The Twenty Minute VCOpenAI & SpaceX S1 Drops | Layoffs at Cloudflare & ClickUp | OpenRouter & Polsia Raise Mega Rounds
EVERY SPOKEN WORD
95 min read · 18,609 words- 0:00 – 1:40
Intro
- RORory O’Driscoll
I can't remember where corporate America was so convinced of the ROI of something as it is right now of AI. So Anthropic has done as much in Q1 as all of last year, and OpenAI has done 30% of what they've done last year in Q1. Within a couple of quarters, Anthropic will be visibly and obviously ahead, profitable, growing more quickly and bigger. That's Pareto dominant are all three vectors.
- HSHarry Stebbings
This week, starting off, OpenAI confidentially files their S1. What does this mean for Anthropic's plans to go public? SpaceX then drops theirs, the largest IPO in history. Anthropic then hits $44BN in ARR and laps OpenAI in revenue, and then Nvidia print $81.6BN in revenue and the market yawns. Then layoffs, ClickUp and more.
- JLJason Lemkin
It could be the GeoCities deal of the AI era. We could look back on this, and listen, I'm on Team Elon, okay? But 100 times trailing sales, we may look back and say, "These were some good companies," but 100 times, my God.
- RORory O’Driscoll
I love the S1. But I think it's all madness. I wouldn't buy a share. I just love the optimism.
- JLJason Lemkin
It's SolarCity on steroids, and we're all here for it because we love AI, but it makes no sense.
- RORory O’Driscoll
The cliche, the picks and shovels of the agentic revolution is just a good place to be investing.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Ready to go? [upbeat music] Boys, I am so excited for this. Um, I have to admit, I was wondering where we start given the sheer amount of news that came out in the last few days. Jason, you replied to me on email like, "Oh, not, not that much this week." I'm like, if this isn't much, I'm glad we do the show today and not three, four years ago-
- RORory O’Driscoll
[laughs]
- HSHarry Stebbings
... 'cause, Jesus, Nvidia,
- 1:40 – 7:15
Nvidia Blowout Quarter: $81BN Revenues and Stock… Flat!
- HSHarry Stebbings
I-- we gotta start with Nvidia. $81.6BN revenue quarter, $91BN Q2 guidance, $80BN buyback, and after all of that, the stock barely moved. How did you guys analyze Nvidia's quarter, the stock not moving? Help me understand.
- RORory O’Driscoll
I mean, let's do the trivial bit. First of all, I think you forgot the most compelling number, right? It's not the $81BN in revenue, which is pretty damn compelling. It's the 50-something billion in profits, which makes it the most profitable company on the planet. 'Cause typically, Google clocks in around 100 to $120BN now a year, right? These guys in a quarter made 50 billion plus, 56 billion of profits. So that's-- if that were continued all year and there was some non-recurring stuff, that's $200BN of profit a year. That actually to me was the big ass compelling number, right? So first just to point out, it's not just a great revenue business growing at 80%, it's a wildly profitable operating margin business, right? And then the second thing to your point about what it make, you know, you, you kind of were whining about the stock on the day and, you know, honestly, don't look at the stock on the day. The big picture is over the last 12 month, I mean, uh, the last six, nine months, the stock's up 20%. I mean, it's-- basically it had a one-off jump whenever, you know, from '23 on, when everyone just totally internalized in the space of a year the amount of spend that would take place in AI CapEx and it, you know, gapped up and it got to 140, 150 about a year, a year and a half ago. And since then it's, you know, it's just grown more steadily, 'cause even though the news is amazing, it's-- what you gotta ask yourself, the stock moves not on the total news, but on the delta news. So they beat slightly. It's gone up slightly over six months, but I wouldn't look at the day's movement. I look overall. The, the big picture comment is a year, a year and a half ago, it was a credible question to ask, is this CapEx thing sustainable? And I remember a-asking it myself. I even, shock horror, priced Nvidia puts to say at 140, 150, is this thing done? And I decided that would be a dumb bet, and thank God I did. Because here we are a year later, you know, the company continues to grow at 80%. The stock doesn't grow at 80% 'cause stock markets anticipate. So about a year and a half ago, the stock grew three, 4X, and now it's kind of growing at 20%. What it's saying here is, "This is great. This is amazing. We trade at a mid-20s PE. We kinda think this is really cool, but we're not sure it's gonna 5X in terms of growth from here," so it kinda all makes sense. The market's pretty happy with Nvidia right now.
- JLJason Lemkin
Well, may-maybe just two thought. For sure, that's a good summary. Um, one is, I think in today's market, uh, not falling after your quarter is a, is a strong sign, because the markets are expecting insane growth, right? They're expecting, uh -- And so this growth was just what we expected. It's just good enough. And, uh, I'm not being facetious, especially when Nvidia's 77% of all of our 401 [k] s. Of like, it's not just, it's not just a niche stock. It's not even just us. It's 7% of all Americans' life savings are essentially in Nvidia this morning with concentration. You know, we're all in, you know, S&P 500 and VTI inversions, so everyone's on board with, whether they realize it or not, everyone's on board with Nvidia, right? When Nvidia falls, we all fall with 7% of our life savings. Um, we're all, we're all living, we're all AI investors, whether we re-re-realize it or not, but it's so hard. Like, you gotta beat, raise, and accelerate. Like, that's the mantra today, beat, raise, and ex... B-R-A. And so j- even just trading flat, I'm all for it. Like, that's a good, that's a, [laughs] that's a good quarter.
- RORory O’Driscoll
AI CapEx is gonna be about $100BN this year. You look at it and go, most of the time, GPUs are 50% of total CapEx, $400BN. Nvidia has pretty commanding market share, not alone, but that probably says, you know, that Nvidia business, no surprise, is a $300BN a year run rate, and there it is at $320BN. When you look at the, the announcements of the hyperscalers last y- week, you kinda know what they're gonna do this week in Nvidia. It's plus or minus 2%. So we're really dealing with small numbers, and at that point, I think market reaction is in the noise.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Jensen Huang said this week, sorry, on AI CapEx infrastructure spend that we'd reach three to $4 trillion by 2030. Do you think that is an extrapolation, over-exaggeration, or can you feasibly see that happening?
- RORory O’Driscoll
2030Um, let's just do the-- uh, and let's just do the quick math here, and what does it mean f- uh, uh, as Harry always says, what does it mean for... If we just use the same idiot guideline of fifty percent of twenty-- two, what did you say, two to three trillion? That would be one and a half trillion of total semiconductor CapEx. That would be, uh, and let's just say at that point there were only seventy percent market share because t- yeah, training and all the other bullshit. That's roughly a trillion dollars in revenue from three hundred now. Hmm. I don't think the market-- I mean, brutal comment. I don't think the market's quite anticipating that, to say the least. Extrapolating the past gets you there. Extrapolating the growth rate of the last three or four years gets you there. But I think the million, not the million-dollar, the sixty-four-trillion-dollar question is: Does that co- growth continue, or do you start to hit not technical constraints, obviously, but economic constraints? Is, is the ROI, is the ROI there economically on the next two trillion dollars? To go from roughly a trillion dollars of CapEx right now to three trillion dollars, which is what he's saying it'll happen in, in, um, it's now shockingly only four more years. There has to be an ROI on that next, you know, on that next two trillion, and I think that's the question.
- 7:15 – 24:01
Uber and Microsoft Declare Productivity Gains Questionable from AI
- JLJason Lemkin
Well, the Uber COO says no, right? The Uber COO says there's n- there's h- we've reached, we've alr- and, and, and if they're not talking their own game, even Microsoft allegedly moving off Anthropic to saying it's too expensive to use Opus is, which I think is talking your own game. But they're, to at least to the markets, they're saying the ROI, the, the incremental ROI isn't there, to Rory's point. It's not there, right?
- HSHarry Stebbings
Jason, how did you read that? Uber COO saying that they spent four, well, all, the whole year's Anthropic credits in four months, um, but they weren't seeing the gains or the productivity or efficiency gains that they initially thought.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Did he say, did he say the second part of that? Just wanna be clear. He said it was-
- JLJason Lemkin
He said it wasn't measurable. He said it, thought it was probably there, but it wasn't measurable, the COO.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah.
- JLJason Lemkin
Right.
- HSHarry Stebbings
And, oh, got it. 'Cause it's a little-
- JLJason Lemkin
What do I think? I, I th-
- HSHarry Stebbings
Yeah
- JLJason Lemkin
... well, first of all, a COO is often a, a bean counter with a different name, okay? So I'm, I'm very-- I, I, I think, listen, I think we all need COOs to scale, right? But sometimes they're not the most creative person in the organization. Sometimes they're, they, they think they're product-centric, but they really just sit in meetings. And so, uh, I always take, I always take a little grain, with a grain of salt when a COO says, uh, "We don't need more engineers, we don't need more product, we don't need any of this," because they, they're not usu- and I should've looked up his background. They're usually not deep engineering product backgrounds, so they often live in, in a, in a pre-AI world where products are static. And I would argue Uber in many ways is a static product. Uber, Uber Eats, and everything, these are not radically different products than four or five years ago. These are clever marketplaces that scale like nobody, nobody's business. So the second point I'll say is I think what, actually what I do think is more interesting from this is, I hate to say that everything's bifurcated, right? But I do think we're gonna enter a world where things are more and more bifurcated, and we will see folks who get more and more gains from AI spend. They, they will token max forever, right? Um, often folks well north of a million in revenue per employee, two million in revenue per employee, will token max until there's no tomorrow. If you're already hyper-efficient, you will find more ways to use AI. The folks that are less efficient, that are larger organizations and more traditional, I think will, as the year goes on, will become more skeptical, especially if prices go up. And maybe prices are, if you look at Anthropic raising prices, right? If you look at Nebius raising prices. As prices go up, um, the era of experimentation's ending, and people will see very different results from that.
- RORory O’Driscoll
I think it is the core question of the-- uh, it's going to be the question of the year. I think we said that last week, right? And as I say, one of the reasons I... And it, it almost sounds like heresy to raise it. It's like, you know, maybe you won't get a return on your marginal dollar of AI. As I say, it, it, it feels like, you know, uh, s-sometimes when I say it in San Francisco, it's, it's literally like, you know, wandering around the Vatican saying, you know, "Is this pope guy the right guy," right? It's, it's, it's like criticism the core thing. But I think you gotta, when it's the only question that determines the answer to the you get to three trillion in revenue in CapEx or not, you gotta ask it. And I was reading, J- funny, I, I, I, over the weekend, actually, our data scientist sent me a, an archive paper, "The Price of Progress: Price, Performance, and the Future of AI." It's just a recent paper just basically benchmarking exactly this, you know, right? And the summary, no surprise, is... Yeah, and basically, and the comment they're making is, don't just look at kind of benchmarks in the abstract. Look at benchmarks and pricing at the same time, because implicitly it's the wor- you have to start thinking about ROI. And, you know, obviously benchmarks get faster. Um, you know, price per token, price for all those metrics going down amazingly every year. But token consumption going up every year, because as these models do more agentic reasoning, the, the, the total compute cost of that goes up. So, so the net cost of serving the customer goes up on aggregate, right? And it's a super, you know, it's a reasonably clear concept, and they don't actually come to a definitive conclusion. But it at least starts to say, you know, the trend here is exponentially increasing costs as you move from simple chat interaction all the way to full-on agents, right? So even though the cost, all the cost per token stories are, yay, amazing, going down, the actual cost to do something goes up a lot. So as you look at those SWE benchmarks, right, the thing that's here is not just one-tenth, it might be one-hundredth of the thing that's next level out to the right. So you're taking on, so you can consume vast amounts of token dollars. So you're right, Jason. At some point, I mean, and maybe it is what you said. Maybe there are businesses that have a lot of white space ahead of them, where they can write a lot of software, and they can get a lot of value. And maybe there are other business where you hit a marginal return much quicker. I, I don't know. I don't have an answer here and, but I do know that it's probably the most important question.I mean, if you-- 'cause when you're spending three million, you can be a bit laissez-faire and say, "It's all fine. We're probably getting a return." When you're spending three hundred million, someone probably needs to know.
- JLJason Lemkin
The other thing is, I think that, um, you know, Uber's gross profit margins are thirty-nine point seven five percent, okay? This isn't Nvidia, but it's an awfully good business. [chuckles]
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah.
- JLJason Lemkin
Right? It's an awful-- And I think folks like that, um, you know, they're gonna have different perspectives on the ROI of AI. Um, when you're, when you're at those forty percent margins, it sounds great, but you, but you're, you're very focused on protecting them in most cases, right? We're not all Zuck, right? And so if you're-- if, if job number one is protecting the profit margin, you're gonna be really skeptical of spending too much on AI, right? It's, it-- and it's a trade-off. And in some ways, folks with margins like this, we just have to take what they say with a grain of salt, not because it's not important. It, it is extremely important to understand that we all-- we can't all spend like a drunken sailor with two million of free credits out of YC, right? We can't spend that way. But it also means there's a, there's a backwards-looking bias in here. There's a skepticism in the org where, uh-- because, you know, I, I think what the s-- also the CEO said, "It's, it's there, but we can't measure it yet," right? So if you're Zuck, you're-- not, not literally Zuck, but if you're Zuck-esque, you're gonna lean the hell in, right? When the team is telling you it works, you're gonna say, "Let's give it the rest of the year." If you're a skeptic maintaining those profit margins, you're gonna be like, "Okay, this is, this is performative token maxing. Uh, get me out here," right? And I think the interest for, for-- And maybe there's gonna be a case study of DoorDash versus Uber. DoorDash is still founder-led, one of the most aggressive CEOs out there, right? You-- I mean, J-JFC, I haven't seen DoorDash say, "Let's use less token, guys." I haven't, I haven't seen, I haven't seen-- If I see it from both-- Now, uh, interestingly, if I see it from both, from one of the most aggressive founder-led companies out there, Uber's, you know, one of Uber's biggest competitors, then I'll consider myself chastised, right? If, if, if Tony says the same, then I'll be like, "Okay, we have-- we got ahead of ourselves for real companies. It's-- We're not all, uh..." But, but, um, but I haven't heard it from DoorDash.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Is it not a very simple realization of what is your core business? Uber's core business is moving people, hard logistics, real world, and Facebook's is precision of advertising between, you know, consumer and provider or advertiser. And so of course you're willing to spend on one. It is your core business, and then physical world-
- RORory O’Driscoll
No, that sounds credible on some level it is, but, I mean, if you think of it really in terms of both of them have lots of software developers, and the big-picture question is: How much leverage does a software developer get, um, y-you know, using AI? And I would argue that's much-- that should be more similar across different entities. It's not obvious to me that, you know-- Like, a software developer working at Uber still has a soft-- you know, prof- a software problem to work on. If, if, if AI gives lift across all industries in terms of soft-software development, then he, then he or she should experience the same lift. So, no. I mean, what might be true, Harry, is, uh, to Jason's point, if you start with ninety percent gross margins and you're ideologically committed to, to, to the, to the program anyway, then you might close your eyes. And I-I think it's what, exactly what Jason said, the burden of proof. You don't impose the burden of proof. There's no one at Facebook yet, though that might change, saying, "Are we getting value from our billions of dollars in AI?" We just assume we are and keep going, right? I do think in companies where they have the same idea, same software engineers, but where just the way they run the business 'cause of the overall margin structure is more careful, then you might have people asking the same question. I mean, 'cause just to be clear, Harry, and just to be-- to nail your point for good, if what you're saying is you only get AI software productivity lift in industries that themselves are digital, then that would be really bad news because that's a significant sub-segment of the TAM.
- HSHarry Stebbings
I'm saying your willingness to spend-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Willingness, agreed
- HSHarry Stebbings
... is much greater-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Agreed. Then we're saying the same thing
- HSHarry Stebbings
... when it is your core business versus a normal-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah, agreed. Then we're saying the same thing. You're like, you know, the more you're ideologically committed to, to belief, right, the more you'll spend. A-- But just to put it out there now, I can't remember except maybe for a year in the internet in the mid-'90s where corporate America was so convinced of the ROI of something as it is right now of AI, right? The sluice gates are open. The money tr-- you know, the money is being authorized. I mean, the proof that the sluice gates are open is you just look at Anthropic going from five billion in GAAP revenue to ten billion in GAAP revenue. The-- No one is stopping. There's not a ton of querying going on right now, right? So there is a willingness to spend, and I-- so therefore, I, I do think the next shoe to drop will be, "Okay, that was fun. We spent ten billion. What did we get?" And it's just the way the narrative has to play out.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Well, Rory, I think that was a very prescient, uh, recognition of Anthropic's revenue growth, but you missed the core number there-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah
- HSHarry Stebbings
... for me. I think you missed it-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Okay
- HSHarry Stebbings
... personally. Uh-
- RORory O’Driscoll
I think it's very good
- HSHarry Stebbings
... gross margin, gross margins expanded from thirty-eight percent to seventy percent, and they're gonna have a five hundred and fifty-nine million operating profit in QT-- Q2 projected.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah.
- 24:01 – 34:20
The Layoffs Continue: ClickUp and Cloudflare
- HSHarry Stebbings
That's the ultimate symbol, though, that the layoffs that we're seeing is ultimately a case of over-hiring during COVID, not AI efficiencies.
- JLJason Lemkin
That's the dumbest thing I've ev- take I've ever seen on Twitter, is that this is over-hiring during COVID. Dumbest take.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Yes.
- JLJason Lemkin
From the smartest people, including Marc Andreessen, who's got 40 IQ points on me. The dumbest take I've seen, uh, since our last show. The dumbest take.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Why, why, why, why? Because every single company-
- JLJason Lemkin
Why was COVID? Harry, I'm starting to forget COVIDIt, even 2020, I mean, what is nat- Rory, what is natural attrition across your portfolio? 15% a year?
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah, it's 25%.
- JLJason Lemkin
20% a year?
- RORory O’Driscoll
Dude-
- JLJason Lemkin
25% a year, right? This is not over-hiring. It might be that your worst employees didn't leave. That's a related but different issue, right? That, that's, that... And actually, I think that's kinda part of it, is the unreskillable need to go. But this is not over-hiring. With 20% attrition, I can't... What, what's 20% times six? How did that compound?
- RORory O’Driscoll
It, it, well, yeah, it, it's kinda, kinda, double, double team.
- JLJason Lemkin
It doesn't matter. [laughs]
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah, 20... Yeah, exactly. You get to the same place. You're saying the face, you're saying the 16,000 cut from Intuit, the thousands cut from Coinbase, the 800 cut from LinkedIn, you're saying that is not over-hiring, that is AI efficiency?
- JLJason Lemkin
I'm saying there was already more natural attrition since 2020 than these numbers. So blaming it directly on over-hiring is clickbait. It's clickbait, because it's not mathematically true.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Well, I saw a really cool tweet that basically said, "It's five years since COVID, people. Haven't you heard of performance reviews?"
- JLJason Lemkin
That was me.
- RORory O’Driscoll
That was you?
- JLJason Lemkin
That was my, that was my tweet.
- RORory O’Driscoll
That was you. I love it.
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah, that was my point. I mean, you have no excuse.
- RORory O’Driscoll
You're looking at it.
- JLJason Lemkin
Like, you could manage... You had five years to manage your low performers out, and now you're blaming it on over-hiring?
- RORory O’Driscoll
Jason, hang on. The only thing that could be true, I, just to articulate the case, the only thing that could be true is you're hired to this level, and you have this kind of human anchoring whereby you perceive you need all these people. So every time they churn, you just rehired 'cause you had myopia and you didn't realize you could get by on, you know, much less. And now suddenly, terror has opened your eyes. It is possible in mature sh- organizations with monopoly-type profits, you see that behavior. But I'm with you, Jason. It, it's weird to see it across the board, right?
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah, it just can't be true. Like, it's just, it's an excuse. And, uh, I, I don't think any... I, I don't totally get this mea culpa, this ClickUp, Cloudflare mea culpa on Twitter. I don't totally get what the vibe is here, and I do think they're 80% honest and direct, but this bloat thing seems like the, the, the excuse. Like, it's can't-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Jason, can you just explain the ClickUp and the Cloudflare, just so people have some context?
- JLJason Lemkin
Well, just publicly explaining why we're doing 20% layoffs in thousand-line, thousand, 2,000-word tweets, and I just actually don't... I, I'm, I'm not... I'm literally saying I don't understand the PR benefit. A- and the, the meta problem I find is even if it's true, they're sort of blaming the employees. Like, or, or even if they're not, it's perceived to be blaming the employees for not understanding AI, not being able to change, not being able to evolve, so we've gotta let you go. Before the Cloudflare or ClickUps, they were always like, "S- Our very best people have to go. Please hire them. Here's a Google sheet. There's no one better than Harry, Rory, and Jason we've ever hired. It has nothing to do with organizational change or the world, or that there are low performers. It's just a flip of the coin." Like, "We had to let somebody go. We flipped a three-headed coin, a four-headed coin, and Harry, Rory, and Jason came up, but they're just as good as the folks we kept." That was the vibe, like, even through last year. Now it's like, it's this... It's ruthless. Like, w- to wit- Like, Cloudflare's like, "Matthew's like Cloudflare's doing great, and we're still walking 20% of the people out the door."
- RORory O’Driscoll
[laughs]
- JLJason Lemkin
And look, it's some sort of messaging to the markets, existing employees, and others that I don't totally... The, the, the... I think CEOs feel that they should be direct, right, in a way that everyone was uncomfortable to do through 2024. Everyone was uncomfortable being direct. Everyone had to say, "Everyone's great. Um, we're all great." And I, I, I, I don't know if it's gone too far, but, um, but it's, it's very public. [laughs] Like, I don't need to know... Like, if Cloudflare's g- laying off 20, 21%, I mean, I know they're a public company, but that's about all I need to know. [laughs]
- RORory O’Driscoll
It's funny 'cause I... You're damned if you do, damned if you don't, 'cause the Intuit CEO did a, "It's not about AI," and also got slammed for that. People saying, "Well, of course it's about AI because look at these deals you did on Anthropic you're being competed with." And-
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah
- 34:20 – 38:38
OpenAI S-1: Is it a Race? How Will it be Received?
- HSHarry Stebbings
Listen, S1. Let's start with OpenAI. Rory, you teased it out at the end of last episode brilliantly as it kind of came breaking through. Uh, confidential files S1, um, $852 billion to $1 trillion valuation for a Q4 listing. The main question that I had in mind, I think probably is on the minds of everyone, is OpenAI forcing its way out before Anthropic? [chuckles] Let's start with that.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yes. And they have to, and they should, and they must, and they gotta go now. Because they've been lapped. They've been lapped, right? And it's pretty grim. Last year, Anthropic GAAP revenue, $4.5 billion. OpenAI GAAP revenue, $13 billion. Q1, Anthropic GAAP revenue, $5 billion, right? So almo- So more than the entire last year. Q1, OpenAI revenue, $5.5 billion, $5.4 billion. So still bigger than Anthropic, which is the point they were making by leak- leaking that number. But if you look at it, it's only, what is it, 35% of last year's revenue. So Anthropic has done as much in Q1 as all of last year, and OpenAI has done 30% of what they've done last year in Q1, and they're only slightly bigger than Anthropic. You play that out for a couple more quarters. We know Anthropic... But if they do anything close to 10 and then they're flat for the rest of the year, let's say 10 in Q2, Q3, Q4, that's $35 billion in GAAP for the year, right? One company is growing 10X year on year, and the other company is growing 2, 3X year on year, right? And they're pretty close now. Within a couple of quarters, Anthropic, on the current trajectory, and it could change, will be visibly and obviously ahead. I mean, it could be something like, you know, high 20s GAAP revenue for one, high 30s GAAP revenue for Anthropic. That's not a good look, right? Especially when the one with the high 30s is profitable. Profitable, growing more quickly and bigger. Dominant, that's Pareto optimal. Pareto dominant on all three vectors. And OpenAI could be smaller, growing less quickly, still unprofitable. That's a horrible strategic place to be, right? If you're faced with that-
- HSHarry Stebbings
But that's a tough message to come out into market with, like-
- RORory O’Driscoll
But to tell you this, would you prefer... Yes, it is, but you've got two choicesYou go first, and at least you can say, "Here's a chance to buy the first foundation model. Go now." Right? Which all... ChatGPT, everyone knows who you are. Or you wait, and are you waiting till the other guys go, and then you go right after them as, "Hey, we're like Anthropic, but smaller and not as good"? Or are you saying you wait two years and grow your way out of it? 'Cause nothing's forever. And you re-accelerate growth, and you go public in 2029. No, that's craziness, right? Unfortunately, the ru- the rule of life in all these markets is the number one gets to choose what happens, and the number two has to respond. OpenAI was number one, had that degrees of freedom. Now they could be number two. When you're number two, what you do not do is wait till the number one prices goes public, and then you come out as a pale version of that. So I, I, I think they're smart to go, and they gotta go.
- JLJason Lemkin
And this might be one be actually where the risk is you exhaust some of the capital pool available, 'cause these IPOs are s- This, this is always something people would say, but it was never really true, right? But, but, but traditionally, folks that bought into the IPOs was a fairly slim segment of the market because you can always buy the next day, right? Um, now we have s- you know, we, you k- no, Cerberus really was maximally oversubscribed, right? As Rory made to the point, it priced to the exact highest thing you could do without refiling, right? Without taking the risk of refiling with the SEC. But the, it's still a relatively thin, uh, investor pool, right? Even with Schwab and everyone coming in for SpaceX. So this might be the one time where it really does help to go f- just, just to not exhaust the capital pool.
- RORory O’Driscoll
And tell the story.
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah.
- RORory O’Driscoll
You know? And, you know, look, and given the trajectory of the last five years, they're [chuckles] entitled to tell the story. They did build a category, right?
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah.
- RORory O’Driscoll
And, you know, I would much prefer to go public as the first foundation model in the category than go public i, i- if in fact the numbers that we've had leaked, and I always caveat this because no one sees the numbers, right? If the numbers that have been leaked are correct, such that by the middle to latter part of this year you're visibly number two, losing money and growing more slowly, then you do not wanna wait until that becomes painfully obvious.
- 38:38 – 46:54
Do Anthropic Rush Out Their IPO Also?
- HSHarry Stebbings
If you're Anthropic, do you change anything on the back-
- RORory O’Driscoll
That's a good question
- HSHarry Stebbings
... of seeing OpenAI now force this out?
- RORory O’Driscoll
And a- again, I'm gonna repeat myself. Because you're number one, you don't have to change on what the other guy does, right? As this total historical analogy, I remember when Britain ruled the waves. I like to do my little Britain digs here, right? When Britain ruled the waves and British h- the British Navy ruled the world, right, Jacky, Jacky Fisher, the Lord of the Admiralty, said, "Why do you have the British Navy?" He said, "To go anywhere you damn well please with whatever force you want." Right? It was, "You can do whatever you want." That's the point of being number one, right? It was that this is what you want. You don't wanna be sitting there agonizing about what the other guy does. It doesn't matter. An- Anthropic could decide, "Oh my God, OpenAI's gonna go public in September. Maybe we go in November." And maybe they do bring it up a little bit.
- HSHarry Stebbings
But to your point on exhausting capital supplies, we've got SpaceX actually coming out-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah, and less worried about that because look, if... It's, to some extent it's a thing, but remember, if you're profitable and growing nicely, if let's just say that if you are the better company, right, and you have the b- more attractive metrics, the way these markets are, and the other guy's going out three months ahead of you, everyone who's investing will think, "I'm gonna put some money in this, but I'm gonna keep some money for the good one," especially if they've telegraphed when they're going out, right? The truth is this: operational excellence gives you a fair amount of strategic independence, and it-
- HSHarry Stebbings
Yeah
- RORory O’Driscoll
... I mean, you've got way more degrees of freedom.
- JLJason Lemkin
Or m- or maybe, maybe if Anthropic truly is profitable and truly has infinite demand for its shares, it doesn't need to IPO at all. Why, why would I? If I, if I'm Dario, I've already pledged 90% of my shares to charity, right? I still have an altruistic mission at my heart. If I'm profitable and I have, and I can do infinite secondaries, maybe, maybe ironically they stay like Stripe. They're like, "Listen, we, we, we crushed it. We, why would I wanna float a small amount of my shares and deal with the headaches? I am gonna stay true to my mission."
- RORory O’Driscoll
I'll tell you why. And I actually think that the dynamics of staying private longer are super different for people like Stripe than Anthropic. Because at Stripe, you're in a fair degree of predictability. The business model is understood. The capital needs are light. You're kicking off cash. You're buying back shares. Those guys can actually stay private as long as they want. It's a payment processing company at scale with profits. It's a glorious thing. Who knows how it'll be valued, and that's still TBD in the public markets, but you can chug on forever. I just think the capital needs for Anthropic are such that you would be wise to access the public markets when you can, right? Because unlike, um, Stripe, where, you know, your capital needs are light, in the case of Anthropic, even though you're not bearing those capital needs today because you are lucky enough to have hyperscalers foolish enough to build on your behalf, for every dollar of revenue that you add, someone has to invest four or five bill- m- four or five dollars in CapEx upfront. So if one day you wanna do $100 billion in revenue, someone's gotta invest $500 billion, and you probably want the operational freedom to get more of that money for yourself. And there's a dollar sum above which only the public markets can do it. Because even though peop- again, people talk about, "Oh my God, the private markets," SpaceX, as its prospectus points out so wisely, was pretty capital efficient. $23 billion raised, right? You know, i- it's not $100 billion, right? And it's entirely credible. It's entirely credible that if Jensen's correct, going back to the thing, and if CapEx is shock horror at $3 trillion a year, and you're the leader in that industry, you might need to raise $300 billion, 'cause maybe two years from now, Microsoft doesn't wanna, or Amazon doesn't wanna be your hyperscaler provider. So I think they go public because the capital needs here dwarf anything we've seen.
- JLJason Lemkin
Or at least, at least it may provide some independence, right? Nvidia's got $200 billion of cash flow a year it needs to do something with, right? And the other thing, going back to beginning of the conversation, that's why I don't think this circular revenue is as, as, as negative as you think. Nvidia has so much cash, it has to recirculate this capital. It has no other use for it, right?
- HSHarry Stebbings
Just going back to this, if, uh, before we do SpaceX, if OpenAI were to go out, what do you think the reception would be?Do you think it will be overwhelmingly positive?
- RORory O’Driscoll
In today's market, yes, because we're risk-on and people wanna make an AI bet, and they're the leader. They are the leader and they built the category. You go outside the Valley and you utter the word Claude and people look at you. ChatGPT is the thing, right? So yeah, and they, you know, they're gonna have stellar revenue, albeit lo- and clearly losses aren't a problem at the moment. I mean, when you look at where SpaceX is gonna come out. So I think that it will be really good. You know, I mean, really good might mean not quite as good as Anthropic, which is all that plus profits too. But I think right now the public doesn't have any pure-play AIs other than, you know, something like CoreWeave, now something like Cerberus. It's obvious that the top of the heap are the foundational model companies, and I think it'll be a great reception. That's why they'd be crazy not to do it. You gotta remember all this leaked, "We're not gonna be ready yet," from the CFO, 2027, 2028. I would imagine we had, you know, a good internal session where like, "We're doing this, guys. Thank you for your input, but the day after the, the litigation's settled, we, we are going for this thing." And I think they're right.
- JLJason Lemkin
I just think two things. One, w- we're gonna get a little preview, which is if this retail demand for SpaceX is super high, then OpenAI can cl- copy it, right? I mean, Elon's putting 30% of the, of the, you know, this massive IPO, the largest in history so far, into retail. Um, it sounds like he's being democratic and meritocratic and Robin Hood, and maybe he is, but, um, it, it, I think it will benefit the stock price because they want to own Elon. Um, not the jury in Oakland, but, but a lot of the country wants to own it. And, and it will give... If, if OpenAI clones that for its fan base, um, and it drives the stock up, uh, they'll, they'll get a little preview of how well that strategy works. And the other thing is we, uh, it's fun to talk about this two-horse race on the 20VC, but again, I, I don't think there's anything wrong with owning both as a, as a public mark- equities investor. I think owning both is a good strategy. Why, why? There's so much change. Even if Anthropic is better, why not buy into the IPOs of both? Put in $50 million into each, $100 million, $250 million to each and see how it plays out over the next years. The overall trends are strong. I don't need-- not everyone needs to be a savant.
- RORory O’Driscoll
One of the ways to think about this is these are three CEOs trying to do something incredibly hard, which is stay on top of the most dynamic, evolving industry and tech trend we've ever seen, and no one, none of the three of them, and by that I mean SpaceX, Anthropic, and Nvidia, is pitching a perfect game, right? You can look at aspects of what e- any of the three of them have done and go, "Ooh, that's not as good," right? But the truth is a- all three of them from a standing start have built companies worth plus or minus a trillion dollars and are kind of are riding this trend, and no one else is even close. I mean, so if you look at the report card, you know, yeah, you're right. Anthropic did an amazing job of building the model, which ironically meant that their CapEx w- forecasting was wrong 'cause they underestimated the sa- success of their own model. Kind of to some extent, OpenAI's been the other way around. They really nailed it on CapEx, they nailed it on compute, but maybe should've spent a little more time, you know, on the enterprise features of their model, so they're behind there. And obviously, you know, if you look at the x.AI part of SpaceX, leaving aside the thing, just focus on their AI business, is they're the world's best builders of, you know, fast data centers, but so they get points for that. But on the other hand, they lose points 'cause they weren't able to fill it with their own stuff. And you're right, it's not quite perhaps as modern or as SOC 2 compliant as some of the stuff OpenAI got. So yeah, you can make knocks on all three, but zooming out, from a standing start, they've each created a trillion dollars in AI in the last five years. You know, what did you do on your summer vacation?
- JLJason Lemkin
Well, and Elon founded both.
- RORory O’Driscoll
But you haven't-
- JLJason Lemkin
Elon founded both of them.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah. That, that, that-
- HSHarry Stebbings
Oh my God
- RORory O’Driscoll
... again, you have to remember that. I mean, yeah-
- HSHarry Stebbings
[laughs]
- RORory O’Driscoll
... the entire pivot. The ent-
- JLJason Lemkin
Plus Neuralink plus he's controlling people's, uh-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah
- JLJason Lemkin
... bodies with his brains, plus the Hyperloop, plus Tesla. [laughs]
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah, 'cause we can, well, we can talk about that, the entire... 'Cause the SpaceX, when we come to talk about SpaceX, the proportion of their future value they attribute to AI, it's amazing. This is Elon, you know, effectively losing OpenAI and says, "Goddamn it, I'm gonna have one of my own," and, and, and, and made it happen. Realized it from whole
- 46:54 – 50:13
SpaceX S-1: "Why I Would Never Invest"
- RORory O’Driscoll
cloth.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Well, let's discuss SpaceX directly then with the S1 dropping. Rory, given the fact that I, I didn't correctly identify the most important numbers, what did you think were the most important numbers when you looked at SpaceX's S1 dropping?
- RORory O’Driscoll
Cynical answer, um, I don't think the numbers matter, Dan, right? 'Cause the point is this. Everyone said the same thing. You, you run the sum of parts on these three businesses. There's a low-ish growth but tech-enabling amazing space, um, space business. There's a good growth, um, profitable Starlink business that has much, you know, a bigger TAM than the spa- uh, than the, than the, the, the simple shuttle, the simple rocket business and the launch business, right? But it's growing 30, 40%. And then there's x.AI that at the time of, um, filing was a great big gaping hole of $15 billion in CapEx and no obvious revenue. Since then, obviously, he's done two amazing deals to find the revenue, and now he's got a $15 billion run rate business. But you add it all up, right? And the truth is you get to a launch business, you have a Starlink business which you can value, and you have a CoreWeave-type business, 'cause that's what, um, the AI business has now become. And the sum of those parts is so far lower than the proposed valuation, and the only difference between the two is the Elon premium, and that's not a number that comes out of the prospectus. So I looked at the numbers, I read them, I understood them, but they offer me no value in trying to value this company, right? I mean, you know, o- other than saying utterly stupid things like the fundamental value of Tesla is $200 billion and the trading price is six times that, so maybe the Elon premium is 6X value. I don't know.
- JLJason Lemkin
It could be the GeoCities deal of the AI era. We could look back on this. And listen, I'm, I'm all, I'm on Team Elon, okay? But 100 times trailing sales, we may look back and say, "These were some good companies," but 100 times, my God.
- RORory O’Driscoll
No, no, no, no, no, no.
- JLJason Lemkin
My God.
- RORory O’Driscoll
No, no, no, no. I'm going to defense. Like, no matter what happens, these are three amazing companies.
- JLJason Lemkin
Twitter's, Twitter's just, just gr- growth has fallen off the... It's, it's shrunk 50% since he bought it. Elon's the magician of revenue compression in Twitter. Revenue has fallen 50%.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yes. Twi- Twitter, agree. Twitter is... I mean, again, if you disaggregate the three businesses, the launch business is a good, stable, boring business with amazing technology-
- JLJason Lemkin
Barely growing
- RORory O’Driscoll
... that probably would get tapped out at 10 to 20% growth rate. The Starlink business is a great business with a much bigger TAM and, but 30, 40% growth rate, 10, well, think about 14 billion in revenue and EBITDA positive, right? So actually, I will give you the most interesting chart, Harry, and the number in the thing was the TAM analysis. And I wanna say if I remember, it was something like $28 trillion, you know, largest TAM in history. That's actually not as interesting. The interesting part is even though, let's say, 10 years ago this is a launch company, and eight... and two years ago this was a launch company with a communications business, 90% of the TAM that they identified is not in those two sectors. It's all about AI, right? So the interesting thing is the story they're trying to tell is a story that's 90% not focused on the two things where they're unique and differentiated, right? I think they're not unique and differentiated in the AI story 'cause Grok as a foundation model's gone nowhere.
- 50:13 – 55:27
Why Colossus is a Stroke of Genius By Elon
- RORory O’Driscoll
They did make an enormously clever deal in the sense that they had Colossus, they built it quick, and again, the S1's very clear on that. We, we think we built faster than anyone else, and they've sold that to Anthropic. They've rented that to Anthropic for $1.25 billion a month, right? With a, I think a 90-day cancellation clause on either side. So basically it's $15 billion a year, right? In one sense, that's amazing 'cause, you know, it, it, it's amazing to think that you had an $18 billion business built over 20 years, and then you just added $15 billion to that in one transaction, you know, on a product you only built a year and a half ago. So in one sense, it validates the comment that, you know, the AI business is so much more dynamic even than the launch or the comms business. If you're willing to spend the capital upfront and invest $10 billion in a hole in the ground, and the compute demand is there, you can get to $15 billion in revenues pretty quickly. But what you are is a more efficient CoreWeave. Now, they will say that-
- JLJason Lemkin
That's worth $2 trillion? Renting out chips-
- RORory O’Driscoll
And that's my point. You don't get to that
- JLJason Lemkin
... because, because Jensen's your buddy and you, and you're a good customer, that's worth two, two, four, three trillion? Or are the rockets growing 10% or the Twitter declining 50%? Which of them exactly is worth $2 to $3 trillion?
- RORory O’Driscoll
And that's why I jumped down the Geocities thing. I love the S1, but I think it's all madness. I wouldn't buy a share. I just love the optimism. I just love the fact that they've done this thing for 20 years and, you know, the, some of the assertions of why they're great were totally true. We've been fairly capital efficient for people who put rockets in space. We build faster than anyone else. We have organizing principles around engineering that, you know, the algorithm to make things efficient. There's a lot of balls-out claims here that are justified on the basis of 20 years' achievement from probably one of the most talented entrepreneurs everywhere. It was a great read. Go America, that we can have this, right? So after I say all that, you're right, Jason, I still don't get... I'm so far from $2 trillion in DCF that my head hurts.
- JLJason Lemkin
Well, you know, it's, it's almost worse. The 100X reven- trailing revenues is like, it's hard to, it's hard to tie, right? But the real... And listen, I'm on Team Elon. I've bought five Teslas. I've got like three Starlinks, uh, uh, subscriptions across. I, I, I am from the very early days, but, um, in some ways, this is just very cynical. This is financial engineering, which I have mad respect for, but my God, you're taking a bunch of disparate assets that, that, that, that most of them have no connection. You're throwing an S1 talking about the history of AI, which wasn't even your business a year ago. Uh, a little bit of financial engineering I'm all, I'm all, I'm all, I'm all for, but man, this is so much fu- this is bailing out my, my failed Twitter acquisition, my, my, my collu- m- my idea that I'll compete with OpenAI just by buying chips. That didn't work. The, I'm bailing both of them out, right? I'm, I'm... I had a, a quiet business which I should have kept private with, with, uh, SpaceX, right? It was a great private business. It blended, was doing great things. Now I'm bailing everybody out in this massive, uh, confab. Uh, it's, it's, it's, it's, uh, it's SolarCity on steroids, and we're all here for it because we love AI, but it d- makes no sense. This, this, this conglomeration of friends of Elon makes no sense to anyone but in, uh, but, but the folks getting bailed out on Twitter. It just doesn't make any sense.
- RORory O’Driscoll
The answer is the, the, the, the, the, the launch business enables Starlink, right?
- JLJason Lemkin
Yep.
- RORory O’Driscoll
And the launch business will enable data centers in space, which is how... And we've proven that we can build capacity on the ground, so therefore we'll be able to build capacity in space, and we'll be able to get 100 giga- 100 gigawatts of capacity a year, five years from now. Data centers in space is the thing that joins all the dots together, which is different than me saying even for a second I ascribe a high probability to that. There is a coherence to the narrative, but only if the next thing happens, and that's always the way. If you buy into data centers in space will work, then it makes sense to have a launch business in the same company that has a data center business.
- JLJason Lemkin
And the tweets? Where do the tweets fit into all this?
- RORory O’Driscoll
The tweets don't fit in at all.
- JLJason Lemkin
[laughs]
- RORory O’Driscoll
Right? Let's get real here. The tweets don't fit in at all.
- JLJason Lemkin
[laughs]
- RORory O’Driscoll
And the truth is that, uh, you know, the, the, the $44 billion on Twitter was a miserable acquisition, and the value of that company is less today than we bought it, and that was pretty obvious two years ago, right? He's chosen to bail everyone out by rolling it into x.AI. He's chosen to bail x.AI out by rolling it into SpaceX. And to be fair to x.AI, even though we just used the words bail it out, at, if, if they can keep the $15 billion a year, they're gonna co- ... That's a very high... I mean, the total CapEx in x.AI over the last two years I think was $12 billion and seven, $19 billion, right? One year and a bit of Anthropic revenue at $1.25 billion a month and you've covered your nut, which is a pretty high, uh, return on cap- cash-on-cash return for a data center project. So, uh, look, I sat there thinking it's all crazy too, and then I'm likeHe built something at, right at the time when capacity is at a premium and he's, you know, he's found a way to monetize it. I mean, you-- Now, I, again, Jason, I repeat, I don't get to... I mean, even so you apply the CoreWeave multiple and you get to under $100 billion. I'm not sure what to make of that information, but it was definitely a get out of jail free card when he got the
- 55:27 – 1:00:50
Data Centers In Space is BS and Will Not Be Core to SpaceX
- RORory O’Driscoll
Anthropic business.
- HSHarry Stebbings
By 2030, what will that core business be? Will it be Starlink? Will it be data centers in space? Will it be NeoCloud?
- RORory O’Driscoll
Good question. I think Starlink will be the vast portion of the value, um, the b- the value. I don't think data centers in space will be a meaningful percentage of revenue, and I think their existing data center business will be a, you know, high revenue, relatively low return on equity business. W- how that compares to Starlink, TBD, but I, I think we'll discover that. As I say, it's a ve- it's a, it's CoreWeave with the world best engineering and construction team. So implicitly I'm saying not a whole ton of data center in space revenue on top, and that won't, that will only be worth anything like the current value if the narrative is tracking towards data centers. Which again means it goes back to the first sentence of the c- show, which means if Jensen is right that you're spending $3 trillion a year and the ROE is there for the full $3 trillion, as Jason has pointed out, and if we can't build sh- shit anywhere else, then at some point you'll want to stuff them into space regardless of all the pain and suffering involved in doing that, and then Elon will be right. If any of those if clauses turns out not to be true, then it'll be a bridge too far. Uh, and more correctly, a rocket too far.
- HSHarry Stebbings
[laughs]
- RORory O’Driscoll
But who knows? I mean, if, if the one human being on the face of the planet who's earned the right to say, "Give me a trillion dollars, I'm gonna make the bet," is Elon. And if you want that bet, it- I'm glad it's gonna be available for people. If you want to scratch that itch, go scratch the itch.
- JLJason Lemkin
Look, I think he made a compromise to, to get it all done. I think he's gonna have to build a $50 billion CoreWeave business to make the math tie.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah.
- JLJason Lemkin
And I think he had to give up on going to Mars and go to the moon. Like, it, he got-- We, we, we reach a certain point in life where to achieve our goals, we have to, we have to be practical again. He's got into a practical phase. He's got to take this thing public. He's got to mash it all together, and he's got to b- You know, this, this, th- the Anthropic thing either has to die or keep going, right, to make this work. So he's got to commit to building a $50-plus billion dollar CoreWeave, um, and going to the moon, which is pointless, but it doesn't mean it won't get him there in the end. He could also, if, if the world changes, I mean, we're on such a intense trajectory, right? But if the world changes, he could also dump this whole CoreWeave business and just move on, right? If, if it is possible. You can write off the chips, you can write off, you can write it all off if, if the world goes a different way than we expect.
- RORory O’Driscoll
And proving how little we all know at this point, how little you can know. Let me give-- The other option is if everyone else proves incredibly mediocre at building new data center capacity and Anthropic keeps continuing to grow, then, you know, even though they-- I was thinking they did this like $1.25 billion a month. It's kind of like we all buy storage capacity. You know that when you buy a kind of, you know, st- uh, storage for your stuff, when you, you, you send it away to storage, your extra furniture, and you pay 100 bucks a month and you think, "I'll be out of this thing in six months." And then five, five years later, you're still paying and they're now charging you 400 bucks a month, right? Basically, this is public storage, but for compute, and he could well be there for the next five years with Anthropic just needing the capacity and making a ton of money.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Consumer storage solutions, one of the best businesses. Yeah.
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah. Agree.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Exactly. And this is like that, and you go in, I'm sure Anthropic went in thinking, "We're only gonna pay him $1.25 billion for four months," but they're relying on other people building data centers and life is tricky, and not everyone will bulldoze it through like Elon did, and a year or two from now... And because remember, this is very profitable revenue. You cannot take it away. And his CapEx, in a shitty CapEx business where CoreWeave is a good company but makes only okay profits, at $1.25 billion, it's a great deal, right? Relative to his CapEx. So his ROE on that is pretty damn high in a low ROI, ROE business, return on equity business.
- JLJason Lemkin
And don't forget, it's a, it's a poor analogy, but it's the same guy. There's, there's no one in the US or Europe that can produce EVs remotely as efficiently as Elon. Not-- Like, the, the, the investments he's made. And I'm not saying it's the same. He can't control the whole supply chain, but the man has a history-
- RORory O’Driscoll
He's doing it
- JLJason Lemkin
... of, of doing things that are both at the cutting edge and radically more, by investing hard, like Colossus and all of this, by doing things that are radically ma- maybe he does build his own massive fabs in the US and they work and we can, we can take shots at it like we did when the Tesla Roadster came out, but no one can appr- outside of China, no one can approach what he's done in EVs. Maybe it happens in data centers. I mean, CoreWeave has nothing. What do Nvidia's and CoreWeave have? Nothing. N-no, no special technology, right? Um, he could accelerate past everybody. He has the, he's got the capabilities, right? And we could turn around in five years and say, "My God, he, he owns every data center in the galaxy."
- RORory O’Driscoll
'Cause, I mean, if nothing else-
- JLJason Lemkin
Who else? Who el- You can't compete with the Model th- a Model 3 you can lease, Harry, in the US for $299 a month. It's self-driving, it needs no fuel, and it's better than all its competition. And the only reason we don't all drive them in the US is 60% of the country hates them. Otherwise, there would be no other car in this country, right? He could-- What if he does the same for-- It might be with Colossus and friends and everything. He's, he's actually doing this for real.
- RORory O’Driscoll
'Cause remember, the one thing you need to be successful in a CapEx-intensive data center business is a low cost of capital, and I think we can agree that a $2 trillion pre-money, that's a pretty damn low cost of capital. So yeah, no, he can sell. I mean, if he gets $75 billion, he can put $25 billion into another Colossus, sell that for another $15 billion,
- 1:00:50 – 1:10:09
Polsia Raises $30M at $250M Price: Is this the Peak?
- RORory O’Driscoll
and away you go.
- HSHarry Stebbings
There are two private market stories that I wanna touch on-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yep
- HSHarry Stebbings
... that we haven't touched on. One, AI slop spelled backwards is Polsia. It listen-
- JLJason Lemkin
I feel like we're being punked.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Uh, listen, it is a company that enables a single person to build a business, and that business is then run by AI. Um-It is bluntly not very popular. Um, it's sent out a huge amount of emails unwanted, which is why a lot of people don't like it. Um, the founder of OpenClaw, Peter Steinberger, even responded to the funding announcement saying how much he disliked these, um, solicited emails. Uh, but they raised $30 to $40 million. I can't remember the exact amount. Had a $250 million valuation, some pretty well-known firms in there. Jason, I'm intrigued. I think you'll have a, a thought on this one.
- JLJason Lemkin
I feel like I could do it. I feel like I could just call it AI Slop instead of Polsia. I feel like if they can raise to 250, I feel like it, it... The only question, if I did this, could I take the $40 million out as secondary? Is that okay? Do they care? I would do this if I could do it all... I mean, listen, I mean, it would be nice. I, I, unfortunately, I wouldn't get QSBS on it, right? Because it would be, be very... That's the negative, but I wouldn't mind taking $40 million. I think I could do $10 million like this if I knew I could, I, you know. I don't, I don't wanna raise from VCs and be stuck with the moral obligation of turning it into $2.5 billion, but, um, I don't know. I, listen, I don't, I don't wanna... Just the fact that you have a startup named AI Slop raising at 250, if this is the peak, we're gonna look back and make fun of this one, but I don't know enough about it in all fairness to, to, to, to be sure I'm wrong on this. It's just, I feel so punked by a startup called AI Slop raising at 250. I just feel like this is the, this is a bigger F you than Malt- Maltbook. Maltbook pretending these, these agents are talking to each other in a social network when it's all humans telling the agents to go onto Maltbook and talk to each other, uh. The, uh... [laughs] I just don't know w-w-wh- is this the next Maltbook? I just, I literally don't know, but, um, I would at least have asked them to please change the name. [laughs]
- RORory O’Driscoll
I did admire the tweak though. I mean, it is just such a, you know, two-finger salute to the great AI marketplace.
- JLJason Lemkin
I'll tell you what I don't like about it. The, there, it, and, and I'm... Listen, I, we can talk about what it's actually having just b- uh, begun to build an app while we're on this Zoom, uh, or, or this, uh, whatever. Yeah, it's pretty... Like, from a marketing perspective, it's pretty good. So I asked it to build an inbound AI SDR for me. I've already done this and bought and used a bunch of these tools. The way it qualified and specced out this product, pretty good. Uh, pre- pretty good, right? Certainly better than Replit or Lovable, which are horizontal tools. The, the, the journey it guided me through, it, it did what, what, it did what Make couldn't do. While we're here, it researched sastrdoc.ai. It figured out what I did. It analyzed what tool I would likely wanna build. It specced out the tool. Did a great job. Like, I give it a 10 out of 10 in terms of the journey so far, and then it immediately asked me to give a credit card to pay $49 a month before I got any value. My general experience in agentic tools like this is that when they ask for money before they deliver any value, it's not that good. Like, the, the, the, the marketing exceeds the value of the tool. Um, I can't think of an exception. I'm not saying they're out there, but every time I go through one of these, I, I immediately try to f- uh, figure out where the cancel link is, and it doesn't exist. So, but I give them a 10 out of 10 for the, for the, um, for the sort of before I put in my credit card journey. It's, it's pretty, pretty good. Like, they, they've definitely, they definitely make you feel like they can build something, uh, pretty, pretty badass for you.
- HSHarry Stebbings
I have to say one thing that is impressive. I, I met them as part of the fundraise, to be very candid.
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah.
- HSHarry Stebbings
It is one founder. There, there's no team. There's no them.
- JLJason Lemkin
You're right. It is one guy, right?
- HSHarry Stebbings
Yeah.
- JLJason Lemkin
It's one guy, right?
- HSHarry Stebbings
Yeah.
- JLJason Lemkin
So it's pretty... I, I'm impressed with the aesthetics of it. I just, um, and I know a lot of founders disagree with me this day. A lot, and a lot of accelerators tell you to charge instantly for these agentic products, but I know the ones that I love, right, that I use every day, they give you value before you have to put in a credit card. And this is going back to the, the Y Combinator $2 million of tokens. Invest $5 in me or a dollar of tokens in me or $2 to earn $49 a month, which is the entry points for the, for the product. You can't invest two bucks in me? I'm disappointed, right? Um, but I get, I get why a lot of young founders or others think it's not worth two bucks, but to me, I'm out.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Boys, what other stories have I missed that you think we should cover? Exa raised 250 at $2.2 billion to build a search engine for AI agents. Today, OpenRouter announced their round, which was I think $150 million at a $1.3 billion led by CapitalG. Manus founders are trying to now buy back the company in quite a contorted deal.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah, I mean, I think, look, you know, what all these have in common, and the first two have in common, and the third one's obviously very different, is look, super interesting kinda infrastructure companies all about the build-out in AI, right? And the big picture here is, you know, corp, you know, enterprises are adopting AI. They're, you know, yes, they're using LLMs, but there's a, a coterie of other tools that developers and people need to kind of build great agents, and, you know, Exa's doing... I mean, you know, just what Exa does is around search, because if you think about it, if you remember back when ChatGPT first came out, it was dumb about anything other than what it, you know, what the model had been trained on, and then people like Perplexity add internet search. So now when you do a ChatGPT query or a Perplexity query or an Anthropic query, it queries the web at the same time, so it knows what's going on. Well, in the same way, if you're building as an enterprise, building an agent of your own, and you have access to the OpenAI API or the Anthropic API, what you don't have, what you also will want is some version of a structured, um, web search, either across the whole web or across a set of kind of defined websites, so that when you build your own internal agent, it's a smart agent that knows what's going on. And Exa caters to that need. It's done really nicely. Themselves and Parallel are the two companies doing that that have recently raised. And my point is merely there's just a whole bunch of infrastructure going on one level below the foundation models that are just super interesting. You know, we talked about OpenRouter before, I think, which is a company that allows their customers to switch between various different models, both the foundation models and the open source models. They have, I think, 50-plus models hosted on there to allow enter- you know, obviously enterprises to access the lowest cost model. And these are all just interesting trends because, you know, I, I think the OpenRouter one is interesting because going back to what Jason said, price cutIf people are spending three hundred million dollars on a premium product and having to lay off people as a result of that, there's gonna be some interest in exploring cheaper costs. And I think companies like OpenRouter, the value proposition is, hey, not every query you need to make needs to be done on the most expensive foundation model, and there are other places to do that, right? So I think again, it's just that, that the, yeah, the cliché, the picks and shovels of the agentic revolution is just a good place to be investing, and I think it will be, uh, going forward. Like strong, interesting teams doing good stuff. You know, you, you can squint one way and say foundation models hoover it all up, but I don't think they do. I think there's a lot to be done around building your great next generation agents. I mean, Jason, do you guys use Parallels or Exa or what for web search when you're building your agents?
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah, and I, I'm a small investor in Exa. Um, it's just a great product, right? It's another one where I was a, a, a user before an investor, right? An early user because, um-- And the reason I think it's super interesting, even more interesting than OpenRouter, right, which is a great one, is, um, OpenRouter is really interesting because it's, uh-- Well, first of all, they, they nailed the ability to dynamically and easily pick your LLM, right? They nailed something. And so it's a proxy for all these, all these discussions, right? It's a great proxy and insight.
- RORory O’Driscoll
The world needs that product. It really-
- JLJason Lemkin
Exa is more interesting and, and, and some of its peers because this is-- these are products that have no use without agents. And when we throw these term agents around like, uh, like, uh-- But agents have a lot of meaning, right? But literally, if you're not, at at least as far, as far as I'm aware of, if you're not building an agentic product, you have no use for a produ-- a pro-- a tool like Exa, right? Agents don't, agents don't hop on Google and do search. They, they don't. They, and they don't, they don't, and they don't create files on Dropbox, and they don't hop on Zoom. Like agents have a whole-- True agents have a different set of workflows and tools they use, and Exa nailed one of the core... It wasn't even obvious to me until I started. There's an, there is an obvious issue, like your, your agents do need to find current information. Like it's just that simple. Just like we-- Google was the killer use u- app for humans, right? Your agents need it, but they don't need Google. Um, and putting aside whether Google should have built it rather than promote Exa, um, which was a ball bouncing the right way, to see the type of growth, even at the early stage, for something that agents need and humans directly don't, it's w-- it's a look into the future. And it also says that a lot of this stuff isn't BS, that a lot of this stuff is real, and that we, we may... The idea that we may all manage more agents than humans isn't just Exa BS. Um, it's real. It's real. And they needed a whole different set of tools. They don't need Zoom. They don't need a traditional CRM. They need tools like Exa, and maybe we should only be investing in those things and leave those human tools behind, guys. Enough investing in human software.
- 1:10:09 – 1:19:42
Exa Raises at $2.2BN to Build Search for Agents
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah.
- HSHarry Stebbings
A very dangerous thing to do. Can you paint to me the upside case here at two point two billion? What, what is that upside case from here? Is this a, a hundred billion dollar company which powers the future of agents? And what is the market composition of this market? We've got Para- got Par- Parallel doing it as well. Is this an Uber/Lyft where one of the providers takes ninety percent? Is this an AWS Google Cloud? Just help me understand that.
- RORory O’Driscoll
I think it's more the latter than the former. It's not a-- It doesn't have-- 'Cause it, you know, it's a developer tool. There's not huge network effects. So you can easily contemplate two companies being pretty successful here, right? Which slight pr-- I mean, we did some work on this. We looked at Exa back in the last round. Think super team, and it's a good product. We-- Someo- someone bid higher and they won the deal, and great name too, Benchmark, so what can you do, right? I actually think it's a super good company. I like the team. I think they're smart. I think the market's there. Um, and I don't think it's a winner take all. I think it'll be a couple of players, 'cause it just doesn't pay... You know, you're not gonna have ten 'cause it's not economically efficient to have that. But at the same time, it's not like Google, where the winner take all emerged because it's, it was a consumer product, and then the ad network and the, the kind of structure of the market for ad sales kind of pointed to a winner take most. In this case, individual developers will be making decisions. So I can imagine, yeah, comfortably two players here dividing, you know, reasonable market share, just like most developer tools. I think next level, how big can it be is the question. I think Jason's right. It's all about the more you believe in agents, the more you believe they're gonna wanna access structured information, and this thing's gonna to-co-attach to all that. So, so that's the bet here, right? You are betting on lots of agents needing lots of information, doing lots of reasoning, you know, just doing lots of search. So i-i-it's a derivative bet on agents. And right now, that's been a good bet. You know, I, I think, you know, how, how you think about getting to a billion dollars in revenue, which is probably what you need to be de-- to, in a normal market, to be worth ten billion in, um, you know, market cap. I'm just thinking about it on the fly here, 'cause I remember we looked at the numbers year and a half. It's not crazy in a world... Look, if we're spending, going back to, going back to first principles, if we're spending three trillion on CapEx, right? That's the Jensen comment. Then the second comment is if you look at the, um, if you look at the SpaceX I-- S-1, remember I said that ninety percent of the market is AI? One of the next interesting thing is within that AI, they said ninety percent of that is enterprise. So they're basically saying the vast bulk of AI spend is gonna be enterprise building shit, right? And if that's the case, and they're building enterprises to, frankly, replace human work, then I think there's a pretty compelling market for the product that allows structured information to be acce-- uh, t-to be accessible to that agent. I think it'll expand beyond just web search. I think it'll do curated lists. I think it'll do internal information, but there's totally a need for that product.
- HSHarry Stebbings
That was fucking wild. Another fucki-- another benchmark company. This fund is like gonna be one of the best performing funds in history. I mean, seriously.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yes. Good for them
- JLJason Lemkin
That's the job. That's the job
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah, but every company, Jason, like, the, the number of hits is extraordinary
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah, and like, and so they did Exa at seven hundred, right? Or something like that, right? I think, um, I think you're right. Uh, that's the... For... This is 20VC, so, so, ha- it'll be an epic fund. I think also going in early and realizing that investing in a smidge of traction and breaking your rules a little bit was the right bet for today, arguably, I think was maybe another insight too, right? You know, Jack Altman just joined, right? And he just did Monaco, which I know well. I'm a s- small shareholder. And, you know, they marked up the deal very quickly, almost two X from Founders Fund. But when Founders Fund invested, it had no revenue. [laughs] So he got a much better deal for Benchmark by investing i- you know, the, the, the markups a couple of months later, but the, but going from pre-revenue to blowing up, right? Uh, that's... If you can get into the moment an AI leader blows up, that, that hour, like, that's when you want to invest, right? And so then they've got-- They've tripled their, their exit valuation, and I just think... This going back to Seed is for suckers. Like, you want to invest the hour it blows up. The minute it blows up, you want to get the DM and just wire the money in AI. That's the play.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Pu- pushing on that a little, because first of all, you got to give huge credit then to LightSpeed for doing the seed in Exa-
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah, for suckers
- RORory O’Driscoll
... right? Super early on. Well, I mean, if a sucker means you want a lot of percentage at low dollars, yeah. No, but I think what you're saying is-
- JLJason Lemkin
[laughs]
- RORory O’Driscoll
... actually... So, so first of all, I just wanted to give that credit there. But second, I think what you're saying is correct, which is there's a quantum reduction in risk when you go from no revenue to revenue, and then there's a linear reduction in risk thereafter. So the sweet spot I always think on the risk-return continuum is early product market fit, which is why we focus on it. Now, you're right, Jason. The, the, the amazing thing about these AI companies is that moment used to be a year, year and a half, maybe two years of, you know, early product market. Now, what you're seeing is you go from early product market fit to, "Oh my god, it's incredibly obvious," just given the take rate literally sometimes in, you know, weeks, if not months, and definitely not years. I mean, you know, you know the Lovable and Replit numbers. I think the same thing kind of happens here. You got to find that moment. And yeah, you got to pay... I mean, you know, in retrospect, I was wrong. You should have... You, you shouldn't have bid what I bid. You should have bid seven fifty.
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah, but also you have to, you, abstract away... Not only does it happen so fast, but the counter, the counter side is you have to abstract away some of the competitive risk. You have to not worry that Google could... Why didn't Google do it, right? Because otherwise you'll do none of these deals, espec- even if Google wouldn't do it, the company didn't even exist a year ago in its current form, so what are the renewals gonna look like? Like, we don't know any of these data points, right?
- RORory O’Driscoll
I mean, it's... Y- y- I agree. This is actually an interesting discussion about our job as distinct from being public market pontificators. You're right. You have to decide that you're willing to pay more on less information than the SaaS era simply because the market and traction that you're going to see, if you're right, are so much q- come so much quicker and is so much bigger. That is the core of figuring out what's going on right now. And, and that's been the bet that's worked. Right? Now look back on the stuff we did that I feel right about, those are the criteria, and then obviously you have to get the traction. If you don't, you feel like a moron, right? And on the stuff you missed, you look back and you go, "You should have leaned in even more. You should have been more willing to give conviction on the traction, even though the data points were sparse." Because the stuff that's working, that, that's in tune with what people are trying to build is just... You know, it's the universality of the propensity to adopt right now. There's no 10-year cloud journey where some people decide now and more people decide two years from now. It goes back to the first thing we said. Corporate America flipped, flipped the switch a year ago and said, "Thou shalt do AI in 2026." And if you're selling anything on the picks and shovels business to help corporate America do AI, you get revenue this year. You don't get the luxury of waiting, "Oh, I'll wait to see one year's renewals before I bid."
- JLJason Lemkin
There's a thread which is, can you make... If, if you have agentic pro- products, can you make it up in volume? So there is a software explosion. The number of apps we are building, it may not be benefiting Dropbox, right? Where Drew just stepped down. But overall, the number of apps is exploding at a rate we've never seen before. So apps are being built everywhere. Workflows are being built everywhere. Agents are being built. Uh, if you consider an agent a piece of software, it's exponential, right? Um, at, at, at Databricks Neon, which is their Supabase competitor, over ninety percent of the databases are built by agents, not by humans, okay? But they don't pay as much as they pay Mongo. [laughs] So the question is, and I don't think Exa makes anywhere near what Google makes on a search, right? And so where I think we're gonna get caught in a lot of these tools is where there aren't orders of magnitude more volume. And the reason Supabase and Exa and these groups are neat is because you don't need them for every app you build or every use case, but you sure need them for a lot. You sure need them for a lot. And we're gonna make in- mistakes as investors. I, I know I've already made one or two, and, and they're not fatal mistakes, but where it all c- it's, it's an agentic workflow. Agents need it, but they don't need it all the time, and so I can't make it up in volume. Like, we need vast volume for these plays to work. Vast.
- RORory O’Driscoll
You, you, you're right, Jason, because you're right, the dollars per search as well. And basically what you're saying is, you know, what is the, what is the s- call it the harness, call it what... What are the core primitives that it takes to build an agent? What are the other things that e- that pretty much most enterprise developers will figure out, "Oh, I need a this, a that, and the other to make my agent"? And if you pick the thing that only ten percent of developers need because it's corner case, you'll pay up and you'll have a tiny market and you'll be sad. But there probably is going to be five or six things like a database, like a search engine, like some kind of observability, where, you know, over the next two or three years, revealed preference will say, you know, the vast majority of developers realize they need this. It doesn't come in the box, in the harness from Anthropic or OpenAI, and therefore standalone companies will be built doing it. You're right, and we just actually had that discussion last week. What are the five or six things that you need to own, right? And I think it's a credible argument that-Agent search, which is Exa. And actually, I think, I could be wrong, the OpenRouter thing is that kinda a model switching layer could be two of those things that every... When you look back five years from now, every app company either building a third-party app or building in-house said, "Oh, I need that product." So they end up with, you know, mass developer
- 1:19:42 – 1:27:33
Is Replacing Your CRM with Vibe Coding Always Ragebait
- RORory O’Driscoll
adoption. That's the bet.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Okay, we're gonna do a final round, which, as always, is rage bait but real. I just tweeted, and me and Jason were talking about it.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Oh, God.
- HSHarry Stebbings
Uh, I just interviewed a CEO who said three things. We re- number one, "We replaced our 600K Salesforce contract with a Vibe Coded CRM, which we built in three weeks." Number two, "We will get rid of 80% of the SaaS we use internally." And number three, "If Anthropic doubled pricing, we would not change our usage." Which do you think is the most rage bait statement there?
- RORory O’Driscoll
Ooh, it's tight for rage-
- JLJason Lemkin
I think the first one's, first one i- is clear to ask ra- rage bait.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah.
- JLJason Lemkin
And it's unhelpful. It's unhelpful. Um, if you want to build your own CRM on top of Postgres, go for it. Go, go for it. We bu- we moved to headless Salesforce, okay? We don't log into Salesforce anymore. Um, we could... We're a small enough organization, we could swap that out for our own database. It's not worth it. It's not worth maintaining that database. It's not worth fixing the connectors to our 10 external agents, which all natively built, built into Salesforce. It's not worth giving up Agentforce. But if we n- needed no third-party apps and we had time to burn, uh, sure, because we already have our own layer, right? We already have our own autonomous agents running on top of Salesforce, but this is such a waste of time talking about Vibe Coding away Salesforce when we have more important, uh, threats to our existing portfolio than this one, or more important things to invest in. So I just think it's, it's a dated 2025 take, um, even if there's truth in it, even if there's truth in it.
- HSHarry Stebbings
His statement was actually that the functionality was so much better in what they were able to custom-build with the, the integrations that they needed, given they're a healthcare-focused company, that actually it was worth it to build their own, and that they're able to do so much more given that past foundation.
- JLJason Lemkin
It might be. If you have extreme vertical focus and willing to-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Yeah
- JLJason Lemkin
... have an internal CRM that is not collaborative, and you have a relatively small team using it, and the benefits of knowing of a traditional CRM interface and the thousands of apps integrate with them are zero to you, and you have time, because you don't save any money. This isn't worth it for the money. If all those things are true, vibe it away, dude. V-vibe it away. But this is, of all the threats there are to Salesforce and HubSpot and Monday and Atlassian, this ain't in the top 10, right? That's why I think it's rage bait, because it, it matters, but it's not, it's not, it's not important in today's world. Um, and it's not even the SaaSpo- it doesn't even explain the SaaSpocalypse, right? Other things explain the SaaSpocalypse, right?
- RORory O’Driscoll
I like that answer on the first and agree. Yes, if you can get better functionality for, knock yourself out, but Vibe Coding, i- that's just silly. I actually wanna take the third one and actually put it back on the CEO. What he basically said is, "If Anthropic double their prices, I wouldn't mind." Right? Then you should be ashamed of yourself. You know why? Because what it basically says is the ROI on this AI is so good I could pay twice as much. Well, in that case, let me tell you what you should do right now. You should go in and tell your people, "Use twice as much." Because logically, there is some kind of... There's an ROI on every token you spend, and the early ones are really great, and eventually you probably hit the marginal cost is exactly equal to the marginal advantage, and then you over... And if you're token maxing, you're overspending, right? If you think you are willing to pay tw- if the projects that you're doing right now with AI really, not just rage bait, but really have a 2X retur- have a return that's 2X better, that, that, that could support twice as much the price, then what you should say to your engineers is, "You're not using enough. Go do more." Right? 'Cause the t- two, two things have to be true at the same time, right? If the i- if you, if, if Anthropic could double your prices and this project is still economically viable, then what's the next project on your to-do list? Go do it.
- JLJason Lemkin
I'm with you. But the company Harry's talking about is at 2 million in revenue per employee, so they can afford it. Let's be clear. They can afford to spend more on tokens.
- RORory O’Driscoll
No, but-
- JLJason Lemkin
You're right. Of course you're right, Rory. If you're that efficient and you don't care what it costs, spend more, right? You haven't reached that-
- RORory O’Driscoll
Does Harry don't care what it costs?
- JLJason Lemkin
But I will tell you-
- RORory O’Driscoll
What?
- JLJason Lemkin
... because we're there. I don't care what we spend on Anthropic either, okay? Our AI VP of marketing customer success costs $257 a month. I don't care if it's 500. What's 257 times... We're getting toward the end of the pod.
- RORory O’Driscoll
It doesn't matter.
- JLJason Lemkin
It doesn't matter. But here's the pro- here's the interesting thing. This is why I actually think it's interesting, is we're al- if you're really good at this stuff, the issue isn't more money, the issue is idle, idleness. Our agents are idle. We don't have enough brain sci- Like, this is why these, these... What, what, what's the, what's the term for folks that can't sleep in San Francisco? They're, they're, they're coding all night. They, they have, uh, what's, what's the, what's the term? I forget what it is.
- RORory O’Driscoll
I could be cynical and say incels, but that would be mean.
- JLJason Lemkin
No, there's this term where you're, like, addicted to it, like your bra- your, your brain, your, your brain's been rewired. What the problem is with... Like, listen, there's the Uber issue where we spent too much on slop, okay? Or we don't know how to manage. There's a different issue coming, which is coming for more of us in tech, which is that our humans just can't process all the output. It's not even about the money anymore. I, if you, if you wake up and build me 50 features every single day, how many features can I even qualify overnight? Because we wake up every day, Rory, and our AI VP of marketing nags the hell out of us with three ideas we should be doing every day. It's exhausting. You can't implement 21 ideas a week, right? Every day, s- 7:13 AM, three ideas of the day 10K comes up with and pushes. "You didn't get to my idea yesterday, did you? Now you're behind," right?
- RORory O’Driscoll
But that case is different. But stop.
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah.
- RORory O’Driscoll
Y- first of all, you're right. I agree with what you're saying. I just still go back to my comment, though, is that it's a... I mean, th- th- that paper I cited is that, you know, you can increase the complexity of the task and spend more money. 'Cause he's implicitly saying he's getting v- he's getting way more value than he's paying for, right? So when you look, and you g- you're saying the sa- at 250 bucks, which is nothing, you're saying you get three great ideas a day and you can't process them. Correct?
- JLJason Lemkin
Yeah, we get more than that, but in addition, we get nagged.
- RORory O’Driscoll
But in that case, in that case-
- JLJason Lemkin
We get three things we need to do
Episode duration: 1:27:43
Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript
Transcript of episode jhZsQb3YvDg
