, which is, like, you're not getting stock. You're getting units. And and, of course, like Yeah.
Speaker 1:It seems like it's gonna work out, and and it could, but it's obviously such an ongoing turnout fight.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I mean, there are so many reasons that you could have written a memo and said I love the team and the opportunity, but it's not the right fit for our firm. On his note about, you know, term sheets potentially screwing up foreign and option pools, every every startup founder eventually goes to a position where they're expecting a term sheet, and then they're trying to process a bunch of, like, you know, employee onboarding type stuff to make sure that it hits before getting that term sheet. And I've been in positions before where I've told the investor, wait until end of day Monday to send this because, like, I need to get a few things in order to make sure that my, you know, people that are about to join the team or getting refresher grants are gonna get them at the at the, you know Yeah. Previous valuation effectively.
Speaker 1:Yeah. And so the SMB attorney says what Elon Musk just did in his 97,000,000,000 bid for OpenAI is genius. The previous Go private price was 40,000,000,000. He's playing chess. Here's why.
Speaker 1:Delaware courts apply something called the Revlon rule to m and a bidding situations. When a board decides to sell a company, their legal fiduciary duty shifts to getting the highest price for shareholders. But OpenAI isn't a normal company. It started as a nonprofit, then created a for profit arm, OpenAI LP, to raise investment. That structure creates a legal gray area.
Speaker 1:Musk's bid isn't about just buying OpenAI. It's about forcing a decision. If OpenAI's board considers even considers transitioning fully into a for profit company, Musk's bid puts them in a position where they might have to apply Revlon rules, maximizing value just like any other corporate sale. It's a strategic move that could expose whether OpenAI is still mission driven or if it's just another big tech company playing Wall Street rules, and that's the real play. Musk is challenging OpenAI's relationship OpenAI's leadership on both legal and ethical level, testing whether their decisions align with their original vision or the financial incentives of investors like Microsoft.
Speaker 1:Sam Altman and OpenAI's board rejected Musk's offer outright, but that response raises more questions than it answers. You see, they probably have a duty to create a special committee, consider all offers, and and entertain an auction. If OpenAI isn't a company that can be bought, why do they take billions in investment? If they are a company that can be bought, why turn down 97,000,000,000? Either way, Musk has put them in a position where they have to justify their existence, not just to him, but to the Delaware Chancery Court.
Speaker 1:It all comes back to Delaware maybe.
Speaker 2:It's crazy because Delaware, I mean Screwed
Speaker 1:over must.
Speaker 2:Elon has had his issues with Delaware, but the Delaware courts have proven to be unpredictable. Right? Everybody would have said, like, there's no way that they're going to to entertain this ridiculous lawsuit from a shareholder that has, like, seven shares that that clearly is just basically working on behalf of lawyers that are gonna make hundreds of millions if this decision goes. And just with that, you know, some people were predicting we covered this last week that the decision to end Elon's pay package could literally cost Delaware billions of dollars in lost tax revenue as companies say, hey. You know what?
Speaker 2:I'm gonna go to Nevada. I'm gonna go to Texas. So I feel like Delaware is unpredictable right now. They've we've seen their judges be, you know, make make sort of more political decisions, but this is such an unprecedented situation. So much gray area, so many conflicts.
Speaker 2:It's such a, I don't know that there's great precedent in Delaware for nonprofit to for profit conversions that have already raised tens of billions of dollars. Like, it's just nobody really knows. And I think, yeah, we we cover we were able to live react to this on the show yesterday. It was very obvious that he was throwing, like, this a hundred billion dollar wrench or a hundred billion dollar grenade into the into the for profit conversion, and it's great to see, SMB attorney kind of breaking down. Like, hey.
Speaker 2:What's actually going on behind the scenes here? And it really comes down to, like, it's an ethics thing. There's a legal question. You know, it seems like if OpenAI's board just immediately rejected it, then to me, like, at least the board is kind of aligned on the deal that they wanna do. Yeah.
Speaker 2:But then, again, if you if you get the courts involved, you know, maybe maybe, like, they they start poking holes in that decision.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Well, hopefully, there leads to some legal precedent that allows more nonprofits to convert to for profits. We've been advocating for the Red Cross and PETA to go for profit, and we'd love to see, more nonprofits, move over to the venture capital world or maybe do private equity
Speaker 2:I wanna see PETA transition to a a private military contractor and actually put it on the line and defend the animals. You know? Exactly. Style. You know?
Speaker 2:And and if if you could yeah. Basically
Speaker 1:Blackwater for poaching.
Speaker 2:Blackwater for pets. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Blackwater for poaching. Oh, you think you're taking down an elephant? Well, there's a Apache helicopter coming through
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Paid for by Peterson.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Reaper drones. Gonna be circling every hippo in the Savannah. Anyway, let's close with, some, great analysis as always from Ben Thompson over a stratechery, an absolute dog. He says, the OpenAI nonprofit is controlled by its board, which does not have a fiduciary duty to maximize OpenAI's value again because it's a nonprofit.
Speaker 1:That means it can't say no. At the same time, the structure that lets OpenAI's board say no is exactly what Altman is trying to get rid of in favor of a for profit structure that will unlock new investment. And so he says, I think that's as far as the story goes. While Musk needed to round up a viable investment group to make this offer legitimate and would gladly take over OpenAI if his offer were accepted, the primary motivation and the primary outcome is very likely to be to make to be to make an already complicated and pricey transaction even more so. So I think we'll close there.
Speaker 1:We'll see where it goes. Maybe there's more wrinkles in this story. I'm sure there'll be more drama. The boys are fighting. It feels like that scene in the matrix when, Neo and Morpheus are fighting and all the crew, Neo and Morpheus are fighting, and they gotta go in and watch because it's a it's a knockout drag out fight.
Speaker 1:Two of the greatest, tech entrepreneurs in in in the modern era, warring. And, we'll be here reporting on it, folks. So stay tuned. Let's move on to some to some other fantastic news. Palmer Lucky, announced on x this morning that Anduril is taking over IVAS, and we don't have time for business as usual.
Speaker 1:Whatever you are imagining, however crazy you imagine I am, multiply it by 10 and then do it again. I am back, and I am only getting started. And so for those who don't know, Anduril is taking over the US Army's integrated visual augmentation system, the IVAS program. That's a augmented reality headset for the modern warfighter, and it's pending the Department of Defense's approval. We are now fully responsible for production, hardware, software, and integrating Lattice to greatly expand warfighter capabilities.
Speaker 1:This is incredible news, and, Palmer posted a whole blog breaking it down. Let's read through it now. As of today, Anduril Industries is taking the reins of the largest project in of its kind in history, the United States Army's Integrated Visual Augmentation System program. For me, this announcement is deeply personal. Since my preoculus days as a teenager who had who had the opportunity to do a tiny bit of work on the army's Bravemind project, I've believed there would be a headset on every soldier long before there is a headset on on every civilian because you can kind of mandate it, and it can be designed exactly for what the warfighter needs.
Speaker 1:It's a very specialized use case. Given that America loses more troops in training than combat, the squad immersive virtual trainer Side of IVAS alone has the potential to save more lives than practically anything else we can imagine building. Tactical heads up displays that turn war fighters into technomancers and pair us with weaponized robotics were one of the products in the original Anduril pitch deck for a reason. The past eight years we have spent building Lattice have put Anduril in a position to make this type of thing actually useful in the way military strategists and technologists have long dreamed of ever since Robert Heinlein's nineteen fifty nine novel Starship Troopers. Fantastic book.
Speaker 1:Great movie too. Not just day and night and thermal and ultraviolet, but peering into an idealized interactive real time composite of the past, present, and future that will quickly surpass traditional senses like vision and touch. Put another way, Superman doesn't use menus. He just sees and does. I love it.
Speaker 1:If Andorra had been more than a dozen people when IVAS was first getting spun up all those years ago, at least the tragic heap guys didn't win. Our country really dodged a bullet there. I do believe our crazy pitch would have won this from the start. As things stand though, there is no time like the present. The IVAS program, one of the most important programs to the army, represents just the beginnings of a new path in human augmentation, one that will allow America's War Fighters to surpass the limitations of human form and cognition, seamlessly teaming enhanced humans with large packs of robotic and biological teammates.
Speaker 1:I can go on and read more, but, Jordy, you got anything for me in the interim?
Speaker 2:Oh, I mean, it's just crazy because every time Andrew all does anything, like, you know, around the world, multiple teams just cry out in in anguish because the Andrew all just ends up doing the thing that that's that that was the only thing in somebody's pitch deck. Right? And this was just one of the things in Andrew's pitch deck eight years ago, and they're getting around to these things slowly as they build out this incredible distribution channel and relationship with with the DOD. So, anyways, I think, obviously makes a ton of sense. It's just wild how Anduril continues to basically own the product areas that were in every sci fi novel that basically anyone has ever read, and they're just getting to these things first and just capturing, you know, not only contracts, but but mind share.
Speaker 2:And, you know, as as always, you know, seems to be a a huge win for Anduril, but, also, you know, I love to see the the kind of even the language that they're choosing. Technomancers is some great, great great choices of, of words. So very cool very cool to see. And and this is the kind of thing, you know, like, the reality is the average soldier today grew up playing Call of Duty. And so they, like, already had this experience as 12 year olds in the Xbox three sixty lobby screaming.
Speaker 2:You know? And so these are all the things that I think our soldiers have, you know, expected and just simply haven't really existed. Right? There's been heads up displays and things like that, but nothing that was, you know, truly, truly integrated and and something that was on par with even an Oculus esque experience. So to me, this is like basically, this is probably a a this is clearly a product that Palmer and the rest of the team have wanted to build forever, and their niche just now getting to the point where, they can actually really deliver on these ideas that that seem like they're out of a sci fi novel from the nineties, but are, you know, very becoming very real.
Speaker 2:So
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. Technology has advanced so quickly that, the integration of the military just hasn't happened nearly as fast enough. There's funny pictures of, like, drone pilots using literal Xbox three sixty controllers because the government doesn't have the resources to build their own, so they just patch that in. And sometimes that's There was Google Maps is often used to as a targeting system because they just have the most reliable app for understanding where the roads are and great satellite imagery.
Speaker 1:And so Yeah. You'll literally drop a pin, send it to the guy, and be like, yeah. Call in the artillery right here. It's crazy.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Do you remember, when that submarine, the Titanic submarine went down and then everybody like, this video started going viral, they were like,
Speaker 1:oh, they were using an Xbox controller. Like, can you believe that? Like, of course,
Speaker 2:they went down. But it's like, no. That's literally what our entire military is, like, running on, like, basically, like, Xbox controllers.
Speaker 1:Also, sometimes it's like, well, yeah, actually, the Xbox controller is, like, one of the most mass produced products on the planet is probably the most reliable controller than some one off that you build. Like, a lot of times, it's like, why deal with that when you can just get something off the shelf that's been manufactured to, like, complete six sigma, precision? Anyway, so a couple years ago, I was doing a deep dive on IVAS, and I asked Palmer, hey. Like like, you're, like, the perfect guy to do this project. Why is it still sitting with Microsoft?
Speaker 1:And he was kinda cagey like, oh, like, maybe we'll do it one day. And now we know it just was in the pipeline clearly. Yeah. So I I wanted to give the the the listeners a a little bit of background on the IVAS program. It it's a really interesting story of how Microsoft won that contract, what was going on in the military at the time.
Speaker 1:So let's let's go through some of it because if this this idea of, like, BR AR for soldiers goes back decades. So in the early twenty tens, VR and AR is going to be the next thing. Everyone's calling it. Oculus is blowing up, and Microsoft wants to get in the game. They launched the Xbox Connect in 2010, which was, an augmented reality system that would track your motion and then put that in the game, and then they launched the first hollow lens in 2016.
Speaker 1:That never made it to a consumer device, but they did roll it out in some industrial capacities, and it was more of like a tech demo. So they Microsoft ultimately determined that augmented reality was too cumbersome for everyday consumers. And I used the hollow lens, and it was rough. It was heavy, and the field of vision was very narrow. We're still, you know, a whole decade before Meta's, glasses and the Meta the new, I forget what they call it, the Icarus or something.
Speaker 1:It has some funny name. Yeah. But, the the the the the new meta glasses, they're not even out yet, and so we're still not there. Even the Apple Vision Pro is still not widely used high churn. And so, Microsoft is just too early, but nevertheless, they decide that, they're good at selling to large enterprises, plays to their strengths, and few enterprises are larger than the US military.
Speaker 1:So they get a $22,000,000,000 contract for a project called IVAS. And think about it. I mean, Anduril is raising on $1,000,000,000, ACV, $11,000,000,000 revenue or something like that. A $22,000,000,000 contract goes out to Microsoft for this. Obviously, it's over a number of years, but still that's massive.
Speaker 1:And this is, like, perfect for Anduril to do. So the initiative aims to equip over a hundred thousand American soldiers with augmented reality headsets based on HoloLens technologies. They're gonna mass produce these. This is a lot of a lot of tech going out. So IVAS was the latest chapter in the military's long running fascination with augmented reality, and it starts all the way back in the eighties.
Speaker 1:So the army had recognized that technology was transforming battlefield intelligence as satellites and drones generated vast amounts of data that traditional communication tools like radio struggle to keep up with. So, you know, you can hear somebody in your in your headphones over a radio, but it's so much easier if you can just be like, let me actually pull up the map and see what you're talking about. It's really hard to describe. Hey. Over that hill, there's a bad guy, and you're like, which hill?
Speaker 1:And you're like, the one on your left. And it's like, I can't hear that. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 2:I think people don't Yeah. People like it it truly is gonna be so transformative where, you know, and that like, oftentimes, like, a a a corporate office is chaotic. Right? It's like you don't know where, like, you're like, oh, where's, like, where's your coworker? Where's this person?
Speaker 2:Oh, can you try to get this person over there? Imagine a battlefield where there's hundreds or thousands of vehicles that are all coordinating individuals, different platoons, teams that are working together, and the enemy engaging with you and, you know, it's just like the most chaotic environment that can possibly imagine. I Yeah. My great grandpa fought in World War two and was, like, shot down, like, twice, and he's, like, told me a bunch of stories about how, like, once you're in there, it's just, like, all out chaos. And, and that, you know, that that, like, that largely hasn't changed.
Speaker 2:Like, teams have gotten better. Communication's gotten better, but it's still chaotic. And so the potential for this technology is, like, it will become, like, impossible to actually engage in a productive way on a battlefield if you're not, like, in this VR experience and having full visibility of the battlefield and where your teammates are and stuff like that. And it really will transform the effectiveness of, the reason this technology is important and the reason that the mill the military said we're gonna spend $2,022,000,000,000 dollars to try to get this thing is that it's gonna you know, the potential is obviously there, but but, technically, it's an extremely difficult challenge.
Speaker 1:And so the first thing that the army does is they start this prototype project called the soldier's computer, and but the results are really underwhelming. The heads up display use the same low resolution, red only screen found in the Nintendo's Virtual Boy, which was a complete consumer flop. I don't know if you remember this thing, but you could play, like, Mario Tennis, and it would have, like like, basically, just two planes of three d. And it was really cool. I remember playing with it as a kid and being like, wow, for, like, two seconds and then being like, that's miserable.
Speaker 1:I'll just stick with the Game Boy. But, it but it makes sense. So the project was moved to, the US army's Natick soldier center in Massachusetts. The budget increases, expectations soar, and now there's more money at stake. And so in 1992, the soldier's computer entered field testing.
Speaker 1:Early impressions were promising. Soldiers praised how thermal imaging extended their sight range and how the system enabled them to fire around corners while staying in cover. So they actually have a camera mounted to the gun, and then they could see the what the gun saw in their heads up display. So they could put the gun around the corner, shoot, and and basically, you know, stay in cover. It's pretty cool.
Speaker 2:That that that's so so Yeah. Such a funny product that I imagine the soldiers in practice absolutely hated because it's so, like, it's, it's so so out of a a James Bond, like, villain movie. Like, I have my
Speaker 1:gun. Right?
Speaker 2:Yep. You're putting your gun around.
Speaker 1:There's also a an old Soviet, gun that actually has a a curved, yeah, a curved barrel so you can aim around corners, and it completely destroys the ballistics. Like, it's a disaster. And I think if you put more than, like, a a a couple hundred rounds through it, it just completely melts down and breaks. Anyway, so there's there's a ton of drawbacks. The head mounted display was bulky.
Speaker 1:Data transfers data transfers lagged by up to seventy five seconds. Over a full minute, you're waiting for it to refresh. The system crashes were frequent. A US Army Research Institute report, featured blunt soldier feedback. They call it junk.
Speaker 1:They say it sucks, and they all mention how painful it is to wear. One particularly damning quote encapsulated the frustration. I don't know whoever put it on the soldier's back in the original configuration and had them walk around with it. It appears to me to be designed in a vacuum as in, well, well, we need all these things to make the system run, but we don't really consider the reality of a soldier walking on a street, hopping a wall, going through a door, coming out of a hatch. The equipment added 40 pounds to a soldier's pack.
Speaker 1:By contrast, the Meta Oculus Quest two weighs just over a pound. And so, clearly, the technology has advanced. Everything shrunk down, like, even even, like, heavy headsets now. You know, you're talking about one pound, two pounds. You throw that on a ballistics helmet.
Speaker 1:It's not gonna be that big of a deal. You throw a couple pounds of battery packs in the backpack, probably doable at this point. So but despite these shortcomings, senior military officials believed in the program, and there's just this there's just this chain of like, hey. We gotta keep going. This is my job.
Speaker 1:I'm I've been working on this for a decade now. This is my career. And so Yeah. In 1996, the DOD rebranded the effort as land warrior, and they approved a billion dollar budget. Remember, they've spent all this money, and this has never made it to the field really.
Speaker 1:Like, this has never been a successful project. And so the DOD appointed a colonel to serve as an intermediary between engineers and soldiers. However, the project faced a fatal flaw, lever to leverage cutting edge technology, the military began incorporating consumer hardware into the system's design. This is a smart move, but unfortunately, consumer grade equipment wasn't built for the battlefield. And so it's a perfect example of, like, why you need Palmer in here because he's the he's the consumer guy.
Speaker 1:He's built the Oculus. He's built, you know, the chromatic, but then he's also built stuff that needs to sit on the battlefield, like, you know, all of the drones and sensor towers that Anduril has produced. And so, the hard fail the hardware failed in rain, couldn't withstand electromagnetic interference, and the effort to ruggedize it caused cost to skyrocket. By 1999, spending had increased 50%. A private company burning this much cash with little to show for it would likely face investor intense investor scrutiny, but too many military leaders had tied their reputations to land warrior, making failure unthinkable.
Speaker 1:And so I can go on here. One of the project's biggest champions was Navy admiral William Owens, who served as vice chairman to the joint chiefs of staff during the Clinton administration. Owens was a staunch advocate for what he called network centric warfare, which is actually a really cool idea. In a rare candid interview from the mid nineties, he declared, I genuinely believe and this sounds like this sounds like it could be said today. I genuinely believe in the next five years, there will be a revolution in the way this nation fights wars.
Speaker 1:It will it will come primarily from the smart front end of warfighting. That is the ability to use high technology surveillance of a very large battlefield. We have never in the history of warfare seen the battlefield that way. And so Owen's vision aligned with the army's with the army's post cold war shift towards a smaller, better equipped fighting force, and this was the story of the, of the Gulf War. The Iraq had a huge military, but it was really just America had way better technology.
Speaker 1:And so that war was supposed to go on for a long time. It ended in just a few days. In 02/2005, '2 hundred and '20 '9 infantry soldiers were equipped with the system. Nearly twenty years after the project had begun, soldiers in Iraq used the gear to digitally mark safe regrouping points, but enthusiasm remained lukewarm. More refinements were necessary.
Speaker 2:It's it's interesting because this type of headset is competing with with literally a radio that just can call out someone else and be like, hey. Here's the rough coordinates. Let's meet there. And then you're using this clunky headset, and it's, like, not working. And if it's not working perfectly, you're Yep.
Speaker 2:On the battlefield. You're in the most intense situation. Your life is at risk. Your team's life is at risk. The the admission objective is at risk.
Speaker 2:You're gonna if it's not perfect, you're just gonna pick up the radio and or or call up to, you know, air support and say, hey. Let me you know, can you get a visual on this? What do you see? Cool. You know?
Speaker 2:And it just quickly becomes something that so it's crazy to think that, you know, however many 20 plus billion dollars after twenty years nets out as as a a a mid product for 229 soldiers. Not the best trade, but, again, there's an argument to say, like, hey. They were they were right. They were just basically too early. And to me, the interesting thing here is, like, I I would love to the long term I think everybody has a sense that the battlefield long term will be a bunch of autonomous and teleoperated devices, right, in the same way that the people that fly, UAVs in the Mid in The Middle East through The United States, like, are sitting in Nevada.
Speaker 2:Right? Like, outside of Las Vegas, like, you know, basically, remotely flying these, craft. And it does seem that you'll eventually have a range of different types of robots similar to that that will be teleoperated. And and so I'd be interested to hear how Palmer and Trey and the rest of the Anduril and Matt and the rest of the Anduril team are thinking about what is how does this new, you know, sort of, augmented reality VR I don't know. Whatever.
Speaker 2:What what this headset, how does that fit into the teleoperated future is that you have one guy on the battlefield that can use the headset to basically drop into, like, some type of drone or, you know, robot that they can then carry out other activities? Because ultimately, at the end of the day, it doesn't you know, it seems like there's there's an obvious trend of just remove removing human life from the battlefield entirely because the the actual loaded cost of a human, not to mention the the the value that the the family, and that person's family and that person themselves puts on their own life. But the full cost of a soldier annually is just so every every lost life is tragic because you're you're, you know, we have an individual who's not gonna go home to their family, but then there's also the the economic burden of every individual soldier is always gonna be worth an an order, you know, orders of magnitude more than a robot that could just blow up and maybe it's unrecoverable, but it's replaceable. Right?
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. The 22,000,000,000 sounds like so much, but I remember we were talking about the f 35, and I think I mentioned that it cost a trillion dollars, and you were like, that's impossible. And someone followed up with me and was like, no. It was a trillion dollar project.
Speaker 1:Like, like, Jordy, it is an unbelievable amount of money. It wasn't over one year. It was over decades, but still, the total cost of that project was in the trillions. But in 2010, they actually did descope it and move kind of halfway. You know, VR headset's the future, radio's the past.
Speaker 1:Right. Under the Obama administration. What?
Speaker 2:Over over over 20 over 20,000,000,000 in the hole, and you're like, guys, I think it's time to, like, let's descope this one
Speaker 1:a little. Scope this. Yeah. No. They literally do.
Speaker 1:And so, in 2010, Land Warrior rebrands as Net Warrior. This is, like, the fourth name for this project, and the bulky pack and headgear are replaced by a respect Android phone secured to the soldier's chest. And so they basically flip it down, and then they can see maps and all the information. Yeah. But it doesn't need any of the headset, not heavy on the face, kinda leaning into, like, what the technology was good at at the time.
Speaker 1:And so mobile technology had evolved to fulfill much of Williams Owen William Owen's vision, but the army was determined to extract more from its decades long investment. In 2019, Microsoft engineers were invited to a military base to learn what soldiers needed from an augmented reality headset that weekend birthed the mark of IVAS. Given the years of research behind the project and Microsoft's extensive experience with augmented reality, one might have expected a smooth rollout. Instead, IVAS encountered problems from the outset. Soldiers were blunt in their critiques.
Speaker 1:You've gotta ask yourself the question, in warfare, where does this tech just become too much and not really worth having? It doesn't do any more to help the troops. It may actually hinder them because of the hassle factor. Another soldier warned, my warrior my my worry is that if we give these to soldiers, they're gonna rely on them too much. They need to know how to fight without them.
Speaker 1:They really do. Others were frustrated by the logistical burden. Perfect. All I heard was we have, like, five new pieces of sensitive items we have to worry about. Common sentiment was that the system was unwieldy.
Speaker 1:It doesn't look promising. I mean, this thing is just too way too big. It looks uncomfortable. It's heavy. If you're sprinting, jumping, running, doing infantry stuff, you're gonna be sweating.
Speaker 1:Despite these concerns, Microsoft and the army remain committed to making IVAS work. The project holds potential to improve soldier situational awareness. Moreover, The US faces pressure to stay ahead of technological advance advancements from Russia and China, both of which are also pursuing augmented reality programs. The military is determined not to fall behind. Their current goal is to deploy working HoloLens based headsets into the field.
Speaker 1:This is written in 2022. They wanted to deploy it by the end of twenty twenty three. It's always just a few years away. Hopefully, that changes going forward because Anduril's on the job, and they've been able to ship stuff like a tech company, which is great. And so we wish the entire Anduril team massive luck in this endeavor.
Speaker 1:Go get them. Build some cool stuff. Get it out in the field. Help our soldiers. And, and I'm proud to be an American.
Speaker 2:Same. We wanna have a story. Let's do it. We got
Speaker 1:a massive new story from Blake Scholl over at Boom Supersonic. Boom. Supersonic no longer has booms. They cracked it. Today, we are introducing boomless cruise, supersonic flights up to 50% faster with no audible sonic boom.
Speaker 1:We quietly, har har, demoed this on XP one's first supersonic flight three times actually. How does it work? It's actually a well known physics, called the mock cutoff. When an aircraft breaks the sound barrier at a sufficiently high altitude, the boom refracts in the atmosphere and curls upward without reaching the ground. It makes a u-turn before anyone can hear it.
Speaker 1:Mach cutoff physics is a theoretical capability on some military supersonic aircraft. Now, x b one has proven it with airliner ready technology. Just as a light ray bends as it goes through a glass of water, sound rays bend as they go through media with varying speeds of sound. This means the supersonic booms can make a u-turn in the atmosphere without ever touching the ground. Boomless cruise requires engines powerful enough to break the sound barrier at an altitude high enough that the boom has enough altitude to u-turn and real time weather and powerful algorithms to predict the boom's propagations precisely.
Speaker 1:Now I heard an interesting take on this that even though they cracked the science and I and I think NASA and some government organizations were working on, sonic boom reduction, and the military's had some technology here. It's obviously, it's a huge thing to get this into a commercial craft. So congratulations to the Boom Team. But, even though the the, the the technology might be here now, the law has not caught up. And I think it is, in many places, illegal to fly at supersonic speeds even if you're not producing an audible supersonic boom on the ground because we have a speed limit, not a sound limit.
Speaker 1:So, obviously, this needs some some some legal, work to get in. And, you know, I hopefully hopefully, this will be a bipartisan issue. Hopefully, this will be a thing that everyone supports.
Speaker 2:Don't give, MKBHD a a boom supersonic because he will just be he will just ripping around school zones being like, if nobody can hear me, I can't get in trouble. But no. I think I I I I do ask myself, did they know did they think that they were gonna be able to achieve this when they named the company? And they just thought, hey. This is still if we can pull this off, it'll be ironic that the boom the supersonic plane company actually doesn't produce the supersonic boom.
Speaker 2:It's just the boom jet. So I think it works either way whether or not they were planning on it. But, I just I just this is such a great story to me. I'm I'm you know, it's still unfolding, but to we've talked about this before, but to go from this, like, horrible recap down round, everybody kind of rallying to say, hey. This is an important American company.
Speaker 2:We wanna save it. Nobody else is is, you know, we need teams working on this problem to now seeing a very real reality where a decade from now, we could be getting on a boom jet and flying to, you know, across the country in, you know, I don't know how long they're actually predicting that it'll take, but a fraction of the time, is just really exciting. So I look forward to doing a live, a live show in the jet traveling at supersonic speeds. It's gonna
Speaker 1:be a Congratulations to Blake and the Boom team. It's incredible how long you've been at this and the results you're finally getting. Patience is a virtue, and it paid off here. So congrats. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Well, let's move on to our next segment. Andreessen Horowitz has just released a new market map on text to web app. Market map time. Text to web app and website generation market map from Justine Moore at Venture Twins. New a 16 z thesis, building websites, apps with AI.
Speaker 1:There's been explosion of products that help users vibe code a web app from text prompts. We dove deep on these tools, who's using them, how they work, and where they might be headed. Now this got a little spicy. I quote tweeted this with a video of a rainbow six seed streamer saying incredible map knowledge, incredible map knowledge, holy map knowledge, just because I think it's, like, the funniest video ever. And I've been waiting for a market map to drop to post this clip, and I think she thought I was talking trash because she replied with a video saying, from girls, I believe, saying, something to the effect of like, oh, you're you're you're coming after me just for trying.
Speaker 1:But I'm not, And I'm on record saying that there is massive alpha for the first VC firm to go back to simply talking about doing deals and making money. And so, just Yeah.
Speaker 2:That was that was
Speaker 1:a talking trash.
Speaker 2:That was a that was a banger. Let's let's, let's get this over one k. You you Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Go like this. We're we're we're forty forty likes away. And, and so so I I I am I am fully, pro market map. I love market maps. And I think that I understand why she thought I was talking trash because market maps have been derided as a little, like, if there's a market map, you're too late.
Speaker 1:And I think that's true for people that are thinking about what company should I start, or maybe even what company should I seed invest in. But if I'm a customer, like, I don't know about these products. This is genuinely helpful to me as a customer. Like, we need to build websites for our company, for our podcast.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. I'm always
Speaker 1:things. I want these. And as a growth stage investor, someone who later stage, even in the public markets being aware of this stuff, all of the the the work that's in that went into this market map is actually valuable. And I think it's a little bit of an odd it's a little bit of an odd take because everyone's been talking trash about market maps for so long, but I am pro market map. I am pro, this this core venture content that stays away from deranged politics.
Speaker 2:I love market maps. I I just it's a way for investors to basically out, you know, open source their deal flow and insights, and I think it's a it's, people, yeah, people joke about it, but it's genuinely interesting to cover. And I actually think we should do more segments on the show where we break down a specific market. Obviously, we're doing we're doing that now courtesy of Justine. It's kind of funny.
Speaker 2:They left off Webflow on the website generation section, which feels like a big player. That was one of the first things that that stood out to me. Felt like Webflow is, like, very hot only a few years ago.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:But one thing that's in it's kind of this interesting dynamic. It seems like website generation or website builders like Webflow, you know, Framer, Squarespace, Wix, they seem to be good businesses overall because people set them up and generally forget about them, and they find ways to, like, stack fees. So it starts at $20 a month, and next thing you know, you're paying a hundred and $50 for you don't even know why. So they seem to be good businesses, but it seems like there's because they're these sort of single player one to many products, there's no moat in these businesses at all. Right?
Speaker 1:Sure.
Speaker 2:And so they're able to get to meaningful scale, but there's no reason like, Framer came out, and I was like, okay. This is just a better version of Webflow. Right? It's like the billing is more clear. I like the user interface more.
Speaker 2:It's less clunky. And developers in my network quickly got comfortable with building on Framer when before everybody, it seemed like, was building on Webflow. So Yep. This is and and so the last thing that, the last thing that these companies that are more these legacy website generation and hosting companies needed was more competition because they were already facing, like, tons of competition from each other. And so now you have this new category that really, I think, like, the generative AI experience applied to websites makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 2:Right? Because if if I'm working with a designer, I'm like, hey. Here's two sites I like. This is my brand. This is what I want it to look like.
Speaker 2:These are the features. And then, basically, it's the same thing as, like, I could just type that into a text box, add the add the relevant links, and then hit generate. And that's very similar to me just talking to a designer explaining what I want and then coming back to it. And then even when you get a version one of the site, you can be like, change this, change that. And, again, you can just still deliver that via the, you know, the sort of LLM chat style interface.
Speaker 2:So I I'm, I I still wonder if it's one of those things, like, you know, you sort of use this for, like, a quick v one of a site, and then you just still transition to working with a developer, but you can imagine the developers might just end up as these tools get better just using the same tools in the same way that you use Framer or Webflow.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I think text is the universal interface. Even even if these website builders make it easy to change the background color, that can often be hidden in some UI six levels deep in menus. And just saying it into an, an LLM is often, more universal and more accessible.
Speaker 1:So, that's obvious. Now the question of why Webflow was left off, it's possible that they haven't launched a text to web product yet. They might just be behind on that.
Speaker 2:Oh, got it. Got it.
Speaker 1:I think this market map is specifically for it is a chat interface or a text interface that then builds a website or a web app, but there are a lot of cool companies on here. And, it's interesting because during the Super Bowl, there was an ad for a website generator, and it had, Barry Kehoegan, somebody some famous actor was, like, low tech tops. I don't remember. That's the thing. It was either Squarespace or Wix, but he's going around this Irish town, and he's throwing laptops to to let people know that they could design a beautiful website if you're like the local pub.
Speaker 1:And it was very cute, and he's riding this donkey, and he's this famous guy. I think he did dated Sabrina Carpenter. And, yeah, it was Squarespace. Okay. It was Squarespace, but it could have been Wix because I don't think of them as, like, super differentiated products.
Speaker 1:And there's a big question about, will the legacy generators be able to retool their brand fast enough to let the the the market know, hey. We have the best text to text to web development tools. Like, we've we've rolled these out. We're not behind. Versus a new company that comes in with that as their main their main, like, go to market hook and their main marketing messages.
Speaker 1:Hey. It's just text. That's a big differentiator, and it's always hard for the for the legacy companies to kinda say, hey. Hey. We we we also have the AI tools.
Speaker 1:Don't worry.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So so GoDaddy is a good example of this popular place to buy, you know, a domain. They, like, absolutely jam their sort of AI website generation tools in your face. It's actually really annoying to use it as just a pure play, domain, you know, hosting registrar because they're so oriented around, okay. You've spent $12 on this domain.
Speaker 2:Now we're gonna upsell you on this sort of AI generated website. And so I think that I I can easily see some of these registrars just buying these text to website generators if they get if they actually, like, start to really execute on the product side because it has been sort of a funny experience where, you know, historically, you register your domain and then you then go to some other site and you gotta connect the two. And and Squarespace was pretty aggressive. You know, they they acquired Google Domains, if you remember that. Yep.
Speaker 2:That transition, I think, is still happening. And so all these all these, platforms know that the the two things should be integrated. But it's a weird challenge too because you don't know am I developing the you know, over time, companies tend to wanna just fully own their web, you know, experience and front end that that and they end up hosting on, you know, AWS or sort of other other platforms outside the registrar. So you're kind of in this weird space of of work building for prosumers and SMBs, individuals, and then, you know, who knows where it goes from there. But
Speaker 1:Well, let's read through some more of this thread and, Justine's analysis. To start, why is there so much buzz? Thousands of users from consumers to experienced developers are sharing what they've made with these tools. The growth is impressive. Bolt is at 20,000,000 ARR.
Speaker 1:Lovable's at 10,000,000 in two months of monetization. Now how do these products work? Most LLMs, generate code based on the prompt and then run it through middleware logic for things like tracking files and API calls. The agents then push the code to a browser execution environment that streams the display to the user. But do they really work?
Speaker 1:Obviously, LLMs hallucinate a lot. There's a lot of risk. Justine says, yes and no. They excel at simple builds. And if you can't code, otherwise, they feel like magic.
Speaker 1:But there's a limit to what they can reliably generate. Integrations are difficult, bugs persist, and code can get too big quickly. Now how do users pick a product? Justine says that that, a 16 z interviewed dozens of customers and scoured thousands of posts, and they created a flowchart. So where do you wanna start?
Speaker 1:Code or text? Well, there's code generation and editing tools versus do you wanna make a website or web app? If you wanna make a web app, do you want fine grain control over the design? Yes. If you're a designer, do you need to be able to export the design as code?
Speaker 1:Then you're gonna need UI generation tools with code migration. So all of this depends on the level of sophistication and, really what the developer's is end goal. Is this just some fun side project that they're trying to build in an hour, or is this the start of a real business that will eventually have software developers coding with cursor, and then eventually they'll get Devon involved and be pushing things through a traditional GitHub repo? Or is this just something where I want this website live today, and I don't even wanna get off my phone? So Yeah.
Speaker 1:She goes and gives shout outs to a ton of different companies. And that's what's so great about these market maps is that they do a great job of, of showing a bunch of different companies and highlighting everyone together. It really brings that the the particular community together. And so there are a number of, segments here. Obviously, consumers, you think about the long tail of personalized apps that cater to unique interests and needs.
Speaker 1:There's a guy here who built a bedtime story creator, probably for his son or daughter. There's a second user segment, which is developers, that people can code, but they use text to web app tools to get a leg up on prototyping and shipping new things. And then the last segment is consultants and agencies. These people aren't typically engineers, but they're hired to make websites for solopreneurs and SMBs. They previously used tools like Squarespace and Wix, but now they are using these AI tools.
Speaker 2:There's still alpha and going to your local plumber and offering to build them a website for a thousand dollars and generating it in two in two seconds with with one of these, apps. There's you've probably got, like, ten more years before people fully figure it out.
Speaker 1:Yeah. It also just really speaks to the the importance of distribution. Like, the instantiation of these ideas is getting easier and easier. You You can have an idea, spin up a website, have it live in a day even if you're nontechnical. But then Yeah.
Speaker 1:Where are you gonna share it? Are you gonna run ads against it? Is the monetization funnel good, or is it just gonna live out there? Maybe share it with some friends. Like, I'd probably use that bedtime story creator, but I'm hearing of it for the first time now.
Speaker 1:There used to be a web did did you ever use StumbleUpon back in the day? Do you remember this thing? Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah. That was a UberConference.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. Garrett, Garrett Crabb built it. Really, really cool tool. You would just click it, and it would take you to a random website on the Internet that was submitted.
Speaker 1:And you would just find crazy websites in the open web, completely not a thing anymore. I actually built a version of of stumble upon that would scrape my Twitter feed and export all the links there. And then I could stumble upon the tweets, the links in the tweets
Speaker 2:That's cool.
Speaker 1:Of my feed, and I could just look through all those. And it was really fun. It was really cool. Now it's impossible because no one shares links and links don't even work and stuff. So
Speaker 2:It would just be a it would just be a a feed of all OnlyFans spam bots that are saying,
Speaker 1:like Probably.
Speaker 2:Please look at the link in my
Speaker 1:Awful. Awful.
Speaker 2:Terrible.
Speaker 1:But, yeah, great market map. Thanks for posting it, Justine. And, hopefully, there's no hard feelings about the the rainbow six meme. I thought it was funny. Anyway, let's move on to our next top story.
Speaker 1:We got a way to invest in alien technology. I have been saying this for a long time. People say, oh, the aliens are here. The aliens are there. We got some evidence.
Speaker 1:And I've always said, look. Call me when we're ready to commercialize the technology. It's not moving the market. I don't care. I don't care if there's a massive UFO parked outside in Downtown LA.
Speaker 1:If I can't make money off of it, I'm not paying attention. But fortunately, now you can pay attention to it because Tuttle Capital has filed for an alien tech ETF. The new fund to invest in reverse engineered alien technology based on government disclosures about UFOs. Total Capital has filed to invest in reversed engineered alien technology. This is exactly what I was asking for.
Speaker 1:This is not financial advice, by the way. But I'm sure this will be available on public.com when it goes live. With the Total Capital UFO Disclosure AI powered exchange traded fund, which is one of eight new products the manager has registered with the SEC. With the ticker, UFO d, great ticker, and and the actively managed UFO ETF will invest And 80% of its net assets in a basket of companies that total capital believes to have potential exposure to advanced or reverse engineered alien technology.
Speaker 2:John, you're missing a big point here, which is that it's AI powered ETF. So Yes. Not only will it be, you know, an ETF with a basket of assets that may have exposure to reverse engineered or alien technology, it will be managed by AI, which to me is, like, as a guy who loves AI, I mean, you you you're you're making the perfect ETF for me here. Right?
Speaker 1:Yeah. I mean, you can't
Speaker 2:get any you can't get any better. Right?
Speaker 1:We need to have Jesse Michaels on to discuss this, to get the to get the take. We gotta have Packy on. I know Packy's been watching a lot of Jesse.
Speaker 2:I mean, this probably isn't talking
Speaker 1:to me.
Speaker 2:The the SEC probably wouldn't allow you to advertise, securities, in this way, but, you know, the obvious play for Tuttle and and their UFO D, ETF is to just, like, create the New Jersey drone effect, but all over the country. So just, like, put drones everywhere, you know, that are doing light shows that say, you know, fly a swarm of drones over a small town that's been untouched by technology. Do a you know you know, make everybody think they're being invaded by aliens and then do a drone light show immediately after it says, like, buy UFO d today. And
Speaker 1:I think know if you can do that, but I know that you can advertise ETFs. I see ads for ETFs on Bloomberg and CNBC all the time. Yeah. It was really popular during the the Bitcoin ETF launch. But also you just see iShares, QQQ ETFs, all sorts of tack ETFs that are out there, you know, downside risk mitigated ones, debt ones.
Speaker 1:People advertise ETFs all the time. So Okay. So Hopefully, we'll be able to see
Speaker 2:some of
Speaker 1:the d ETFs.
Speaker 2:So here's here's some alpha. So, AdQuick can help you execute, drone swarm ads, like light the light show ads. And so what Hudl should do the second they launch this, log on to AdQuik, get, get ready to, you know, do a drone swarm ad for their ETF over the Manhattan skyline. But the key is make everybody think early on that it's an actual ace alien invasion. So people pull out their phones because we've talked about how to helm strategy before.
Speaker 2:You want them to think that they're being invaded by aliens and boom, it's an ad for u f o d. Buy it on public.com.
Speaker 1:I love it. It's a great partnership there. So the companies in the ETF to start will include aerospace groups and defense contractors that may have research and development programs rumored to work with classified technology, potentially leading to groundbreaking advancements. Matthew Tuttle, the chief executive of Tuttle Capital said he has been interested in UFOs for years. While they are by definition an unknown quantity, Tuttle said he believes he believed investing in UFOs and the technology they may use could take off once his product hits the market.
Speaker 1:I'm a trader. I look at UFOs, and I say, if they're using a power source that is light years beyond anything we have, if our government has this technology and it's released, that will be a game changer. Each ETF will be traded on the c b o e b at b z x exchange. The forthcoming products do not have sent set launch dates or listed fees. The ETF will short companies that are threatened or could be made obsolete because of any alien level technology that is discovered.
Speaker 1:So you, you gotta harden your business to alien technology, you know? Yeah. If you're out there
Speaker 2:I just wanna go.
Speaker 1:And you're saying, hey. Hey. Our business is gonna be great. As long as aliens don't show up, well, get ready for a short position to get built in your company.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. This is this is a time every company that's privately held is, you know, feeling very grateful because, you know, you might be wanting to IPO in a couple years, but that gives you some time to build up the narrative around that you're using alien technology. Like, I wanna see Stripe I wanna see Stripe talking about their alien payment rails that they're using. I wanna see Ramp talking about their their alien payment rails.
Speaker 2:You know, I wanna see SpaceX.
Speaker 1:This I've said this for a long time about Salesforce. Like, if you think about, you know, if you're an alien, if you're an alien species and you're managing essentially a fleet of sales reps across the entire galaxy, you're gonna have some really advanced CRM running that program. And all of a sudden, if one of these, if one of these, alien SDRs, crash lands and we get a hold of this alien CRM, no one's gonna be buying Salesforce anymore. And so that's a major risk to that stock. And so, obviously, not financial advice, but, I I I'd watch out if you're if you're a Salesforce shareholder and, the Alien ETF has taken a short position.
Speaker 1:Anything could happen.
Speaker 2:Well said. Well said.
Speaker 1:And so you f d UFOD's launch is not a sure thing. However, according to Tuttle, without sufficient information sourced from government disclosures on UFOs, the product might not go to market, but he's optimistic that there will be disclosures. The risky and opaque nature of alien investment is not lost on Tuttle and his firm. Can't believe that was printed in the financial times. Government confirmation or denial of advanced alien tech is uncertain, and rumored breakthroughs might never materialize.
Speaker 1:This entire theme is highly speculative and subject to rumor cycles. The other seven so they're launching seven others. The agentic AI ETF, AI in health care, AI power generation, drone industry AI ETF, quantum computing AI ETF. UFO technology may be out of reach for the average investor, but AI is one known advancement that Tuttle believes is reshaping the financial landscape. What AI can do is a game changer, and I don't think people have fully wrapped their heads around that, said Tuttle, who added that he used AI for 90% of his investment process.
Speaker 1:And so we'll be
Speaker 2:following up here. I love, Total Capital is just absolutely hurling ETFs at the market.
Speaker 1:Love it.
Speaker 2:I mean, it is, it is impressive. He has, you know, more more ETFs than some people have, positioned. So, an absolute dog.
Speaker 1:So stay tuned for more on UFOD. We'll be covering it here on the show. Let's move on to the GPU whisperer who's making software for data centers. This is Aaron Ginn, the cofounder and CEO of HydraHost.
Speaker 2:Wait. I I hate to interrupt, but we got a comment from Calder in the chat. He says Go. SEC, securing extraterrestrial currency. And he said it was right in front of us this whole time.
Speaker 2:So, yeah, it was it was programmed. Well said.
Speaker 1:Styled. Great. Alright. Well, let's move on to this article and the information, the GPU whisperer, covering Aaron Ginn, is going bare metal in data centers the future of cloud computing? If so, it could signal a shift away from big big cloud firms toward a new group of AI computing startups.
Speaker 1:Bare metal isn't a subset of rock music, but an industry term for renting servers to cloud customers on terms that give them access to the hardware, allowing customers to control servers directly and run their own operating software. Customers going this route miss out on some bells and whistles offered by big cloud firms like Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure, but they might gain better performance for more demanding and complex tasks like training and running AI workloads. We certainly saw this with DeepSeek. They were not on AWS. They had none of the niceties of the Azure cloud.
Speaker 1:They were as bare metal as you get optimizing small tweaks in memory bandwidth restrictions on their, cluster of kind of random hodgepodge NVIDIA nerfed GPUs. Some of the industries such as Aaron Ginn, CEO of software firm HydraHost, think this is the future. Ginn is known to some as the GPU whisperer. This is a great moniker. If you're trying to get through, breakthrough to the Yeah.
Speaker 2:So the the other side,
Speaker 1:we've talked
Speaker 2:about we've talked about coinages. There's a lot of alpha and coining, Coogan's law. You know, you already know the Hayes paradox.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:There there's coin new coins. Right now, there's more crypto coins emerging every day than there are coinages, but we're hoping to flip those, soon. But, you know, the the other side of this is monikers. You wanna be developing monikers all the time, shipping new monikers, testing, you you know, testing the market with monikers and Yep. You know, have your friends test them on you.
Speaker 2:You know?
Speaker 1:We we have been pushing this. David Senter, the godfather of podcasting.
Speaker 2:You know? Yep.
Speaker 1:We we we we throw these out all the
Speaker 2:time. The podfather.
Speaker 1:We need to come up with more because, they really they really help tell the story of an individual and help them break through in the media. And so Yeah. He has an intricate knowledge of and connections to the firms that design, make, and install data center servers. I won't explain the history of cloud computing, but one thing to remember is that the big cloud firms, AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure, were originally designed to allow companies to rent virtual machines, for traditional computing workloads like running applications or databases. Many believe the new wave of AI computing startups might be better positioned to to provide customers with access to GPUs for AI workloads, which are fundamentally different from hosting a website, for instance.
Speaker 1:Ginn is in that camp. The GPU whisperer speaks. He wants to give operators of data centers, firms that typically own and operate facilities, cloud computers cloud providers use the ability to rent GPU servers directly to customers. Data center operators have long operated like apartment landlords, allowing companies like AWS to rent space in their data centers. Gin thinks the rise of AI computing puts data centers in a position to be a hotel and generate more revenue from their real estate.
Speaker 1:They can actually have they can actually do five day rentals, week long rentals, long term rentals, but they have no software to do it. Tooling in the data center space has been highly open to source because the main big money cow was the cloud. You either sold space to the cloud or you tried to get free software to of to kind of sell to an end customer. That's where Hydra host comes in. Hydra sells automation software to data center operators so they can rent out GPUs to businesses or even cloud startups who want to rent out servers themselves.
Speaker 1:So they're going a layer deeper into the, data center stack. We've been talking about data centers for a long time. Obviously, a big narrative in the AI race right now. Got anything?
Speaker 2:I mean, my head immediately goes to why haven't we personally put money into Hydra? Because it seems like everybody you become friends with ten years later, their companies go public. So you gotta learn from the mistakes of, like, 2012 John Coogan. And just just
Speaker 1:give Aaron a call.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Let's let's get him on this. We
Speaker 1:Big congrats to him. He already manages 15,000 GPUs with its software embedded in 30 data centers across 14 companies. He hopes to manage a million GPUs in the next two years. And massive breaking news, This has not been covered on TBPN yet. Therefore it is breaking news.
Speaker 1:Hydro host last month raised an 8,000,000 in a round led by Scott McNeely's flume ventures, boom, size gong, baby, Bringing its total amount raised to $22,000,000. The latest round was a simple agreement for future equity, SAFE, at a $500,000,000 cap. Let's go. That's
Speaker 2:that's the most boomer way to write out. The latest round like, if you write out that, you clearly don't know.
Speaker 1:The, hatred. It's the meme of, like, this, the German
Speaker 2:meme from
Speaker 1:Inglourious Basterds. Right? Like Yeah. Oh, oh, simple agreement for future equity. What's going on with the information, guys?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Yeah. I don't think Jessica I don't think Jessica
Speaker 1:caught this run. Oh, who wrote this? Got you gotta go to YC demo day, Anissa, guard dizzy. Yeah. Get your game up.
Speaker 1:Yeah. But massive congrats to them. $500,000,000 cap, banger company, half unicorn.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Wait. So
Speaker 1:so Crusoe Cloud, CEO Chase Lochmiller, who we've covered on the show before, who and a guy who just left Lambda Lambda Labs. They came in as angel investors. Trey Stevens from Founders Fund previously led Hydra's eight million dollar seed round, which included Palantir founder Joe Lonsdale. So all the boys are in this one. It's a great company.
Speaker 1:We're excited to highlight it on the show, and congrats to Aaron, the GPU whisperer.
Speaker 2:Let's leave it at that.
Speaker 1:Let's leave it at that, and let's stay with, with Trey Stevens and the defense boys because, John Sindriu over at the Wall Street Journal has got an op ed pouring some cold water on the defense tech boom. Let's see what he's got to say. He says tech firms want to upend the Pentagon. The old defense guard has some has some lessons for them. Upstart defense upstart defense contractors such as Palantir.
Speaker 1:Upstart, it's twenty year old company. It's worth a quarter trillion.
Speaker 2:Trillion.
Speaker 1:It's a quarter trillion. It's two decades old. Give them a little credit. It's not 80 years old. They they couldn't possibly know what they're doing.
Speaker 1:Like, you can only know what you're doing if everyone who started the company is dead. Yeah. I I was looking at one of Palmer's, rivals, like the general dynamics founder or something, and there's a picture of him, in
Speaker 2:in on a
Speaker 1:literally on a civil war era submarine because the guy developed, like, the first submarine for general general dynamics, which eventually spun out general atomics, which is now going head to head with Anduril in the, in the CCA fight and, collaborative combat aircraft. And so I was, like, trying to benchmark the founders, and I traced it back. And I was like I was like, the founder of the of the company Palmer is fighting with or duking it out for this contract died a hundred years before Palmer was born. Something like that. It was, like, insane.
Speaker 1:I was like, his his birthday, he's more than he's, like, a 50 years older than Palmer. And, like, this is the this is the difference in culture. Like, we're gonna see. We're gonna put it to the test. Can the young bucks make it happen?
Speaker 1:Well, let's find out. Yeah. In this Wall Street Journal article, what you got, Jordan?
Speaker 2:I I have so little trust in mainstream media, especially op especially op eds, which op eds are just an opportunity to just, like, basically fud whatever's going on. Like, it seems like every time you hear about an op ed, it's it's,
Speaker 1:Or pump or pump. I mean, software team in the world. That was an op ed by Marc Andreessen. Sure. Sure.
Speaker 1:Got some great banger op eds out there floating.
Speaker 2:No. But I'm saying
Speaker 1:But yes.
Speaker 2:When you hear about an op when you hear about an op ed from somebody in our world Yeah. It's usually to predict something about the future.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:And when you hear about an op ed, that's not from our team, it's usually to FUD something that that our team is doing.
Speaker 1:Yep. Yep. Yep.
Speaker 2:So Our boys.
Speaker 1:They're coming for our boys.
Speaker 2:And and everybody's everybody's deeply conflicted. If you're not deeply conflicted by the age of 30, you're not heavily invested enough. Exactly. Period. Yeah.
Speaker 2:So everybody's conflicted. Everybody's pumping their bags.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:This guy writing the op ed probably has has he's just mad because he's holding Northrop Grumman's Lockheed Martin general thing.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I'm saying pull up the side with the chart. Chart.
Speaker 2:Chart. Chart.
Speaker 1:Pull up the chart. Yeah. This is, this is Northrop Grumman general dynamics and Lockheed Martin, flat for the last year and Palantir is like mooting up 300%. So a lot of a lot of hot takes flying given given the spiciness in the market. Let's let's read through some of this.
Speaker 1:Maybe we gotta put in the truth zone. We'll decide. Maybe there's some good points. You know? Maybe John's onto something.
Speaker 1:Let's let's give him a shot. Image defense business, Silicon Valley's motto of move fast and break things doesn't always ensure victory. There is a divergence across military contractors. The stock of Palantir, which is riding the artificial intelligence boom, is up 34% from a week ago after the software and data analytics giant reported 75% growth in earnings per share for 2024. At the same time, shares in Lockheed, Northrop, and General Dynamics have fallen over the past six months.
Speaker 1:What's going on, guys? Put together their market value is now less than Palantir's. This is in part because Elon Musk's Doge has led investors to believe military procurement will be reshaped to cut waste, let in new entrance, and give priority to software, drones, and robotics. Palantir, as well as Musk's SpaceX, OpenAI, and robotics and AI specialist, Anduril Industries, are cheering for change at the expense of legacy players. Quote, oh, from the absolute boy, Shyam Sankar, Palantir CTO, He says, we sense a huge amount of fear among the traditional systems, integrators, and providers here.
Speaker 1:So some legacy software projects he added are sacred cows of the deep state. Shyam, not pulling punches. I love it. Let's go. Wow.
Speaker 1:A lightning rod for criticism of the Pentagon, including Musk himself has been using it has been it's used of cost plus agreements, which reimburse contractors for expenses incurred and add a fee for profit margin on top. Cost plus contracts were infamously infamously used in Lockheed's f 35 lightning two, not just for developing the fighter as is almost always the case since r and d is uncertain, but also to buy several initial batches of it. Only later purchase of the aircraft, which has become the most expensive military program in history, have started placing the burden of cost overruns on the company rather than the public purse. This is why the air force is now buying the first limited production units of the b 21 bomber in developed with Northrop under fixed price contracts. The US Space Force created by president Trump in 2019 strongly favors them too as do the Silicon Valley challengers challengers.
Speaker 1:Indeed, analysts believe that the shift away from cost plus will accelerate under defense secretary Pete Hegseth, who has pledged to make procurement nimbler, but the industry has been down this road many times before. In the fifties, officials made heavy use of cost plus contracts to foster innovation in response to huge expense overruns. Robert McNamara introduced total package procurement in the sixties, which involved fixed price deals after many firms bid too aggressively for projects and ended up bankrupt or close to it. Lockheed had to ask Washington for a bailout. The framework was abandoned.
Speaker 1:Yet fixed price contracting regained popularity in the eighties, and the private sector once again burned its fingers. The pendulum has kept swinging back and forth since. So Yeah. Saying, hey. You guys have it good right now.
Speaker 1:Your stocks are riding high, but you're doing these fixed price contracts. You get one wrong, you might wind up bankrupt. But, you know, we know the people that run these companies, and they're really sharp. And I don't think they're gonna make mistakes, but we'll see.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's interesting because every every business runs at risk. Right? And it creates a pause it it it means that capital generally does not get incinerated to the degree that it does within defense. Right?
Speaker 2:That said, defense has two, you know, two factors out of many that drive this sort of overspending. One is projects become too important to national security to fail. And so sometimes startups, they they have an ambitious product that, you know, project or idea, they try to build it, and they're unsuccessful, and there's no nobody to bail them out. Right? The investors say, like, we don't wanna put more money into this.
Speaker 2:Like, it just didn't work, so it fails. The issue with technology that relates to national security is if our peer adversaries are developing the same technology and we wanna, you know, maintain or exceed, their capabilities, we just can't allow for specific technology to fail. And so Yep. There is some situations where things should be, like, they're they're too important to fail. That said, the other factor is that you have internal cheerleaders for technology in the DOD or various, you know, parts of the military that be that bet their career on a specific, you know, project or technology.
Speaker 2:And then suddenly, they're the ones fixated on that thing working out because they've told everybody in their professional life, like, no. This is important, and we need this, and we just should keep spending and spending and spending. But what happens is, one of one of the, I'm an advisor. I mentioned this company on the podcast before to a company called, Aon, and they're, like, developing ground based tactical missile systems. And already, they're producing missile systems that cost 80% less than what the primes are able to make that for.
Speaker 2:Right? And so it's, the sort of cost plus model. Once you have an established program of and and the technology is working and it's deployed, it's almost like the cost plus model works for, like, super high risk r and d to incentivize. But then at a certain point, once it's established, you don't want it to be cost plus because then the manufacturer says, well, we're just gonna run up the price on this so that we can generate more margin for our shareholders.
Speaker 1:Yep. So I think that the the cost plus thing really comes down to the iteration cycle here. And so when you think about all the r and d, even the best startup, the best people, the best technology, the hottest company, you're not gonna be able to build a new aircraft carrier in a year. It's just not gonna happen. And so when you look at something like the f 35, it's it's just a massive project.
Speaker 1:And although there were major cost overruns, it took way too long. It's something that was gonna take decades no matter who was it who who who was at the helm at least a few years. Like, it was gonna take a while. Whereas when you look at what Apple does, Apple's releasing a new iPhone every single year for better or worse. If the cost comes down, they can cut their cost that year.
Speaker 1:People buy new phones. Same thing if the cost goes up. They can raise the price a little bit. And and so for these things that are tradable systems, you have more ability to iterate on the price as well because you're not locked into that same contract, and you can actually, you don't need to do the cost plus thing as much. Now this would be very bad if you think about Anduril going bigger and going into the, aircraft carrier space or going after the next f 35 project.
Speaker 1:They really could wind up saying, hey. Hey. We're doing a fixed price contract, and they could get bitten. But Andruil's only playing, and I think they will continue to play because the of the way warfare is evolving in these attritable systems. And so what's the future of warfare?
Speaker 1:It's not an even bigger aircraft carrier. It's a drone swarm. How will drones be purchased? A hundred thousand drones every single year, and there'll be a new drone that comes out every year. You're already seeing this with the ghost platform at Anduril.
Speaker 1:They're helicopter drone. They're on, like, ghost four or five. I can't even keep up I can't even keep track. And when you think about the headset, the IVAS system, Microsoft was gonna produce a hundred thousand of those. Obviously, that was not gonna be a hundred thousand all in one go.
Speaker 1:It was gonna be 10,000 and then 20,000 a quarter. And if Anduril really nails the IVAS program, they're gonna be iterating on that. There's gonna be new headsets, new features coming out every single year. We see how fast the technology is advancing in the consumer space. There's no reason why the the military would not wanna integrate even better screens and and better batteries and, you know, better c better CPUs and all this stuff.
Speaker 1:So it will look a lot more like an Apple product release, which gives them more flexibility to stay on that fixed price contract and not lock in a price that will Yeah. You know, that they have to deal with, and they don't have to predict it out ten years. They're saying, hey. We got a v two here. This is what it cost us.
Speaker 1:This is what we think we should sell it for. You know, this is what we can deliver it for. We're we're working against that, and there's much less capital at risk. So I'm optimistic. Let's, let's close out with the end of this, article a little bit.
Speaker 1:Says as much as upfront setting of prices is the standard in the private sector, defense procurement is different. Yes. Today's highly consolidated defense industry gives contractors more leverage, but it also exposes a single customer with unrealistic and ever changing goals. Big generational programs are scarce, and firms must bid aggressively or risk losing a core business segment. This was the case with the b 21, the Raider, which has now caused large write downs for Northrop.
Speaker 1:In its fourth quarter earnings report, Lockheed reported a 72% drop in operating profit profit alongside a $1,700,000,000 charge on fixed price contracts mostly related to missiles. In its own quarterly release, Boeing took a $1,700,000,000 hit related to fixed price contracts on its t seven a jet. And so, lots of companies are in trouble for these big, big, massive programs that they take on. I think the new direction is avoid those big projects both from a financial perspective, but also from a nature of warfare sis perspective. The future is Yeah.
Speaker 2:I mean
Speaker 1:systems, and that That's hard. That results in more flexibility on the financial side as well.
Speaker 2:I don't think I don't think it's, anybody should feel bad for the Boeings and the and the Raytheons and the Lockheed Martins for taking a big risk for a huge payoff. Right? Like
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:They're they they're making a calculated risk in the sense that, hey. Would we risk, you know, $10,000,000,000 to make a hundred billion dollars? Yes. Right? You know, that's, like, a good bet to take.
Speaker 2:And so when it doesn't work out, they're gonna complain and say that, you know, that they should have been bailed out or or or they should have been. But but, again, there's a difference between the taxpayers and the shareholders. They're not there's there's a Venn diagram, but they're they're very different groups. And so it's it's not, it shouldn't always be the responsibility of the of the taxpayer if a, defense contractor blows way over budget or fails to execute. Right?
Speaker 2:Like, there needs to be consequences. Otherwise, you get situations like the the Microsoft program where they get $20,000,000,000 to deliver nothing. Right? Yeah. Just doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Completely agree. Well, overall, I think this was a pretty good article. Raises some interesting questions. Closes with a with with a quote from Byron Callan at cap Capital Alpha Partners.
Speaker 1:He says, ultimately, I don't see how the smaller guys are immune to the same problems that have caught the traditional players. Obviously, I I gave a counterargument to that already. None of this denies the market thesis that prime military contractors have gotten complacent and that the likes of Palantir and Anduril can reap large rewards from expanding their defense foothold, especially since their investors are laser focused on growth. In the case of software, which has shorter development cycles and a blurrier line between development and production, the recent pivot towards fixed fixed cost contracts and tapping upstart bidders has a greater chance of being successful. Great strategists, however, must learn from the mistakes of the past, and I think that speaks to, you know, the real risk is, one of the new defense companies taking on too large or a project, basically betting the entire farm on something that might not even be that relevant if a smaller, more tradable system can make it irrelevant to begin with.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Take the risk. Bet the farm if you have the conviction in in completely independent of a potential bailout. Right? It seems like, you know, these contractors were willing to take big risks if they felt like there was a good chance that they would also get a bailout if they weren't successful.
Speaker 2:But we want them to, you know, be comfortable with taking risks independently because, you know, the the reward of, you know, massive future contracts should be the incentive, not there there should not be risk free innovation, right, as a privately held company with with shareholders and running as a for profit organization.
Speaker 1:I agree. Well, let's move on to our next story. The HIMSS Super Bowl ad. There's an article in the Wall Street Journal here. HIMSS Super Bowl ad spotlights weight loss drug copycats as clock ticks on their business.
Speaker 1:There's a full blown war over copycat versions of blockbuster obesity drugs, but their days are likely numbered. During Sunday's Super Bowl, Hims and Hers Health, ticker Hims, a telehealth provider known for its provocative ads promoting erectile dysfunction and hair loss treatments, aired a commercial portraying America's Obesity Epidemic as a rigged game where people are denied affordable weight loss medications because of a greedy health care system. The ad positioned HIMS and HERS, which sells a compounded version of semaglutide, a copy of the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk, Wegovy, and Ozempic as a Robin Hood of health care. There are no there are medications that work, but they're priced for profits, not patients, the narrator says as Childish Gambino's social justice anthem, This is America plays in the background. Hims and Hers offers life changing weight loss medications.
Speaker 1:They're affordable, doctor trusted, and formulated in The United States. Predictably, the ad sparked backlash even before the big game. A pharmaceutical lobbying group called pharma labeled it misleading, and senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall, Democrat and a Republican, sent a letter to the FDA calling it a deceptive advertisement that failed to disclose side effects of or safety risks unlike traditional pharma ads. Spokeswoman for HIMSS said the ad aims to raise awareness to a critical issue, the obesity public health crisis, by showcasing the impact of obesity and realities of the lack of access to life saving weight loss treatments. And so, HIMSS stock is way up.
Speaker 1:The company is doing fantastically, but little bit of controversy about the compounding strategy. What did you see the ad, Jordy? What did you think about it? What do you think about the ad the just the overall strategy of advertising weight loss drugs at the Super Bowl?
Speaker 2:So, one, I think that TJ Parker had probably one of the better takes here. I don't know if you remember the post. Maybe we could pull it up. He he was hypercritical of it. So for those that don't know, TJ, is the founder of PillPack, sold it to Amazon for a billion dollars, built a health tech company the hard way, like, being very, very, very diligent about following the rules and working well with the regulators, and that's part of the reason they had such a big outcome and were able to be acquired by, you know, a massive player like Amazon.
Speaker 2:His he he pushed back, and he was basically like, you're completely disrespecting all, you know, patent law with this. You're selling at the same exact price as the, the people that actually own the IP, and you're playing in a very aggressive you know, very aggressively in a gray market that isn't you know, you're not even passing on those benefits to consumers. Right? So his his main takeaway was you're selling this for the same cost as the other players, yet you are, you know, trying to position them as as taking advantage of, of consumers. And so he felt it was somewhat disingenuous.
Speaker 2:I mean, this is not the first time that HIMSS has been in hot water. The CEO, Andrew, and and this again, for context, like, Hims and Hers was, like, one of the big success stories out of the d to c era. There was, like, very few companies that made it top
Speaker 1:billion dollars, it might be literally the most successful d to c company other than maybe Chewy, to come out, but even that's more of an ecommerce platform. Yeah. But in terms of yeah. I mean, huge huge success for everyone involved.
Speaker 2:And so, yeah, there there was a very long period of time where people said this company was, like, basically zero and, like, shouldn't be public because they were losing a lot of money and then they flipped. And then they were in a bunch of they had a bunch of controversy. It must have been back in the middle of twenty twenty three. But, they the CEO has, you know, family history in in Palestine and, like, came out very aggressively, in, against, you know, sort of Israel's action there. And then the stock, like, you know, dropped dramatically.
Speaker 2:There was a ton of, you know, short selling pressure. So he's no stranger to controversy. And so, anyways, I mean, I I think they're just selling so much GLP ones right now that the market is like basically, what the market is saying to me is, yeah, they're they're, yes, of course, they're bending the rules around compounding and, like but they seem to be okay with that risk appetite because they're printing so much cash off of this that Yep. They're like it's one of those situations where they're like, even if we get, you know, a few hundred million dollar fine down the road, like, we'll just pay it, and we'll be in a better position with a bigger customer base. And so I just think this is one of those things.
Speaker 2:Hims and Hers was, like, very well positioned to take advantage of this new development of this new drug. And we've talked about you know, when we talked about Novo Nordisk, Novo Nordisk had very few customers in The US. Right? It's very possible that HIMSS and HERS is is, like, acquiring more customers on a day to day basis, even with heavy composition from Roe and individual doctors and things like that. So
Speaker 1:Yeah. So I believe Roe is, white labeling, or reselling and really just a portal to the actual Novo per product, which probably means lower margins. Whereas, because, typically, the the name brand drug, is on patent for a number of years, and then it eventually goes generic. But if there is a shortage, the FDA, will allow essentially patent infringement for from like, the patent rules don't apply if there's a shortage of a drug and the FDA determines that the drug is important. And this kinda makes sense.
Speaker 1:You know? Obviously, if, if there was some sort of, like, you know, like, you know, cancer drug that everyone was getting a certain type of cancer and there's some cancer shortage, we'd be like, let's make as much as possible in every possible lab. And so the the the fundamental rule makes sense. And so the FDA recently declared the shortage of Eli Lilly's Monjaro and Zepbound over, but Novos, Ozempic and Wegovy remain on the shortage list. And so this has allowed compounding to continue unabated.
Speaker 1:And there's been a big big discussion over, you know, when will the shortage end? When will this compounding not be allowed to happen? Is the compounding higher quality, lower quality? There's been a lot of debate there. The company said it's increasing supply and is in talks with, regulators to it as it seeks to get off the shortage list.
Speaker 1:So Novo does not wanna be on the shortage list because it means HIMSS can compound. But Yeah. You know, it's unclear what HIMSS strategy will be post, post shortage ending. They could wind up acting just as an ecommerce platform to get the the the real drug, the non compounded version. There's a lot of different, ways, and I think shareholders might be looking at, hey.
Speaker 1:They're acquiring all these customers. They'll still stick around and buy, you know, the quote, unquote real thing.
Speaker 2:The lower margin. Yeah. Yeah. The lower margin version
Speaker 1:of the problem. Because, I mean, it it is, you you know, obviously, like, the whole dynamic of telemedicine is, it is embarrassing to go into your doctor and say, I have a problem with erectile dysfunction or
Speaker 2:I Hair loss. Hair loss with
Speaker 1:the And so you click a button. It's very sterile. You just go through their web flow, and then boom, the medicine shows up at your doorstep. Great great, like, consumer user experience, essentially. Yeah.
Speaker 1:And it's the same thing for over being overweight. You might not wanna talk to a doctor about that necessarily. And so any, a telehealth, telemedicine, interaction might actually be higher conversion rate for selling these drugs. And if they can sell more of them through even if they're at a lower margin, maybe there's a bull case here. I don't know.
Speaker 1:We'll we'll see.
Speaker 2:Yeah. TJ, I pulled up TJ's post. He said
Speaker 1:read it out.
Speaker 2:This was on this was on January 28. So they they released their ad early, clearly trying to front run the other campaigns. TJ, didn't hold back. He said, imagine shamelessly stealing IP, compounding their drugs, which results in patient harm time and time again, selling your fraudulent product for roughly the same net price as the original inventor, and then painting them as the problem in an effing Super Bowl commercial. So, you know, very, you know, that's his point of view.
Speaker 2:Words. Didn't mince words. The the thing about compounding pharmacies that's that's fascinating is you can go and just buy a compounding pharmacy for less than a million dollars and just start making drugs. And and so anybody,
Speaker 1:There was one in my YC batch, and I think they didn't even buy one. They just, they just set up and got the licenses. And I think they were doing retinol or retinoid. It's like a acne medication, skincare, basically. So Yeah.
Speaker 1:You I mean, in general, if you're trying to do something with health or FDA, you can usually go the nutraceutical, you know, supplement route, which is basically unregulated. And you can be like alpha giga brain enhancement, and you can say all the crazy things you want because you're not really making claims. Yeah. You're only making, like, structure and function claims. Then as you move up, you go into compounding, and then eventually you go into FDA drug.
Speaker 1:Typically, then you're a biotech company. You go through phase one, phase two, phase three trials. You get a patent. You're you are releasing, like, a real drug, and that's what Novo and Eli Lilly do. Startups in the Silicon Valley sense have never been able to really crack that.
Speaker 1:It's been more of, like, the biotech path. You go public really early. It's a different path. Yeah. But now we're in this all area blurry territory.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So these weight loss drugs fall into the, like, broadly into the peptide category. And so people are, for a while, it's been this sort of gray market of you can get peptides. And and the same you can get peptides for weight loss purposes, but you can also get them for you know, that that stimulate testosterone production because peptides end up being these sort of precursors to hormones in the body. So it can be a precursor to HGH, right, is one.
Speaker 2:So, there's a there's a famous peptide called BPC one five seven that is referred to as the Wolverine peptide. And this is, this is what Aaron I think Aaron Rodgers was taking where he tore his ACL and, like, basically was back on the field in, like, remarkable time. And so, BPC one five seven allows you to heal from injuries, like, just ridiculously quickly. There's there's you can look up on forums people that are like Yeah. I broke my leg, and I was, like, fully healed in, like, six weeks.
Speaker 2:You know? So it's, like, really effective, really, but they're super complicated. You're dealing with complex processes in the body. They haven't been many of them haven't been studied well enough, so it's very much a wild, wild west. I do know there's some startups that are looking to take advantage of the sort of gray market right now and, but it's a difficult space to build in because there's so much demand.
Speaker 2:If you tell people, like, I will help you lose weight or be stronger in the gym or recover from injuries, it's gonna be a lot of demand for that, but then are you gonna be able to build durable IP value without these big pharmaceutical companies coming in? And TJ's point around, you know, patient harm related to compounding, it is a good you know, the there's a, you know, the the, pharma industry gets so much hate from so many different types of people because they have had numerous incidents where they've done, you know, sort of bad things or released drugs that they knew weren't effective or that had a bunch of harmful side effects. But one thing is if you're getting a drug that you know is effective, you actually really want it to be made in, like, the most, you know, professionalized, commercial capacity with incredible testing. And, that's something that that the big pharma companies generally are gonna do better than you could be ordering, you know, compounded Wegovy, and it's just some dude in in a random compounding pharmacy that could just be one room somewhere. It's just a license.
Speaker 2:Right? And he's just making this, putting it in, you know, a vial and shipping it off to you, and then you're just injecting this into your body. And so, generally, I think we want, patients and people that are using these drugs to have access to highly reliable, you know Yep. You know, intensely testing.
Speaker 1:Clear that the compounding, like I don't know. It's not even a loophole, but, like, the compounding pharmacy regulations were written for, hey. Your town might have a local pharmacist. And in a shortage, you should be able to walk down to the pharmacy, and they should be able to make you, you know, something that they can't otherwise buy. And then this was taken this law.
Speaker 1:It it's very similar to the de minimis loophole for Timu where it's like, no one thought that you could put $5,000,000,000 of product through one company through the compounding, like Yeah. Regulations. But the free market will always put it to the test. Yeah. How about, people are on hims and hers for mass monsters.
Speaker 1:What about, like, Chad's and Stacy's? Something like that. No.
Speaker 2:But I mean
Speaker 1:Just yeah. TRT. How about we?
Speaker 2:I'll tell you offline, but our our a friend of the show is making a a peptide,
Speaker 1:sort of,
Speaker 2:like, telemedicine type company. He's gonna send us some, and we're gonna inject it we're gonna inject it on the show.
Speaker 1:I don't know about that.
Speaker 2:So I'll inject it.
Speaker 1:Great natty. That. I think I wanna I think I wanna maintain my natty my natty status, but we'll see. Maybe if I get a terrible injury, I'll need to give that one a try. There's an interesting wrinkle in here.
Speaker 1:Once you have a large customer base, you essentially have a large voter base on your side, and they could demand regulatory changes, which explores, and so, while Uber disrupted the taxi industry, Hims and Hers is up against Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and the entire pharmaceutical and health insurance complex. And the law is pretty clear that when it comes to a shortage is when it when a shortage is deemed over, mass compounding can't continue. That's why Hims and Hers doesn't sell compounded versions of Zepbound. It may take a few more quarters, but Novo Nordisk will eventually produce enough supply to end the shortage of its drug. When that happens, despite their efforts to influence public opinion, compounded versions will likely be severely limited.
Speaker 1:So fascinating story. Very interesting use of a Super Bowl ad, drove a lot of contentious debate on the timeline. But
Speaker 2:Probably at the
Speaker 1:end of the day, it's like for
Speaker 2:probably good for business. I mean, I I I I knew some people starting, you know, weight loss telemedicine companies and, you know, roughly two years ago, and I was kinda short new entrance into telemedicine. But many of them, the demand is so significant, and there really is a shortage broadly of of these drugs that almost anybody that launched and had any type of quality operating experience, you know, and capabilities, like, did pretty well. So
Speaker 1:number of companies that that just rocketed And in general massive rounds.
Speaker 2:In general, HIMSS can HIMSS you know, the narrative for HIMSS to take the high road is to say, being fat is so unhealthy that we are willing to play in a gray market if it means helping more people lose weight.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And they they they do have there is a narrative to be like, you know, we are you you can hate what we're doing, but, you know, judge us based on our cuss on how our, like, you know, customers feel after using the product because the person that takes a hims and hers, you know, compounded version of one of these products and then loses 50 plus pounds, I guarantee you they they have positive feelings towards HIMSS. And so I don't think we'll know the sort of impact or if if HIMSS was good or bad
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Until we can see, like, you know, enough, customer and and patient outcome data.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I mean, just just thinking about it, like, from, like, a technologist future of the Internet thing, like, having a doctor that's available on your phone or your laptop over a Zoom call or a text message, that feels like something that will be real. And we've thought very narrowly about these companies early on as, like, this one just does ED. This one just does hair loss. This one, now they're doing two or three.
Speaker 1:But eventually, you you I mean, you could see a lot of young people don't have primary care doctors. They could effectively replace that. And then, hey. We need some blood work. Go here.
Speaker 1:Do this. We need we actually need you to go in and get a physical. We need to, like, you know, scan you or something. Go to this location. But for the basics, and just the prescriptions, it does seem like the future is some sort of online telemedicine that's not going away.
Speaker 1:And so, you know, hopefully, all the companies that are working on this can get through all the complicated regulations, play by the rules, and, win on product.
Speaker 2:And I saw somebody on x saying that, that HIMSS was a $1,000,000,000,000 company.
Speaker 1:I've seen that too. Hey. That's very funny. But maybe there's something there with, like, all of
Speaker 2:It's so
Speaker 1:care in one app or something. I don't know.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I mean, I think, it makes sense. You can make an argument that generally the neck the the next trillion dollar consumer company will be in health care. Yep. Is is it gonna be, is it gonna be HIMSS?
Speaker 2:No idea.
Speaker 1:Been a medical aggregator in that way. There are obviously massive hospital networks. There's massive drug companies, but there's never been anyone that succeeded in really aggregating all the market power where it's like, you know, if you need paper towels, you're gonna open up Amazon. And that has not been the case where it's like, if you need a refill on your medication, there's one place you go. Unclear how much of a winner take all market it is.
Speaker 1:Obviously, we'd have to be extremely monopolistic for there to be a trillion dollar outcome in the space. But, you know, exciting to watch it play out. I'm sure there'll be more drama in the future. We'll have to have TJ on. Maybe we'll have to have Andrew Dudemont, the CEO of, Hymns.
Speaker 1:Hear it from him.
Speaker 2:We gotta have we gotta have PVP debates on the show where we just take opposing views and let them let them duke it out. You know?
Speaker 1:Ready. I'm ready. Well, speaking of PVP, we got a post about PVP meme coins from Arjun Balaji. He says meme coins were once fun and pure, but the in but the industrialized trenches have turned a harmless PVP game into a predatory one dominated by insider edge. Traditional casino games and meme coins share a core design idea, a re a high return to player that masks a built in edge while delivering intermittent variable rewards to players.
Speaker 1:Traditional casino games like slots and blackjack offer high RTPs, 90 to 99%. Meaning, you might lose $1 in expectation of a hundred dollars of wagers. These games work because they leverage near miss effects and the gambler's fallacy, ensuring that the lure of a big win keeps you in the game even as you're bleeding bankroll. As I see it, the main issue with meme coins is gambling to game today is that they have moved away from their purest form to a fully industrialized version of the trenches. Initially, they function more like PVP slot machines.
Speaker 1:Most bets evaporate, but there's a small chance to graduate with a five to 25 x multiplier or even hit a jackpot level payout of a hundred to a thousand x when a when they temporarily become PVE. The thrill is from catching a runner or watching someone hit a massive win. Now only one to one and a half percent of pump fund launches graduate every day. I would guess nearly all of these are industrialized, authorized operated by sophisticated influencers and insiders, who launch them to their audiences with ever shortening half lives. The death knell for these games is when RTP drops so low that uninformed players have no chance to profit.
Speaker 1:Gamblers fallacy and social media can temporarily keep the game alive by spotlighting winners. Over time, if nearly all profits are captured by the house edge, the player pool is liable to dry up and destroys the original harmless PVP thrills that made the memes fun in the first place. What do you think about meme coins, Jordy?
Speaker 2:So funny funny anecdote. Jason Calacan has posted today, like, please ban these meme coins, at sccgov. And then, which is funny because you can't actually ban meme coins. Like, the the the the nature of them being just like code that runs on a blockchain Yeah. It just kinda means that that no matter what the government says, they can make it harder to on ramp funds.
Speaker 2:But even then, it's like there's enough, like, actual uses for crypto that it would be hard for the SEC to be like Coinbase. You know, you can't on ramp funds anymore. So cat's out of the bag. You know, it's not going back in. But the funny reaction to that is somebody immediately launched a token called, stupid effing meme coins.
Speaker 2:And then that went to, like, a multimillion dollar market cap and, like, immediately had a bunch of volume. So all it took is one post from Jason, and somebody used that as an opportunity to launch a token. So I
Speaker 1:told you this. You're you're you're gonna say, you know, not financial advice. Like, never buy meme tokens, and someone's gonna launch a meme coin called not financial advice or never launch meme token. Like, you can't even have fun with it, and that's what I really don't like about it. I I follow the what would your mother say rule.
Speaker 1:If you can't explain it to your mom and make her proud, you shouldn't be doing it. This applies to the language that you use, the vitriol that you bring to the timeline, as well as the pro projects that you launch. A lot of these meme coins are low class and vulgar, and we don't support them here on the show.
Speaker 2:Yeah. We will never launch a token at technology brothers. But going back to the original piece, I think it makes a lot of sense. The the whole you know, people are doing meme coins for two kind of real reasons. It's, like, very much an entertainment thing.
Speaker 2:Right? Like, gambling is entertainment. There's, like, this social entertainment, exhilarating element to it of I might win a lot of money. But as, you know, as more and more of these, you know, in the same you know, basically, meme coins incentivize groups of people to coordinate against groups of other people. So it's PVP.
Speaker 2:It's can be one on one, but then it ends up being, you know, small groups of, there's been a lot of pressure under under a on a group called the the LA vape cabal, which is a group, loosely led by somebody named, Faze Banks, who was, like, a famous, know, gaming, Yeah. You know, part of the Faze Clan, which I think Faze Clan was, like, publicly traded or maybe
Speaker 1:stacked. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Still is. I gotta see if they're still at it. But, yeah, let's see.
Speaker 1:There oh. The brand still lives on even though the stock's down.
Speaker 2:Wait. No. They're they I think they're at they're at a $14,000,000 market cap, and you can't they were delisted, it looks like.
Speaker 1:Delisted, but they still do different content creators that join their collective, essentially.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So, anyways, you, solicited as $0 on public. But, but, anyways, so so there's been a lot of pressure on them. They had the Hawkgua girl.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:They, like, went on their podcast, and then people were saying that they were sort of doing insider trading against that. So Yep. Overall, like, it feels like they're, again, the president launched a meme coin. So and and it it's just sort of like code that's out there running. It's not going back in the bag, but I don't, edit what what Arjun is basically saying is, like, unless you let the average player make some money sometimes, like, people are gonna stop playing the game.
Speaker 2:Right? So it's possible that, it's possible that this thing becomes it feels more likely that, like, it needs to find some independent equilibrium versus, like, the government solution to me. But who knows? It's a wild, wild space.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I don't know. I mean, we kinda went through this with the NFT boom. I'm surprised we're going through it again. I thought we learned our lessons there, but people keep going for this stuff.
Speaker 2:We can't stop gambling Americans. It is funny. It is interesting to think. You know, OpenSea at one point was a 14 or $15,000,000,000 company. Like, I'm sure if they raise money now, it'd be a tiny fraction of that.
Speaker 2:It's very possible the same thing happens to to pump fun, and, they end up at a point where, you know, people, you know, people just say, eventually get so burned, like, people got on NFTs where they're sitting there. They're like, I have a picture in my wallet that I paid $20,000 for.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And I don't wanna play this game anymore because I'm not having fun. So, we'll we'll see what happens, but one thing's for sure, gambling always finds a way. So
Speaker 1:Well, you know what else always finds a way? The consultants. Let's go to Rohit Mittal. He says Accenture had $1,200,000,000 in new bookings related to generative AI, and it has 69,000 people working in data and AI. Very funny number.
Speaker 1:69,000 people who don't know anything about AI are helping the largest US companies with navigating the fast changing AI world, one of the biggest griffs in the world. I don't know about that. I mean, you can get up to speed on some of this stuff. A lot of it's just like, hey. You're a massive company.
Speaker 1:Do you have a chat GPT enterprise pro like, subscription yet? Because maybe your peoples could benefit from using chat GPT more regularly. Like, some of the transformation stuff's so basic, and it can drive a lot of a lot of, shareholder value if you're just improving. Everyone's, like, just going in and saying like, the recommendation from some of these companies might be like, hey. Go install Devon.
Speaker 1:Go get Cognition. And, like, hey. You know? Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1:You just have an extra developer, and the ROI on that contract is positive. And they it's crazy to think because you think you would just go on x and figure it out yourself. But if you're a massive company and you need to pay Accenture to tell you this or put it together in a deck or or do all the implementation stuff on what's the legal implications. How does this fit in our organization? So I I understand where he's coming from with the grift idea, but not not fully convinced, actually.
Speaker 1:What do you think?
Speaker 2:Yeah. I mean, the yeah. Totally. I mean, one, it feels absurd, but this has always been the business of consulting. There's a new technological trend, and then they ride that trend in order to drive, you know, bookings and and new demand for their services.
Speaker 2:I have talked with people in the past about, you know, there's a totally a possibility to build the AI Accenture that helps people use AI. So, like, basically, like Yeah. Agents as consultants that are internal at companies sort of helping, employees better leverage AI tools in the business. Because if, for example, you had an employee with this basically some screen capture all day long, and it was just analyzing what you're doing all day and saying almost like clippy style, like, hey. Did you know that you could, like, you know, use this automation or or things like that?
Speaker 2:So, I don't know. I think companies wouldn't be spending the money if they didn't feel like there was some value. Sometimes the value of consulting services is so executives can just say, hey. We have an AI strategy that we're working on with Accenture, and they're experts. Right?
Speaker 2:They're paid to be experts, and the value is not necessarily the actual results they drive in the business. It's value to the management teams to be able to say that they have things under control if they're not. But, again, I would look at this as, like, you know, if I was, like, in college right now, I would be learning how to use these new AI tools and reaching out to legacy companies that maybe aren't in the target market of Accenture because they're smaller. But reaching out to 10 to $50,000,000 a year businesses and saying, I will help you use AI better in this part of your business, or I will help your developers use AI tools to be more efficient. Right?
Speaker 2:So if Accenture's booking, you know, 1,200,000,000.0, for their Gen AI work, a college student should be able to print $10.20 k a month just helping other, you know, similar businesses better leverage AI. So we've talked about this on the show before. That's that's the new version of I will help you to use Google AdWords, or I will help you to run meta ads, or I will help you do social media management. Like, that is the opportunity on the ground. And so we had somebody in the audience ask, we had somebody in the audience ask, Green Gorilla says, brothers, what advice do you have for new college grads?
Speaker 2:What industries companies do you see the most upside in joining? You were 22 or 23 today. What would you do? And, yeah. I mean, one is just, like, whatever you're doing, don't wait to join a company to learn how to use these tools.
Speaker 2:Like, just spend eighteen hours a day, learning how to use these products, sharing your work, on x is a good start, and then go you know, there's so many companies right now, more so than than five years ago where you can go and have that company go from $5,000,000 of ARR to, you know, a hundred in a very short period of time. So, but, again, there's still there's also opportunities with these legacy businesses to go in and say, I'm gonna, find find a a somebody with a $50,000,000 annual business and show them how you can replace, you know, a hundred thousand dollars a month of of payroll by, like, leveraging AI properly in the organization. So
Speaker 1:Yeah. I mean, that's a great take. Long Lake is doing that with HOAs. There's already companies doing that at larger scales with private equity buyouts. No reason that a young person couldn't start an amazing consulting business today.
Speaker 1:I love that take. I think that's a very good very good advice for young people. Let's move on to a post from Inpatient Ventures. This is an older post, but I wanted to highlight it just to give the audience a little bit more background on our friends, over at bezel. They raised an $8,000,000 seed round.
Speaker 1:Of course, we've talked about bezel before. It's a watch marketplace for buying luxury watches. We're huge fans of watches here. We're gonna be doing a Valentine's Day gift guide. Lots of good stuff on bezel that you could pick up for the loved one.
Speaker 1:But, the seed round was stacked. They got John legend, Kevin Hart, Steve Aoki, Michael Ovis, Michael Rubin, so many good, celebrities in there. Tons of, great VC firms, liquidity capital, box group, shrug, abstract ventures, lots of lots of great VCs in there. And just wanted to let the audience know, Bezel is here to stay. They're making money.
Speaker 1:They've raised money. It's a solid company, and we love what they do. And, I'm I'm quickly becoming addicted to the app.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's funny that that you, you pulled this post from impatient too because the GP of impatient, Jack was in the chat, on the live away. He was in the chat.
Speaker 1:Amazing. He
Speaker 2:said, I don't use social media until now. Now I'm a brother lover. And, sent sent from the sauna at the standard Miami. So Fantastic. See it.
Speaker 2:I love the
Speaker 1:standard Miami.
Speaker 2:Rip rip a fun rip a fundraising announcement, and then just go hit go hit the standard. That's great. And, yeah. Crazy crazy lineup. They basically got all the most watched obsessed celebrities in the world into a single round.
Speaker 2:And best part about it, all those celebrities were marking me up. I got in at the prior round. I got in the prior round. So thank you for the markup, John legend. That's brother behavior right there.
Speaker 2:So,
Speaker 1:that's great. Well, here's a very random post, bit of a bucket poll, but I wanted to highlight it in the show. It's from Young, content creator on YouTube. He does mostly politics. I find him very entertaining.
Speaker 1:He has a series of videos describing online politics through the lens of league of legends, and they're wildly entertaining. Even if you don't know that much about league of legends, you can watch these and understand how all of the different groups and sub formations of how Jordan Peterson and Candace Owens work together and how Hassan Piker and Bernie Sanders work together. Fascinating content creator, love him. And he says, I am assembling a loyal cult cult following, and it's a screenshot of a comment, comment on his YouTube channel. Says, at this point, I only watch because it's kind of fascinating to see how far someone can get as a political commentator who refuses to read the news or learn anything about politics.
Speaker 1:I love that. Amazing. Life of a political commentator. That's the life of every, of every, content creator. You just go out there and you rip the vibes and some people like it and some people hate it.
Speaker 1:But, we love Young, and, we gotta have him on the show. If we ever get into politics, he'd be a great guest.
Speaker 2:But No. And we He's
Speaker 1:he's a
Speaker 2:very funny,
Speaker 1:fun guy.
Speaker 2:Somebody somebody posted yesterday, that they posted a meme responding to Luke Metro, and it was it was the
Speaker 1:I saw this.
Speaker 2:It was a cycle meme. I'm just Yep. Oh, I gotta
Speaker 1:You're fine.
Speaker 2:Hold it way up there. But he says, I look for tech podcast. I find an interesting podcast. Downloads go up with politics. It becomes all political slop, and then I look for tech tech podcast again.
Speaker 2:So
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:I'm going out, to say, to Elias that, who posted this, that we're gonna hold the line, for you strictly tech and business forever. It's on record. We never discuss politics. And Decades from
Speaker 1:now, we're still covering tech earnings, baby. We're still gonna be covering tech earnings.
Speaker 2:I genuinely that. Am not qualified to discuss politics, and your views are just too extreme to to talk about without
Speaker 1:Both both of our views far too extreme for
Speaker 2:Yeah. It would piss off it would piss off everyone.
Speaker 1:Everyone. Everyone on both sides of the aisle actually.
Speaker 2:We can't share we can't share anything.
Speaker 1:Be too rough. So we gotta we gotta stay away from it. But, yes, I mean, that meme is pointing out a a real phenomenon, which is that, the addressable market, the tam of tech content just isn't that big. And, I mean, even though acquired has not become a politics show, they have gone out of tech. Originally, they were doing acquisitions in tech.
Speaker 1:They would tell you, like, the story of Google Maps getting bought or the story of Instagram getting bought. That's why it was called acquired. Then it became the history of Facebook, the history of Google, the history of Microsoft. But then they went over and did LVMH and Porsche and Mercedes and and all these just amazing firms. And they've and they've graduated out of that and become a broader show.
Speaker 1:And now I think of them as just a great business show. They still haven't gone full politics. But at a certain point, you just run out of tech content. And so you gotta, you gotta add in some other spice. Fortunately, we have discovered a hack, which is instead of talking about politics, we talk about luxury goods.
Speaker 1:So Yeah. So the the this might this might, go down, and we stop talking about tech, and we're just talking about, sports cars, what happened in f one, the the latest news in horse breeding. But we won't be talking about politics. That's for sure.
Speaker 2:Okay.
Speaker 1:But we will be derailed.
Speaker 2:A little little alpha for for the listeners. So John and I, maybe we mentioned this on the show. We're exploring getting our own racehorse. So I I don't think I even told you this yet, John, but tomorrow, we have a call set up with a guy who specializes in in helping acquire racehorses. So, very you know, this could just become a horse podcast.
Speaker 2:And in that case, it'd be cool because then we'd have just tech journalists come on the show.
Speaker 1:Exactly.
Speaker 2:They could talk about tech, and we would just be constantly trying to talk about horses and it'd be
Speaker 1:this Yep. Yep.
Speaker 2:Dynamic where they're like, what are you guys? You're the technology brothers, but you only wanna talk about the the the the, you know, prepping for the Derby. You know? Yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Exactly. And everyone will be like, oh, I missed when it was a tech show. Now they just talk about horses. Oh, no.
Speaker 1:It's all horse content. There's too horse filled. Like, they just wanna go back to the old days. The old episodes are so good. Well, that's the way the cookie crumbles, folks.
Speaker 1:You know? We might get derailed. Who knows? But not today because we're still talking about tech and we have an update breaking news for Mateo over at Eight Sleep. He says sleep fitness is taking over the world and the Eight Sleep Pod is now available in Mexico.
Speaker 1:So if you're listening from Mexico, go buy an eight sleep pod by ten right now. Code TBPN. I think that's our code, but Yeah. We love eight sleep. I have been crushing it.
Speaker 1:Got a hundred, sleep score. My first two nights ago, Let's see what I did last night. It was a little rough. Oh, 100. Let's go.
Speaker 1:I got another 100. Sunday, one hundred. Monday, 97. Tuesday, 100. Seven hours and 40 four minutes of sleep.
Speaker 1:I'm feeling great.
Speaker 2:That's great. Here's the issue with with the issue with sleep is most people overestimate how much they're actually sleeping.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:You think that you're you think you're getting, you know, your eight hours because you were in bed, but it's like, oh, well, maybe you didn't fall asleep for forty minutes or you woke up at some point in the night. So, I'm excited. We we're gonna be announcing, some some big news on PMF or Die and kickoff soon, but, I got, the players set up, in the space yesterday, and we're getting pods for them. So they'll be sleeping sleeping like, sleeping like babies, which I'm excited for.
Speaker 1:Sick.
Speaker 2:And, Yeah.
Speaker 1:What else we got?
Speaker 2:I mean, let's just jump in. We we got a post from Delian.
Speaker 1:Oh, yeah. We got some breaking news from Delian. Delian broke the news on this. Google Maps has updated, that big body of water South Of Louisiana. Is now called the Gulf Of America.
Speaker 1:And, honestly, I've honestly forgotten what it was called before. I I I don't remember it as anything but the Gulf Of America. I've been call Gulf Of Texas, I guess, but now we've expanded it to the Gulf Of America. But I'm very happy to see it. It's very cool that Google hopped on the train.
Speaker 1:They didn't fight it. They said, look. If it's gonna be the Gulf Of America, if that's what the people want, it's the Gulf Of America. Little bit of a mouthful. I don't know how long it'll stick around.
Speaker 2:I wonder if it's
Speaker 1:gonna be one of those things that goes back and forth. We we, you know, Democrat wins in 2028 and boom, it's back to something else.
Speaker 2:It it's funny because it it seems like a political issue, but it should we should all be united around it. It's like, hey. This is massive body of what like, I didn't know I didn't know that The US had the authority to write executive orders to get, you know, bodies of water renamed, but, it's it's a pretty you know, one, if Mexico tries to make some, you know, international effort to rename it the Gulf Of Mexico Yeah. I think Trump would basically say, like, 50% tariffs on all goods coming in from Mexico until you Yeah. Tell you, you know, just accept the Gulf Of America g of a, for those of us that that say it, you know, frequently.
Speaker 2:But,
Speaker 1:I think this is the start of something great. I I I think we gotta take this renaming much further. New England patriots, we're dropping the new. It's just the England patriots. England, you're Old England now.
Speaker 1:You're not you're not just England. You're Old England.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Or we have England now.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:I don't want that. I don't want that. Also, Greenland, Iceland, it's always been confusing. Greenland's the icy one. Iceland's the green one.
Speaker 1:Let's flip those names around. Let's switch it. Yeah. I want, I wanna rename those. Let's go around.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I'll, we'll just clean up the whole taxonomy. Any, any weird names out there you're on notice. If your country name doesn't make sense, we're renaming you. If your body of water doesn't make sense, we're gonna rename you.
Speaker 1:It's gonna happen. Yeah. We got the keys to the kingdom here. Delian's gonna make it happen over at Google and, the Google maps. So you better take some screenshots now.
Speaker 1:Cause it's gonna look completely different in a couple months. Anyway, let's move on to Kyle over at wander. We got a post from him, his pin post, a banger from 2019. Just trying to give you some more color on who this guy is. Kyle, he runs wander company.
Speaker 1:We partner with talked about them on the show before. They have wonderful rental homes, beautiful rental homes. You gotta go scroll the feed for Wander and see what's available. It's really amazing. Some of the greatest homes.
Speaker 1:People are saying it's fantastic homes, folks. They're saying it was fantastic. And so he says underappreciated phenomenon, working at a high growth margin focused startup is a real life MBA where you get paid 6 figures plus equity to learn how to build a business instead of paying 6 figures to go into debt and learning how to do how to build a theoretical one. Absolute banger. Five k likes.
Speaker 1:I can see why he got so much love on this post, and that really just, gives you a little insight into how they're building this business. They are high growth, but they're also, margin focused. Every dollar matters in this business because Yep. When you pay, you know, couple hundred bucks, couple thousand bucks to rent a wander, they have to pass a lot of that cost on to the person, the renter. Right?
Speaker 1:They only take a fee. They're a marketplace. Remember? And they don't own a lot of their inventory or I I think very much of any of their inventory at this point in the future. It it will be a marketplace business.
Speaker 1:And so, you know, he's obviously learned as they've been assembling the plane as they're flying it and, you know, gotten the real life MBA and it shows because the business is ripping.
Speaker 2:Well said. Well said. Well said.
Speaker 1:Well, let's move on to some more geopolitics, geography news. We never talk about politics, but Germany is in shambles again. EU regulators think it's too dangerous to simply break a bottle across the bow of a new ship. Instead, they insist on the use of this contraption. This is why the European Union is failing.
Speaker 1:This is economist, economy minister Habak flailing. And, we can't show the video. We're still working on it, but, the guy is absolutely hammering this with this champagne bottle, I guess, across the bow of the ship with this very awkward can contraption. And, Joe Lonsdale says, sad metaphor for overregulated Europe in 2025. Five k banger.
Speaker 1:We love to see it. Very funny. Very funny. Very odd. I don't know why they're using this.
Speaker 2:Apologies apologies follow-up too from another angle. And he goes, you switched the screen, Ben, so I can't see it. He says He
Speaker 1:says, eventually it just does it the old way, and it and it works a metaphor there.
Speaker 2:Metaphor there.
Speaker 1:I love it. Yeah. So, Germany, we put you on notice weeks ago when we talked about your your your crumbling economy. We told you, you gotta stop reading out all of the documents during a financing close. That's unacceptable.
Speaker 1:That's un American. Germany is a very un American country, and you're on notice. So
Speaker 2:Start doing deals start doing deals the old fashioned way on a napkin. We've been
Speaker 1:thinking about napkins. Yeah. Huge napkin with an Excel sheet printed on it. That's the way
Speaker 2:we do it. Deal on there.
Speaker 1:You can map out a full DCF, multiple sheets, but it's gotta be done on a napkin and closed over a text message. Let's move on to John Arnold with a fantastic story about Enron, the real Enron, not these Enron imposters who are selling scam cryptocurrency, but the old Enron energy traders from the Texas based company that went bankrupt in around the turn of the millennium. He says, I can confirm this story from Brit Bern Hobart, as head trader for at Enron when it failed when when it when it filed for bankruptcy, I received many calls from firms that were recruiting. I was busy trying to close out the trading book and wanted to take some time to decide my future, so I didn't take any meetings. But Citadel was by far the most aggressive.
Speaker 1:Other companies set up few interviews with Enron senior people. Citadel interviewed seemingly everyone in the trading operation, all functions at all levels. Citadel's team called me twice, but I declined to meet. It wasn't it was apparent to me that their intent was to reverse engineer the business, and I wasn't gonna help them. They knew that people looking for a job, particularly if they didn't have a fiduciary responsibility to a current employer, would be very free with info.
Speaker 1:Interview everyone, and you get a three sixty perspective of the industry, how the business makes money, its competitive edge, who the best employees are, etcetera. Citadel probably interviewed several hundred Enron employees. In the end, they may be hired five. Much more importantly, they built the framework for how to enter the energy business, which as Ken notes, has been an enormous success. I eventually did talk with Citadel.
Speaker 1:On their third call to me, they asked if I would talk with Ken directly. I was at the airport heading to Aspen for a quick industry event. Legendary. I didn't know Ken personally, but had great respect for what he built. So I told this rep he could call me when I got back to Houston the following week.
Speaker 1:She said great, but called back a few minutes later with a question. If Ken flew to Aspen to meet me in person the next day, would I? Out of respect, I said, of course. The next day, I had a great meeting with him, and later that week, he offered me a job as head gas trader. I wanted to fully run an operation and thought there was more upside if I could have my own fund, so I declined.
Speaker 1:I ended up building my own firm, starting with traders, and hiring deep fundamentals expertise. Citadel started with the research as is their DNA and built up a trading operation around it. Both models worked fabulously well. I came away from the experience with an even deeper respect for both Ken and Citadel and remain friends with him to this day. I started with a niche gas trading, built a niche fund, and burnt out after seventeen years.
Speaker 1:Ken started with a niche convert arb and built one of the most successful financial firms ever and has never tired. And and and Amazing. Quote image here is, yeah. You Jordy, what you got?
Speaker 2:No. I mean, just amazing amazing story that that gives, insight into just how savage a firm like Citadel is. You don't get you don't get to to be that impactful and that large by simply being a good investor. It's or or being, you know, smart or making, you know, some great trades. It there's a level of professionalism and just execution in that industry where in venture capital, you can kind of sit on your hands.
Speaker 2:And and if you're at a good firm, you'll meet most of the best founders. And if you do one good deal every couple years, you can make a great career out of that. And that's just, like, not how it works in in the hedge fund world. You will get absolutely lapped by a a firm that, you know, many of these firms are playing PVP, and they will send an army out, you know, in a situation situation like Enron and just use that as an opportunity to launch a new business line and basically just completely mine, mine Enron for all of their alpha and the sort of basically the dying days and and the sort of, you know, during the funeral, basically. So absolutely absolutely savage, and I'm glad that story had, you know, a happy ending, and that sounds like he, you know, was able to do well, independently.
Speaker 2:And, yeah, it's it's cool to see.
Speaker 1:Yep. Couple couple takeaways from me. I mean, first is that, like, a lot of people know Enron just as a fraud, and they think about it like a Theranos fraud where there was never really a product that worked, and that's just not true. Enron had multiple business lines that were doing phenomenally. Their gas trading business, energy trading, a lot of that was going well.
Speaker 1:They just cooked the books and had this accounting scandal, and we're doing this crazy mark to market thing. And there's, like, all this, crazy accounting cycles. We'll have to do a whole deep dive on Enron. But, there there were some super talented people there that went on to do great things in other financial institutions. And Ken clearly, was able to extract the signal from the noise and understand that certain pieces of the business, you wouldn't wanna touch with a 10 foot pole, probably the accounting department.
Speaker 1:But there were plenty of part pieces of the business that were running, like like, super tight ships and creating a ton of financial alpha and going and getting that alpha and those secrets was incredibly valuable. A lot of these firms, they trade on some secret strategy, some insights, some flow, not nothing illegal, just a different pattern of pricing, a a a commodity or a stock. Maybe they have a different strategy. Maybe it's highly quantitative. Maybe it's highly qualitative.
Speaker 1:Maybe they're doing a ton of research. There's hedge funds that are buying satellite data, for example, to understand, oh, if there's this many cars in the Walmart parking lot, Walmart's gonna beat earnings. They Yeah. Yeah. Everyone has a different strategy.
Speaker 1:That's an obvious one, but there's a million that are subtle and those are hidden within firms. And if you can get the guy who knows that secret, when his firm's collapsing, you're just gonna be able to take all that alpha Yeah. You got.
Speaker 2:Yeah. The the the I always love the example of, like, using satellite data and, like, developing your own, data sources to better better price, bets, and and that's the kind of thing you just don't VCs never do that.
Speaker 1:Like Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2:General. There would be more stories about them being like, yeah. I went to, the competitor. I sat outside the competitor's office, or I paid somebody to sat sit outside the competitor's office and and realize that, you know, x y z company had a very flexible remote policy. And so I decided to go all in on, you know, their competitor who was, like, in person.
Speaker 2:You know, maybe they're they're looking at some of that same information, but it's not as much of a it's more of, like, a positive sum game, and there's more risk. You know? Not not necessarily more risk, but there's more just sort of lock and patience required that, there's not maybe the same information arbitrage or it's just not as serious of an industry. Yeah.
Speaker 1:When I worked at Citadel, I remember this hilarious story where, you you know the, the weather reporter on the local news. They always say, let's go to the doppler 5,000. We got a doppler radar system. We're gonna tell you, oh, there's a cold front coming in here. It's gonna rain on Tuesday, that type of stuff.
Speaker 1:And one of the one of the weather traders who's essentially trying to determine how much rainfall there's gonna be and that will affect crop yields and then crop prices so you can trade the commodities based on the weather report is like, yeah, their their weather system, their Doppler radar, that's like a Honda Civic. We have a Ferrari here. And Yeah. They could predict the weather much better than local news. And you think about the weather report as, like, the most authoritative source because it is is just a random consumer of weather news, but the hedge funds have it way more dialed, way more dialed.
Speaker 1:And there's a million little micro areas where they figure out one market edge and then exploit the the, you know, that 1% margin all the way up to the full market size. This is the original story of Ken Griffin. I mean, he found that convertible debt was was there was this massive arbitrage that was available. He completely mined it, but then completely capped out on the size of the market because, he basically brought convertible debt. He he arbitraged all the value out.
Speaker 1:So is it correctly priced? He had to scale up into other strategies, and that's where the quant side came from. That's where the global macro side came from, and he eventually built a very insane, huge firm. And then that doesn't even take into account Citadel Securities with the market maker, and it's such a bigger company now. And at one point, he was doing an investment bank.
Speaker 1:He was thinking about going public. It it was a crazy story. But anyway, fascinating story and a good lesson there that even in chaos, go get the good people because, not everyone is a disaster when the ship is sinking.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I wonder if anybody did that when when Bolt was basically imploding. You know, I'm sure I'm sure they were getting,
Speaker 1:I think Stripe did, actually. Yeah.
Speaker 2:I think
Speaker 1:Stripe went and put some people out.
Speaker 2:But but not as aggressive as, like, going and camping out outside, you know, the office, basically.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:So
Speaker 1:Well, it's different because the the the thing with, like I'm sure Bolt had some great engineers. You put those people to work on Stripe's core business. They're gonna drive some value. It's very different when there's, like, one key insight at this hedge fund that's delivering, you know, a billion dollars of profit if it's run effectively or a hundred million dollars of profit or something like that. And it really goes to this, this idea Ben Thompson was writing about in his, his, I think, his Monday piece about how OpenAI's chat g p t deep research is a fantastic product, but it is fundamentally flawed in some ways in that it's it only has access to the Internet.
Speaker 1:And so if you run a report from Deep Research on an industry where there are secrets, there are firms that no one knows about because maybe there's a big player in, the or in the industry that barely even has a website, but they're actually really important. And you know them by reputation if you actually operate in that industry, but there's just nothing about them on online. Deep research just completely miss it.
Speaker 2:This was, an example there around industry secrets. It's not even secrets. It's just, like, operating know how. When when the whole creator economy boom was happening in sort of 2020, '20 '20 '1, I had been working with creators through Branded Native, my first company, and and literally paying millions of dollars to creators. And so I would get pitched these ideas, and I'm like, yeah.
Speaker 2:That's a good idea, and it totally makes sense if you've never worked with creators.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:And and and so I I didn't end up investing in any of those companies because I just knew fundamentally that they weren't gonna they just weren't gonna work. And so you have this this happens. Tech, the the the good thing about tech and a lot of great companies come out of this is you have people that are talented and smart, but without industry experience will come into a new industry and, you know, basically completely change it, upend it, disrupt it by just having a fresh point of view and and and thinking, what if we just, like, did, you know, did this from first principles or whatever whatever their approach is? And for as many, like, success stories as there are, there's a bunch of, you know, low profile failures that happens when, you know, people that, you know, apply that sort of startup mentality. Like, I'm gonna come into this industry with no experience and and disrupt it.
Speaker 2:And and the situation with Ken, he was like, I'm gonna come in and and take over this market or compete in this market, but I'm gonna do that by downloading as, like, hundreds, thousands, in this case, thousands of hours of interviews where they're just grilling people on exactly what they did, how do they win, where where you know, what what aspects of the business were really making money, who was who were the top performers, and then just drilling them, you know, drilling them even more. So, anyways, lot a lot of learnings from that.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Fantastic story. We'll have to do deep dive on Ken, Citadel, and Enron and so many more things. So stay tuned. Yeah.
Speaker 1:I'm sure there'll be tons more content. We will probably we get some travel tomorrow, some board meetings tomorrow, so we might be on later. We might skip, but, we will see you guys later this week and please leave us a five star review, apple podcasts, Spotify. Please leave it on both. It really helps the show.
Speaker 1:And when you do leave an ad for your company, a company you like something funny. Just write a bunch of stuff in the comment with your five star review. We'll read it live on the show.
Speaker 2:We got one review I'll just read right now. From c five one eight three on Apple Podcast, he says, rare combination of funny and educational TB combines acquired caliber research with a solid amount of humor and self awareness, which you don't get many places. It's poised to become red scares for guys who wanna show you their deck. Couldn't have said it better. Couldn't have said better.
Speaker 1:The exact idea I had. Yeah.
Speaker 2:That that actually yeah. You actually nailed it. That was that was
Speaker 1:Literally said that.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And I didn't even know what Red Scare was at the time. Yeah. And you were like, look at it. This is what we're doing.
Speaker 2:So
Speaker 1:Format wise?
Speaker 2:The only the only critique of, the only critique of, that review is there's no ad in it. So I'm kind of feel a little bit
Speaker 1:Much like Red Scare. They don't run ads, and the business could be so much better. Anna and Dasha get it together. You wouldn't need to launch a coin, Dasha, if you just ran some ads.
Speaker 2:There you go. There you go.
Speaker 1:Anyway I'll have to go. For watching. We appreciate you guys. Stay safe out there. We'll see you on the timeline.
Speaker 1:Have a great day.