E33: Apple’s hypocrisy, America fails math, crypto’s regulatory correction, Clubhouse, UFOs & more

1. 0:00 – 25:48

   Apple's hypocrisy re: AGM firing

   1. JCJason Calacanis0:00

      Friedberg. Friedberg.

   2. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:01

      What's up?

   3. JCJason Calacanis0:02

      It seems like you have a piece of shit on the side of your mouth, or is that a birthmark?

   4. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:06

      It's a-

   5. JCJason Calacanis0:06

      Oh, no, it's a birthma- gotcha. (laughs)

   6. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:09

      (laughs)

   7. DSDavid Sacks0:09

      (laughs) Oh, sorry. Sorry, sorry.

   8. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:10

      Go on, Jason. Sorry. I'm sorry.

   9. JCJason Calacanis0:10

      Jes- Did, did you record that?

   10. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:12

       Yeah, absolutely. (laughs)

   11. DSDavid Sacks0:13

       Jesus. (laughs)

   12. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:14

       Look at this guy. He takes his shirt off for one fucking selfie and now everybody who's fat and pale on the show, the other three of us, is gonna be ridiculed.

   13. JCJason Calacanis0:23

       I'm having steak tonight, S-T-E-A-K tonight.

   14. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:26

       Ah, I'm lifting twice a week now. (grunts) Come on, Sacks, come get some. Let's fucking go. Three, two-

   15. NANarrator0:32

       Don't go yet. Don't let your winner slide. Rain Man David Sacks. Don't go all in. As I said, we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. The queen of quinoa. I'm going all in.

   16. CPChamath Palihapitiya0:49

       Hey, everybody. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the All-In Podcast with me again, the dictator himself, Chamath Palihapitiya, Rain Man David Sacks definitely with us, definitely a great driver. His dad lets him drive in the driveway. And, of course, everybody's favorite, the queen of quinoa, the science conductor himself, David Friedberg.

   17. JCJason Calacanis1:14

       Queen. Queen.

   18. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:15

       The queen.

   19. JCJason Calacanis1:16

       Queen. Queen.

   20. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:16

       Uh, lot of activity online. It's been a little bit of chaos since we, uh, all got together here. I guess we should talk about this Apple story with, uh, Antonio Garcia Martinez. You may have heard that he was hired by Apple to, I guess, run their ad efforts, and I have a little bit of information on kind of what he was gonna do there in terms of ads, which is really interesting. Um, but, uh-

   21. JCJason Calacanis1:43

       Tell us, tell us, tell us, tell us.

   22. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:45

       Okay. Well, anyway, y- you know how we're basically-

   23. JCJason Calacanis1:48

       Start at the beginning and assume people don't know who Antonio Garcia Martinez is.

   24. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:51

       Okay. So Antonio Garcia Martinez was a Facebook developer. He is some really smart guy who uses a lot of big words and wrote a book called Chaos Monkeys, which is a great book, where he takes, um, a very Jack Kerouac kind of, you know, a lot of prose, and, uh, he wrote this book about his time at Facebook. The problem is, he said some things in the book that would be, five years later, problematic. At the time, they were actually, uh, considered problematic by some folks. And in the full quote, maybe, uh, less problematic, but he was essentially ousted because of the following problematic quote. Um, the quote is, "Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naïve, despite their claims of worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement, feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they become precisely the sort of useless baggage you'd trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel." Um, and they shortened that quote to be that most women are soft and weak and, uh, full of shit. So, in conte- in context, in this book, he was contrasting the Bay Area women he had dated with the mother of his kids, who he describes as strong and tall and tough and amazing. Um, but still, the quote's a little gnarly, and the quote out of, you know, when it's out of context becomes particularly gnarly. And, of course, um, this led to, uh, a petition at Apple, which then led to him being fired, uh, which now is gonna lead to him probably (laughs) getting a $10, uh, million settlement. Uh, of course, there's a lot of, uh, hypocrisy being brought up here because Apple has allegedly been using, or Apple's supply chain has slave labor in it from the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. Um, and obviously, Apple gave Dr. Dre billions of dollars, uh, for, uh, Beats by Dre, and, uh, he has a even more misogynistic, um, series of lyrics and was also accused of physically assaulting, um, I believe, his wife and other people he dated.

   25. JCJason Calacanis4:22

       Who? Dr. Dre?

   26. CPChamath Palihapitiya4:23

       Dr. Dre, yeah. Uh, so anyway, uh, what do you think? Okay, there you go. Next story. (laughs)

   27. DSDavid Sacks4:34

       No, I'm happy to jump into this. Um, I think, Jason, I think you're, you're, you focus a little bit too much, and I saw your, your pod with, with Zach Collias on this. Um, a lot of good takes, but I think you're a little too focused on what AGM, as I think it's easier just to call him by his initials, what he did as opposed to what the employees at Apple did. And, um, there is at least four things that Apple did, or five things that Apple did wrong. I mean, number one, I think there was a very good reason not to hire this guy, which is that he wrote a best-selling tell-all book about the last big tech company he worked at.

   28. CPChamath Palihapitiya5:07

       (laughs) Yeah.

   29. DSDavid Sacks5:08

       So why, if you're a big tech company, why in the world would you hire him? So that was stupid decision number one. But they did decide to hire him, and once they hire him, they got to treat him like any other employee and give him a chance to show what he can do. And so that leads to mistake number two, which is these 2,000 employees who signed this petition really distorted and took out of context that passage. And I know the passage is cringe, okay, um, a- and gnarly and, and it could, you know, certainly appear sexist, but you have to put it in its context. And the, the larger con- this is a work of literature. This is a best-selling, uh, book. It's, what, 150,000 words. They're taking 150 words out of context. And the context was, like you said, he's describing the mother of his children, the love of his life in, as this sort of Linda Hamilton-esque in Terminator type figure or Charlize Theron in Mad Max. And this passage is not in there to describe all women. It's just basically a literary flourish to contrast...... the, the, this, the woman that he loves, uh, being such a badass compared to every other woman. And, and, you know, when Kara Swisher interviewed AGM five years ago, she brought up this passage. He explained it and she said, "Yeah, okay, I get it." So, you know, it, it's certainly the case that people can understand the context if they choose to and they simply are not choosing to understand the context. Which brings me to mistake number three, which is these 2,000 employees lied in their petition by claiming that their safety is threatened by Apple hiring AGM. That is simply untrue. It's physically impossible in the era of Zoom when everyone's working from home, but this guy is not a threat to anyone's safety.

   30. CPChamath Palihapitiya6:47

       No.
2. 25:48 – 40:10

   America is failing math

   1. CPChamath Palihapitiya25:48

      uh, America is, uh, really doing a bad job at math. And Garry Tan, uh, the venture capitalist, retweeted and, and participated in a tweet thread about immigrants. Um, "Who know that standardized test is probably your best shot at getting somewhere." Uh, "Your money or social status can't take you. The rules are, well, standardized." And he tells this story about this. But there was a Persuasion article (laughs) , um, about us failing math and that they're going to be, in California, getting rid of the gifted programs for math because it's unfair to the kids who are not gifted. As a kid who is, was not gifted, uh, and to the three kids on the program who were in gifted programs, or at least two of you were, I have no problem with there being a gifted program, but any thoughts on this?

   2. DFDavid Friedberg26:34

      I think it's just shameful.

   3. DSDavid Sacks26:36

      Yeah. It really is.

   4. DFDavid Friedberg26:37

      It's, I mean, like, we are, we are really doing our level best to just completely fuck our population. Why? I mean, why is this even... How could this even be possible? It's, like, like, just as, like, it's, it's kind of, like, the equivalent. It's the moral equivalent of actually saying, "You know what? We're gonna eliminate welfare for the bottom fo- 5%." Like, w- our job as a society is to kind of, like, find the broadest set of solutions for the most number of people and solve for both extremes. So, when you're dealing with education, you both need to understand that there are folks that need some kind of structural support. Look, when I came to Canada, I had ESL, right? English as a Second Language. You take that so that you can learn the native language of a country. It didn't mean that I was stupid, it just meant that I was behind. You know? If I had dyslexia or something else, I would need some kind of support. One of my children had a speech impediment. We had a speech therapist. This is what you do. But on the other side, if you have a kid who's an incredibly high performer who has the potential to just completely crush, hey, like, you should be able to give that kid a pathway to achieve and give back. So, the idea that you would eliminate anything at the extremes is kind of completely uncompassionate and stupid, just totally fucking stupid.

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya27:54

      Well, it's in the name of having a more equitable (laughs) math class.

   6. DFDavid Friedberg27:58

      Again, I hate that word please don't use that word.

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya28:00

      Yeah, I get that to trigger you. (laughs)

   8. DFDavid Friedberg28:01

      Please don't use that word. Please don't use that word. That is let, that is the least-

   9. By the way, this, this... I mean, this goes back to the point I made a few episodes ago that, you know, you can have progress or you can have equality, but it's very difficult to have both. And, uh, you know, if you wanna try and make everyone equal and give no one the opportunity to have more or get more than anyone else because of whatever the circumstance may be, whether it's earned-

   10. CPChamath Palihapitiya28:21

       No, that's not true.

   11. DFDavid Friedberg28:21

       ... or whether it's inbred. Uh, uh, no, but this is my point. Like, you know, you limit the ability for everyone to, to progress as a group because we're now limiting the ability for folks to take calculus. I think-

   12. No, equality, look, I'll use a video game example. Equality means we all get to play Grand Theft Auto, not that we have a, a, somebody who actually plays for us and gets to the same answer and just gives you a ticket that says, "Here's what your result was."

   13. CPChamath Palihapitiya28:43

       Yeah, we don't all get the same score on Donkey Kong.

   14. DFDavid Friedberg28:44

       Right.

   15. You don't get the same score.

   16. CPChamath Palihapitiya28:45

       Yeah.

   17. DFDavid Friedberg28:46

       So the, so the, so the, that's, that is what equality means, is that we all get to play, and we all get a chance to play.

   18. Versus equity, which is leveling everyone.

   19. Equity is leveling everybody and saying, "Here's your result."

   20. Right.

   21. "And by the way, it's the same as this other person's result."

   22. M- and this, and this is number... Whatever the misnomer is. But the, the notion of leveling everyone, where no one can be ahead of anyone else by too far, uh, obviously limits, as a group, our ability for the top decile to, to increment or the top quartile to increment. Um-

   23. I gotta think.

   24. DSDavid Sacks29:10

       I, I-

   25. DFDavid Friedberg29:10

       Look, let's, and let's again use-

   26. DSDavid Sacks29:12

       Yeah.

   27. DFDavid Friedberg29:12

       Let's again use our friends because, instead of ours, but, you know, we know a lot of really smart people, um, who have really, really smart kids. We also know people in general that are in tough circumstances who also probably have really smart kids. Just purely selfishly for me, I want those kids (laughs) doing the best they can to figure out what the hell they can invent for us in the future. Why would you slow those kids down? You know?

   28. DSDavid Sacks29:40

       Yeah.

   29. DFDavid Friedberg29:40

       Right.

   30. It's kind of, like, saying, you know what? Like, how about a Black athlete? Would you, would it be preposterous to say, "You know what? You don't have a right to go to the NBA and make money for your family. I'm gonna slow you down because there's another white kid that's gonna go through four years of college, so you know what? You're gonna have to go through four years of college, and you're gonna have to pay for it."
3. 40:10 – 50:10

   Inflation fears slowing down, infrastructure bill restructuring, corporate tax loopholes

   1. CPChamath Palihapitiya40:10

   2. DFDavid Friedberg40:10

      Well, Bri- Biden just, uh... they, they just, uh... a press release just hit the wire and they just cut the infrastructure bill from 2.3 trillion to 1.7 trillion.

   3. DSDavid Sacks40:19

      And, and-

   4. CPChamath Palihapitiya40:19

      Oh, so we're doing our job (laughs) here at the-

   5. DFDavid Friedberg40:21

      And-

   6. CPChamath Palihapitiya40:21

      ... Altman Podcast.

   7. DFDavid Friedberg40:22

      ... and, uh, I, I, I had heard from somebody that there just is not the broad-based support, um, for, uh-

   8. CPChamath Palihapitiya40:30

      Yeah.

   9. DFDavid Friedberg40:31

      ... the capital gains tax, so that's not gonna happen. Um, and it looks like the corporate tax will probably go to 25%, um, not even up to 28%. And interestingly, I didn't realize this, but one of the biggest features of the bill that has the most popularity is that they're closing this loophole around IP that sits outside the United States. And that more than the corporate taxes will raise almost a trillion dollars of revenue.

   10. CPChamath Palihapitiya40:55

       I agree with that one. Why should you put your... why is Apple... I mean, you wanna talk about hypocrisy, putting their IP in Ireland so they don't pay taxes in the company-

   11. DSDavid Sacks41:01

       Goog- Google does the same. It was a big breakthrough-

   12. CPChamath Palihapitiya41:03

       ... everybody's doing that.

   13. DSDavid Sacks41:03

       ... yeah.

   14. CPChamath Palihapitiya41:03

       Why does that exist? It's so un-American.

   15. DSDavid Sacks41:07

       Well, it's a subsidiary that has different taxation on it and, you know, to kind of... that capital and that, uh, uh, and that earning-

   16. CPChamath Palihapitiya41:15

       Right, but, but, but-

   17. DSDavid Sacks41:15

       ... sits, sits outside the US.

   18. CPChamath Palihapitiya41:16

       ... that, that IP was made in California. It was not made in Dublin. No offense to, you know, my home country.

   19. DFDavid Friedberg41:24

       I remember Facebook, we did the... we did this exact thing, we signed over all the IP and then the IRS sued Facebook. And I remember, like, I was called either to... I was subpoenaed and we went through, like, a whole multi-year trial, it may still be going on, and it was around this issue, which was the IRS said, "Hey, Facebook, how come you, you know, you ported this over there?" And I think Facebook's answer was, "Yeah, we paid the tax." And I think they did. They don't think they did anything wrong because the laws allowed it, but it effectively helped shield then tens of billions of dollars of future taxes.

   20. CPChamath Palihapitiya41:55

       I, I, I mean, I remember reading about this and I'm like, "How does this s- pass the sniff test?"

   21. DSDavid Sacks41:59

       Well, it's where the revenue is recognized, J-Cal. So you basically can produce the IP here and then transfer it to your subsidiary. When you transfer it to your subsidiary, you can recognize the earnings in that subsidiary and that subsidiary pays taxes in its local jurisdiction. Um, the... I think the issue Facebook had was that they transferred the IP and they undervalued what the future value would be from that IP transfer, and that's why the IRS sued them, is this accounting snafu in terms of like, what did you value it at, at the moment you transferred it?

   22. CPChamath Palihapitiya42:29

       Here's another idea. Why doesn't... why don't they look at, as part of this IP licensing, where does the consumption of that IP occur?And where do the employees who maintain that IP, uh, live?

   23. DFDavid Friedberg42:41

       J Cal, it's a very smart idea. The problem is, that's a slippery slope that then gets to local taxation. You know, the thing is, we have all these global tax treaties where these large corporate entities can basically play this game and they're not subject to local tax. But that's the thing that's going to really start the undoing of the big monopolies because if you start to abandon these global tax treaties... And you're starting to see it. France is trying to do some stuff. The UK is trying to do some stuff. States, in- individually in the United States are trying to sue these companies or tax them more. That's the, that's the first way to chip away at these monopolies, is to basically say, "Fuck your global tax treaty. You need to pay X amount of dollars to be here." And it already exists because of these, you know, um, realist- uh, sorry, the retail tax nexuses and, uh, how e-commerce companies have to pay local tax in the areas. Um, but once it sort of touches a whole bunch of other industries, um, and countries, uh, I think that you're gonna have that. That's why I think Yellen, Janet Yellen, yesterday said that, you know, she's in support of trying to have a global minimum tax of 12%. Basically, trying to get to the end state and tell every country, "Let's all circle the wagons and agree that we'll all just charge everybody 12% and then we won't go all our separate ways." The pr- the problem is that if you have a lot of usage in a country, you know, that country doesn't care what the taxation is in Zimbabwe, right? Or Canada. They're like... If I'm the UK or France, I'm like, I look at the top 20 apps in my country, and I'm like, "Wait a minute, these guys would be paying me $50 billion a year in tax." It's hard to get away from the incentive to, to not wanna tax these companies right now.

   24. CPChamath Palihapitiya44:15

       Sax, any thoughts?

   25. DSDavid Sacks44:17

       Yeah, I don't have a huge thought on the, the IP issue. Um, it, it seems like... I know their, th- the Republican proposal on the infrastructure was six to 800 billion. Um, Biden's proposal initially was 2.3. Chamath is right now, they're down to 1.7. I think the, the markets have been choking on the size of all of this tax and spend, and the... There's been all these reports of inflation spiking, and so the growth stocks have just been hammered because we're all expecting big interest rate increases to control this future inflation. So, um, Biden's been horrible for growth stocks so far and it really... I guess that what it shows is that... You know, what are growth stocks? Growth stocks are a future investment, and it shows the way that the government can crowd out... When you have excess government spending, I guess you can call it an investment if you want, but when you have excess government spending, it starts to crowd out private investment because it raises interest rates and that, you know, decreases the, the value of growth stocks and there's less money that flows into that.

   26. CPChamath Palihapitiya45:23

       Yeah, it does seem like the market reaction to the infrastructure bill, uh, and to inflation has made Biden reconsider his approach, and maybe he just came out too hot. Is, is that your take?

   27. DSDavid Sacks45:36

       I don't, I don't, I don't think Biden's reconsidering. I think it's people like Joe Manchin. Um, remember, it's a 50-

   28. CPChamath Palihapitiya45:41

       Mark Warner. Exactly.

   29. DSDavid Sacks45:42

       Mark Warner, Kyrsten Sinema, the, the moderate... There's a three or four moderate Democrats in the Senate who, I think, are receiving the message. Chamath put it really well the last pod that the markets are sending a message to Washington. I think some of those centrist Democrats read the message. I don't think Biden's aware of an- I don't know what he's aware of, he doesn't seem too aware of anything to me, but I think the moderate Democrats are getting the message.

   30. CPChamath Palihapitiya46:04

       (laughs)
4. 50:10 – 57:46

   Clubhouse's plummeting download numbers, David Sacks gives the besties a scoop

   1. JCJason Calacanis50:10

      explain what's going on with Clubhouse, just for those of us not too close to it.

   2. DFDavid Friedberg50:12

      So explain, explain what it is.

   3. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:14

      Okay, so Clubhouse is a casual audio space. You go into a room and you're immediately taken to a live conversation with people speaking on stage and an audience. Audience members can be promoted to the stage and start talking. And so you're-

   4. DFDavid Friedberg50:26

      In an... Wait, wait, hold on, it's in an app and it's all audio.

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:29

      In an app. In an app audio.

   6. DFDavid Friedberg50:29

      So there's an app, there's an app you go in and it's all audio?

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:32

      Yes.

   8. JCJason Calacanis50:32

      Right, so it's like amateur night at a strip club, but for words? (laughs)

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:35

      (laughs) Uh, or more a comedy club, whatever. You just bring people onstage. Yeah, it's kind of like the champagne room, but a little different. Um, so (laughs) anyway... (laughs) And there we go, our first cancellation of the pod.

   10. DFDavid Friedberg50:47

       It's more, it's more scheduled, it's more... Yeah. (laughs)

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:48

       Apple, 2,000 signatures from Apple to remove All-In from the podcasting app.

   12. DFDavid Friedberg50:52

       Oh, my God.

   13. DSDavid Sacks50:53

       Yeah.

   14. CPChamath Palihapitiya50:53

       We just lost three ranks in the Apple podcasting app. So what's very interesting about this app is that it had a massive number of downloads during the pandemic because people were home and people were not doing anything at night 'cause they were sheltering in place. And, um, they had in... you know, two million downloads in January, 9.5 million in February of this year, and then came crashing down, 2.7 million in, in March and 922 in April. But at the same time, their valuation over 18 months went from 100 million in their seed when they had like 3,000 or 4,000 users to a billion to 4 billion in the last round of financing for a company with zero revenue and, uh, let's call it a couple of million people using the app. And what's really interesting is the same venture firm led all three rounds, à la Sequoia's investment in WhatsApp where they did all the private funding. So you have no outside capital marking this valuation, a $4 billion valuation, $4 billion.

   15. DSDavid Sacks51:52

       Well, they got a, they got an acquisition offer from Twitter for four billion and they, they turned, they did this-

   16. CPChamath Palihapitiya51:58

       Was that ever confirmed?

   17. DSDavid Sacks51:59

       Uh, I've heard it was real.

   18. CPChamath Palihapitiya52:01

       Okay.

   19. DSDavid Sacks52:01

       So, so, but... So basically the reason why the four billion private round happened was so they would keep going as an independent company. They could basically take some ships off the table through secondary and kind of go for the bigger outcome. But yeah, they could have just sold to Twitter for four billion.

   20. CPChamath Palihapitiya52:15

       So-

   21. DSDavid Sacks52:15

       That, they may end up regretting that.

   22. DFDavid Friedberg52:18

       But, like, is this really a function of a broader, um-

   23. CPChamath Palihapitiya52:22

       Inflation?

   24. DFDavid Friedberg52:22

       ... valuation inflation or is this just a function of, there was a company that was a social network with hypergrowth and then it turns out that the product had no stickiness and the hypergrowth went away and it collapsed?

   25. DSDavid Sacks52:34

       The souffle collapsed, the souffle killer collapsed.

   26. DFDavid Friedberg52:35

       The souffle collapsed. Can I, can I, can I just point out, like... And, and forgive me if any, any of you guys are investors in this company or anyone that's listening cares, but, like, if this thing came out before YouTube, people would say, "You know, this is interesting, but it needs an asynchronous killer." It needs a thing where you can, like, record a conversation, post it online, and people can come and watch it and listen to it when they want. It was always so crazy to me that you had to be logged into the app to listen to what was going on, and if you didn't, you missed the conversation and there was no way to, like, go watch the recording of the conversation. Like, am I crazy to think that this was just, like-

   27. DSDavid Sacks53:09

       No.

   28. CPChamath Palihapitiya53:09

       No.

   29. DFDavid Friedberg53:09

       ... something silly?

   30. DSDavid Sacks53:09

       I think you, I think you, I think you nailed it that they don't have async in there. And actually I've got a little disclosure to make here.
5. 57:46 – 1:13:30

   Crypto correction: regulation, centralized coins, potential black swans

   1. CPChamath Palihapitiya57:46

      um, crypto is getting absolutely hammered. Uh, and I... It's... The Chinese have once again said that, uh, they're basically saber-rattling about cryptocurrency. They're obviously gonna do their own, um, uh, crypto.

   2. DFDavid Friedberg58:00

      Jason, I think you... I think you have to talk about China in a, in a slightly broader lens than just what's happening in crypto, because, like-

   3. CPChamath Palihapitiya58:06

      Okay.

   4. DFDavid Friedberg58:06

      ... this is the same week where they basi-... They've, they forced, you know, Zhang Yiming to resign from ByteDance. I mean, you know-

   5. CPChamath Palihapitiya58:14

      Did they?

   6. DFDavid Friedberg58:14

      Last w- last week it was, or last month, it was the CEO, Peng Duoduo. Like, these guys are-

   7. CPChamath Palihapitiya58:17

      And Jack Ma's MIA?

   8. DFDavid Friedberg58:19

      They're going for the jugular. I mean, it's like-

   9. CPChamath Palihapitiya58:21

      Wait, where, where... Where... What... Why are they taking out all their top CEOs? This would be like putting Elon and Jeff Bezos-

   10. DFDavid Friedberg58:28

       Now, this is-

   11. CPChamath Palihapitiya58:28

       ... eh, on the bench. Wh- Is it they just don't want any heroes?

   12. DFDavid Friedberg58:31

       Uh, I don't know. I mean, I, I guess maybe the speculative part of me would say they're showing them who's really in charge of these companies. I mean, i- it would be crazy, to your point, if the government of the United States forced Sundar Pichai and Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk-

   13. DSDavid Sacks58:48

       Right.

   14. DFDavid Friedberg58:48

       ... to resign. It's like, "Hey, sorry. I'm sorry. You need to leave right now and put somebody else in." And, by the way-

   15. CPChamath Palihapitiya58:53

       Deactivate their badges? (laughs)

   16. DFDavid Friedberg58:55

       (laughs) Yeah, we just-

   17. CPChamath Palihapitiya58:56

       Nice.

   18. DFDavid Friedberg58:56

       We just relentlessly criticize them, right? But, but yeah, it's different.

   19. CPChamath Palihapitiya58:59

       Yeah, we just demonize them. (laughs)

   20. DFDavid Friedberg59:01

       (laughs)

   21. CPChamath Palihapitiya59:01

       We just try to cancel them.

   22. DSDavid Sacks59:02

       But, look, but they deserve that level of scrutiny because the amount of power they have. But, but yeah, they... We don't, we don't put them in jail or house arrest or drive them out of their companies, and that is a big advantage for the US economy.

   23. CPChamath Palihapitiya59:14

       The Treasury Department here in the United States is doing a little saber-rattling. They want to know anytime there is a $10,000 transaction in any kinda digital token, and, uh, they're talking about a CBDC to do their own cryptocurrency, so they're putting out a white paper for feedback this summer. Um, and, uh, we are now seeing a pullback on Bitcoin from, you know, uh, mid-60s to, uh, you know, now into the 36, 37,000 per bitcoin. Do you think this is the end of the beginning, beginning of the end?

   24. DFDavid Friedberg59:49

       It's the beginning of the beginning. David Rubenstein was on CNBC today. And David Rubenstein, for those you guys who don't know, is, um, was co-founder of Carlyle Group. You know, more blue chip and blue-blooded you cannot get, and very connected in Washington. And, you know, he said it best where he said, you know, effectively, th- people want this, and the government will, uh, have no choice except to support it, because you can't take something like this with this much institutional and retail demand away. So, we have to go to the place where now crypto needs to be like everything else. And maybe the crypto Stans get upset with that because they don't like it that, you know, a bunch of their parents are all of a sudden gonna be buying tokens and stuff, but they gotta get over it. Um, and this stuff should be, you know, transacted in the same way you transact anything else. You buy it. You sell it. You get a tax return. You pay your taxes, and you move on.

   25. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:00:42

       This reminds me of the transition that we all went through with, I don't know if you remember, Kazaa and Napster and BitTorrent. Like, e- everybody... All the... We... A, a lot of our contemporaries in their 30s, you know, whatever, 10, 20 years ago were like, "You can't stop it. You can't stop it." And y- it got stopped. (laughs) You know, like, you made it illegal, and you prosecuted people, and then you came up with solutions that were regulated like Spotify or, you know, Netflix, and you gave the consumers what they wanted. So, D- David, do you think this is a similar path right now that we're going through, which is the crypto zealots and the, and the, and the Stans are gonna-... basically have to get used to, as Chamath's saying, their parents buying it and, and crypto not being this underground thing, but being regulated in a, in a major way in the United States? And is that a good or bad thing?

   26. DSDavid Sacks1:01:30

       I, I, I think the thing that, that's happening quietly behind the scenes is that major Wall Street players, institutions, endowments, and so forth, uh, over the past year have decided that bitcoin and crypto is a legitimate asset class and they've been allocating to it. Huge, huge pools of capital, balance sheet capital, have been allocating into it. I don't think that's gonna change. This is probably a pretty good buying opportunity. We've seen these crashes in bitcoin many, many times over the years. It plummets down and then it goes back up, and it eventually goes back up and reaches a new peak. So this is probably a pretty good entry point for the next rally. We don't know when that's gonna be. But the whole point of bitcoin is that it's censorship-resistant and China can do its best to try and stamp it out, but I don't think they'll be successful at that. And-

   27. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:02:17

       You don't?

   28. DSDavid Sacks1:02:18

       I don't.

   29. CPChamath Palihapitiya1:02:18

       Oh, you're so wrong about that. That, that is-

   30. DSDavid Sacks1:02:21

       They, they make-

Episode duration: 1:30:09