All-In PodcastE54: Spread trading big tech, capital allocation, Zillow's misfire, Progressives suffer losses
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 7:47
Microsoft pronouns/appearance intro sparks a ‘woke capitalism’ debate
The episode opens with the hosts parodying Microsoft presenters who introduced themselves with pronouns, physical descriptions, and land acknowledgments. They debate whether the practice meaningfully supports visually impaired viewers or is mostly virtue signaling, and riff on where corporate culture is heading.
- •Hosts spoof Microsoft’s identity/appearance introductions and land acknowledgments
- •Debate: accessibility rationale vs performative ‘wokeism’
- •Questioning why race/tribes are mentioned in accessibility context
- •Discussion of internet backlash and clip-vs-context framing
- 7:47 – 12:29
Spread trading explained: long Google & Microsoft, short other big tech
Chamath lays out a ‘risk-parity’ spread trade: go long Google and Microsoft while shorting a basket of other mega-cap tech. The group explains how spread trades reduce market-direction risk and focus on relative outperformance.
- •Definition of a spread trade (long one asset, short another/basket)
- •Why spreads can be less exposed to overall market moves
- •Example: long Amazon vs short traditional retail historically
- •Proposal: long Google/Microsoft vs short Apple/Facebook/Amazon/Netflix
- 12:29 – 17:36
Why Google and Microsoft: platforms, distribution, bundling, and pricing power
They argue Google is insulated by being both a platform (Android) and paying Apple to remain default search, making it a durable cash machine. Microsoft’s strength is distribution and bundling—being ‘80% as good’ can still win when packaged into enterprise suites, as seen with Teams vs Slack and now Microsoft targeting Notion.
- •Google’s ‘safest internet company’ thesis and Apple-default-search payments
- •Microsoft’s distribution advantage: bundling/packaging over feature superiority
- •Slack vs Teams as a case study in enterprise distribution power
- •Notion as the next target and the headwinds this creates for standalone apps
- 17:36 – 20:49
Sacks at the NYSE: Bird (BRDS) goes public and what changed post-COVID
David Sacks joins from the NYSE as Bird begins trading under BRDS after the SPAC merger. He walks through Bird’s trajectory, the COVID shock, and the pivot to a fleet-manager model that improved unit economics and pushed the company toward profitability.
- •Bird’s public listing milestone and Sacks’ early involvement (Series A)
- •What the NYSE floor looks like today vs the ‘Trading Places’ mythos
- •Bird’s pivot: ‘fleet manager’ model and localized operators
- •Quick financial snapshot: revenue, gross profit, and path to profitability
- 20:49 – 26:45
VC distributions vs holding: lockups, LP choice, and Sequoia’s evergreen model
The conversation shifts to how venture firms decide whether to distribute public shares to LPs or hold longer after lockup. They compare traditional fund incentives to Sequoia’s evergreen approach and debate whether venture investors can effectively manage public-equity compounding.
- •How 6-month lockups force timing decisions for distributions
- •Bias toward distributing so LPs decide to hold/sell
- •Evergreen funds: less constant fundraising and more recycling of gains
- •Skepticism about venture firms ‘context switching’ into public markets
- 26:45 – 30:36
Friedberg’s ‘permanent capital’ and the startup studio approach (The Production Board)
Friedberg reframes the issue as a broader question of permanent capital—structures that can compound without forced exits. He explains why he built The Production Board as a long-term company-building vehicle with patient partners and how short-term financing incentives can kill 10–100x outcomes.
- •What ‘permanent capital’ enables vs traditional 10-year VC funds
- •Historical analogs: reinsurance vehicles, Berkshire Hathaway compounding
- •How a startup studio differs: building companies with long duration
- •Risk of trading long-term breakthroughs for short-term fundable milestones
- 30:36 – 31:57
DAOs and Web3 capital allocation: governance is still in ‘crawl’ mode
They explore whether DAOs can credibly replace traditional fund managers for early-stage investing. The hosts argue that while decentralization and composability are clear Web3 features, governance/democratization remains unproven at scale and is mostly limited to small experiments like NFT buying groups.
- •DAO investing skepticism: lack of diligence/experience vs professional allocators
- •Web3’s three features: decentralization, composability, governance
- •Crawl-walk-run framing for how governance models will mature
- •Most current DAOs are early/limited in scope despite hype
- 31:57 – 35:24
Web3 needs infrastructure before ‘cars’: the case for plumbing (RPCs, distributed compute)
Chamath argues Web3 will mirror Web1/Web2: infrastructure layers must be built before mass consumer apps can flourish. He highlights missing primitives like reliable RPC infrastructure and the need for AWS/GCP-like services to support scalable decentralized applications.
- •Analogy to OSI stack and how value accrued across internet layers
- •Infrastructure-first thesis vs app-first ICO era delusions
- •Why developer tooling (RPC, compute, reliability) is foundational
- •Balancing act: consumer ‘pull-through’ creates incentives for plumbing
- 35:24 – 40:12
Zillow’s iBuying implosion: from ‘market maker’ story to speculative losses
They dissect Zillow’s attempt to scale iBuying, culminating in selling ~7,000 homes and a sharp stock drop. Friedberg argues Zillow mischaracterized itself as a market maker but behaved like a speculator using fragile models, while also creating conflicts with its core brokerage-adjacent business.
- •Zillow offloading inventory, layoffs, and market cap drawdown
- •Market maker vs speculator: why modeling assumptions mattered
- •Operational reality: local context and on-the-ground execution gaps
- •Strategic conflict: iBuying vs brokers + Zestimate credibility
- 40:12 – 46:05
Opendoor vs Zillow: pricing discipline, software compounding, and founder quality
Chamath and Sacks contrast Opendoor’s execution with Zillow’s missteps, emphasizing the importance of accurate pricing and compounding software advantages. Chamath praises Opendoor’s CEO Eric Wu, arguing first-mover software iteration creates defensibility that a late pivoting incumbent struggles to match.
- •Zestimate incentives: engagement via inflated estimates vs accurate pricing
- •Margin of safety comparison: Opendoor vs Zillow unit economics
- •‘Software gains compound’ analogy (Google vs Yahoo) applied to iBuying
- •Big-company copycat risk: underestimating operational complexity
- 46:05 – 49:20
Election night ‘wokelash’: Virginia, New Jersey, and local crime/policing votes
Sacks runs through 2021 election results, framing them as a backlash to progressive priorities. They discuss swings in Virginia and New Jersey plus down-ballot surprises and public rejection of ‘defund the police’ in Minneapolis, suggesting a shift toward safety and moderation.
- •Virginia upset: Youngkin’s win and broader statewide sweep
- •New Jersey near-upset and tax sensitivity
- •Minneapolis rejects ‘defund the police’ restructuring
- •Seattle elects a tougher-on-crime city attorney; other DA/prosecutor flips
- 49:20 – 1:14:57
What voters want: economy, education, safety—and the school-board/CRT flashpoint
The hosts argue Americans are exhausted by behavioral and policy extremism and want a centrist reset. They highlight education as a decisive issue—especially parental backlash to curriculum politicization and the McAuliffe ‘parents shouldn’t tell schools’ gaffe—plus debates around detracking and excellence vs equity.
- •Moderation as the winning posture: ‘recenter and exhale’ theme
- •Education politics: school closures, curriculum disputes, parents’ revolt
- •McAuliffe gaffe + teachers union optics; why it mattered electorally
- •Excellence vs equity: detracking, exceptionalism, and equality of outcomes debate
- •Policy prescriptions floated: tutoring/extended school time, charters, school choice
- 1:14:57 – 1:20:01
CO2-to-starch breakthrough: biomanufacturing as climate and food infrastructure
Friedberg explains a Chinese team’s method to convert CO2 into starch using engineered enzymes in a cell-free system, reportedly far more efficient than photosynthesis. They explore implications for carbon removal, food security, biofuels, and a vision for industrial-scale plants powered by clean energy.
- •How enzymes enable cell-free conversion of CO2 + hydrogen into starch
- •Efficiency claims vs corn; reproducibility via open publication
- •Back-of-envelope scale model: tanks, land footprint, and energy needs
- •Downstream uses: food, bioplastics, and hydrocarbon substitutes
- 1:20:01 – 1:30:04
From COP26 theater to real incentives: carbon tariffs, funding science, and Musk’s ‘show the plan’
Chamath critiques COP26 as political theater while discussing emerging policy levers like carbon tariffs that could reshape markets. The group argues capital should flow to technology and infrastructure rather than transfers to governments, and they close by referencing Elon Musk challenging claims that billions could ‘solve world hunger’—asking for a transparent plan.
- •COP26 skepticism; developing-nation demands for large annual payments
- •Carbon tariffs as a major future geopolitical and market disruption
- •Prefer investing in R&D and deployable infrastructure over political pledges
- •Prototype economics discussion: small demo could be relatively cheap
- •Elon Musk/UN exchange: accountability via detailed public budgeting and plans
