Trump's market impact: Bitcoin, M&A, IPOs + transition picks; Polymarket CEO raided by FBI

Bitcoin hit an all-time high near $92K and crypto-exposed equities like Affirm, Robinhood, PayPal, and Coinbase are up 50–100% since late summer. Friedberg attributes this to expectations of lower taxes, deregulatory policy, and friendlier crypto rules, which increase risk appetite and capital flows into higher-yield, riskier assets. At the same time, the 10-year Treasury sitting around 4.5% with very tight credit spreads shows markets are both risk-seeking and beginning to reassess Treasuries as truly ‘risk-free’ given persistent deficits and inflation.

Chamath and Sacks argue that with risk-free Treasuries yielding ~4.5% (effectively 20x cash flow with no credit risk) and the S&P trading at rich multiples, it’s hard to justify paying aggressive IPO valuations for unprofitable SaaS and internet names. On M&A, Chamath is skeptical that ‘waiting out Lina Khan’ alone will suddenly unleash mega-deals; truly accretive, industrial-logic deals would already be happening if the economics justified them at current rates.

Sacks highlights the FIT21 bill, which would classify tokens on ‘functional and decentralized’ blockchains as commodities under the CFTC and more centralized ones as securities under the SEC. With Republicans now controlling the Senate and Gensler likely on his way out, the industry is close to the ‘rules of the road’ it’s wanted, ending the era of regulation-by-enforcement and ambiguous Wells notices. This regulatory clarity is a key driver behind the current crypto rally.

Sacks praises Lina Khan’s willingness to pressure monopolies like Amazon, Apple, and Google, even as he faults her for over-broad enforcement that chilled small-tech M&A. J-Cal proposes a simple rule: restrict M&A for trillion-dollar-plus ‘Mag 7’ platforms but allow aggressive dealmaking among mid-cap tech and internet companies. In his view, letting Uber, DoorDash, Airbnb, Waymo-like spinouts, etc., merge and scale could create a ‘Mag 70’ and real competition, rather than further entrenching today’s top seven.

Sacks argues that most pharma TV spend is not about persuading consumers—who can’t buy drugs without prescriptions—but about purchasing favorable or selectively silent coverage from networks dependent on pharma ad revenue. Friedberg adds that healthcare and drug prices have been inflated by government programs and regulatory capture, making pharma exceptionally profitable and able to fund this influence loop. While he’s wary of government banning ads outright on free-speech grounds and notes some genuine public-health benefits of awareness campaigns, both agree the current arrangement is a ‘self-licking ice cream cone’ that keeps prices and capture high.