E76: Elon vs. Twitter

David Sacks 0:00 You got like moisturizer all over your face? Are you-

Jason Calacanis 0:02 I do.

David Sacks 0:02 ... moisturizing?

Jason Calacanis 0:03 I am, I'm-

David Sacks 0:04 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 0:04 My skin is so dry. I just got over ba- having food poisoning and I'm like, I dehydrated. Okay, hold on, let me get this s- off, camera off.

David Sacks 0:10 Look at this guy. You got makeup on?

Jason Calacanis 0:12 It's not makeup. It's moisturizer, dipshit.

David Sacks 0:14 This is bad.

Jason Calacanis 0:15 The reason you look like the fucking Crypt Keeper and I look sh-wie and young and sh-felt is 'cause I do a little skincare routine, okay? Give me a fucking break.

David Sacks 0:22 Look at him. Turn off his camera 'cause he's embarrassed about whatever he's doing right now.

Jason Calacanis 0:25 I'm not embarrassed. I just don't need you telling me how to (beep) (beep) .

David Sacks 0:29 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 0:29 Sacks is in a fucking good mood. What-

David Sacks 0:31 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 0:31 ... the Solana up 15 cents? Why are you so fucking happy, dummy?

David Sacks 0:34 Well, the markets are closed today. It's Good Friday, so I have m- my stock portfolio can't be down 'cause the markets are closed.

Jason Calacanis 0:39 Yeah, thank Jesus. Praise Jesus.

David Sacks 0:41 Yeah, it's a good Friday if the markets are closed and my portfolio can't go down any more. (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 0:45 (laughs) It's truly a good Friday.

David Sacks 0:46 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 0:46 Your portfolio will rise again.

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:48 These are...

David Sacks 0:49 It needs to be resurrected.

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:50 I'm going all in. Don't let your winners ride. Rain Man, David Sacks. I'm going all in. And I said- We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

Jason Calacanis 1:02 WICs.

David Sacks 1:02 Love you, Sacks.

Jason Calacanis 1:03 Queen of quinoa.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:04 I'm going all in.

Jason Calacanis 1:07 Nowadays, he works in DNA but in the '90s all he cared about was the MDMA.

David Sacks 1:12 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 1:12 The duke of DNA, the titan of tempeh, the shepherd of the soy boys. He turns water into wine and dollars into dimes. He's a foolio for Coolio.

David Sacks 1:20 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 1:22 The sultan of science himself, David Freiberg. Welcome back.

David Friedberg 1:24 I have never done drugs, just for the record, but go on.

Jason Calacanis 1:27 No, of course not. Of course, none of your behavioral problems in high school had to do (laughs) with-

David Sacks 1:32 Yeah, neither has Jason.

Jason Calacanis 1:33 No, absolutely not.

David Sacks 1:35 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 1:35 Not this morning.

David Sacks 1:36 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 1:36 He's the VC who loves Brie. He'll sell you the sleeves off your vest d. He's enthralled with green wall. He eats uppers for supper, the Rain Man himself, David Sacks.

David Sacks 1:46 All right, thank you.

Jason Calacanis 1:47 You're welcome, David. All right, coming around the bend. That timepiece, what does it do? It reminds him of how much more money he has than you.

David Sacks 1:54 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 1:54 A sweater is worth six dimes, Loro Piana is above his line.

David Sacks 1:57 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 1:58 Your super villain with that 1985 Sasakaya, he be chilling. There it is!

David Sacks 2:02 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 2:03 He loves SPACs just like junkies love crack. He's your dictator, Chamath Palihapitiya.

David Sacks 2:09 (laughs)

David Friedberg 2:10 That works.

Jason Calacanis 2:11 I'm like becoming the Eminem of intros. I mean, I'm, I'm rhyming shit.

David Friedberg 2:15 It's really solid, bro, I gotta say.

Jason Calacanis 2:17 I'm wor- I'm workshopping it. Uh, uh, a shout out to Nick and one person on Twitter, of 100, gave anything.

David Friedberg 2:23 I'm moving into my spring sweater season.

Jason Calacanis 2:25 Mm.

David Friedberg 2:26 My spring sweater collection.

Jason Calacanis 2:27 Oh, wait. Hold on a second, I just got a call. Oh, yeah, confirm me. Nobody gives a fuck.

David Sacks 2:31 (laughs)

David Friedberg 2:34 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 2:34 Fucking Christ. (laughs)

David Friedberg 2:36 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 2:36 He's the king of the inane.

David Friedberg 2:38 (laughs) I don't think it's inane at all.

Jason Calacanis 2:40 This matters to exactly one person.

David Friedberg 2:42 N- uh, no. I mean-

Jason Calacanis 2:43 The person selling you the twetters. (laughs)

David Friedberg 2:45 No, that's not... That... I, I think if you took a poll on Twitter, there's a lot of people who silently hate it but love it.

Jason Calacanis 2:51 I think there's a lot more who hate it. Uh, let's get to all the news. So much news going on.

David Friedberg 2:57 All the news. Where should we start, Jason, on a- on a Friday afternoon?

Jason Calacanis 2:59 I, you know, I'm trying to think about it. Was there any news topic this week? Because obviously the war in Ukraine has obviously got everybody in America... Oh, wait, no, I'm sorry. That, that's not important anymore. We're onto the next thing.

David Sacks 3:12 There's only one issue.

Jason Calacanis 3:13 Elon put in a bid to buy Twitter outright on Thursday and take the company private in a deal worth $43 billion. Uh, the most breaking news when we're taping this on Fridays at 11:00 AM when we typically tape this, uh, is that the board of directors, you know, the professional board of directors- (laughs)

David Friedberg 3:33 Has decided they would like to get personally sued. (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 3:36 You know what I mean? This is the most insane thing. I woke up and read this and I was like... Okay, they're creating a poison pin, uh, I'm sorry, a poison pill that's gonna give Twitter's existing shareholders the ability to buy more shares if Elon hits 15% of the company at a discount. Chamath, explain the concept of a poison pill, just generally speaking, and then give us your... 'Cause everybody knows what's going on, but, like, here we are in this whatev- I don't know if this is the seventh or eighth inning of this saga or if it's the second, uh, but where do you think we are in this saga? And then what happens on Monday and ex- describe a poison pill.

David Friedberg 4:11 A poison pill is basically a defensive maneuver that a board of directors uses to prevent a hostile takeover, and basically, the simple way it works is it allows the board to create enormous amounts of new shares and effectively dilute the potential hostile acquirer so that it becomes economically unfeasible for them to get enough shares to get control. The way that they do that is that they basically give everybody except a person that crosses a certain ownership threshold, so let's use Twitter as an example. So the... Twitter's poison pill basically says that if you get to 15%, you're essentially locked out from a right that then everybody else has that effectively allows them to buy another share of stock at I think it's a 50% discount. And so what it does is it creates an incentive to essentially almost double the fully diluted shares outstanding of the business, and what that does is it makes it almost impossible for the person with 15% to then go and acquire what's necessary to get to 50%.

Jason Calacanis 5:20 Yeah.

David Friedberg 5:20 There are different kinds of poison pills. There's things that you can do with debt, there's things that you can do with equity. But that's the thing that, that Twitter did. I think the... If anybody's interested in it, Nick, maybe you can just bring it up, but you can Google on Wikipedia, there's a phenomenal article, um, called Revlon versus McAndrew and Forbes. And McAndrew and Forbes was the holding company of this, um, very prolific deal maker in the '70s, '80s, and '90s named Ronald Perelman. And th- what happened was he was a CEO of a company called Pantry Pride, and Pantry Pride made an unsolicited hostile takeover bid for Revlon, which made makeup. And basically, you know, there was like 40 to 45 bucks a share.... the board instituted all these poison pills, the price kept escalating. Then a private equity firm stepped in, also tried to compete for the asset. All along the way, there was, um, enough shenanigans that essentially what, um, what, what, uh, Ronald Perelman did was, uh, sue Revlon, which went to Delaware court and from it basically came the current framework of law that we use in this situation. And basically what it means is that board directors have these fiduciary obligations to their shareholders, and in some cases, these are very broad fiduciary obligations, meaning do the right thing. But in some really narrow circumstances, all of that collapses and their sole focus is to get the best price. And what a director and a board of directors typically wants to do in a situation like this is not end up in that second bucket. They wanna keep all their options available. They don't necessarily want to sell to one person, you know, they're probably gonna assume they're gonna get fired from the board, they wanna stay on for different reasons, et cetera, et cetera. And so right now, what Twitter and their advisors are trying to do is basically stay in that first bucket, have all of the options available to them, and not be forced to run an auction. And I think what Elon will try to do is essentially use the public pressure that's going to build and the existing shareholders who own stock at 40 some odd dollars, a chance to basically get, you know, a, a 20% payday by selling it to Elon for 54 bucks or 53, whatever the price was. And the Twitter board now will have to justify how whatever they come up with is better than this, because then if they don't and they're still exercising this broad fiduciary obligations... You know, one thing I'll tell you as a public company director, it is a horrendous process when you get sued, and these guys will be in court for years. And the, the incremental pressure that this Twitter board has is that they can be held personally liable here. So I think it's getting very complicated, very quickly.

Jason Calacanis 8:11 Okay. On that note of personal liability, you have director's insurance, so-

David Friedberg 8:16 Doesn't cover it.

Jason Calacanis 8:16 ... how can that pierce through?

David Friedberg 8:17 Doesn't cover it. Doesn't cover it.

Jason Calacanis 8:18 Have there been examples of this happening?

David Friedberg 8:21 Yeah, D&O insurance is, it's kind of like... D&O insurance is, their director and officer insurance, is, is a layer of protection that we all have as public company directors. We actually also have it as private company directors.

Jason Calacanis 8:31 Private companies, sure, yeah.

David Friedberg 8:32 Yeah. But the, the amount of coverage changes. But what I'll tell you is D&O coverage tends to be relatively nominal because the risk profile doesn't really ex- you know, include these kinds of tail events. And now what you're talking about is 10 to $15 billion of equity value that's going to either get created for existing shareholders or get taken away.

Jason Calacanis 8:54 Hmm.

David Friedberg 8:55 And typically, what courts will do is that they will look at the amount of money and they will start to think about, you know, compensatory and punitive damages as a function of how much money was, was made or lost. And so you're talking about a realm of, of, of risk now for these directors that's well beyond what D&O insurance will cover, so.

Jason Calacanis 9:13 When, if a lawsuit did happen, Chamath, it, you have to find damages. So if the board found a better offer, great. But if this thing goes down on Monday, Elon sells the shares and it goes down to 30, now you have the opposite effect. Go ahead, Friedberg.

Chamath Palihapitiya 9:28 So I, I'll say two things. One is, uh, all, in all these cases, by the way, the board is indemnified by the company, so the individual board members, I don't know if there's ever been a point in history when an individual board member's had to pay out of pocket for liability associated with their actions as a board member and as a fiduciary, uh, except when they've done something to benefit themselves outside of the company. Now, in, in this case, the, the job of the board is to use their best judgment to do what they believe to be in the best interest of creating the most value possible for the shareholders. It's very simple when the stock price is at 30 and someone says, "I'll give you 50 bucks," to say, "Oh, well obviously getting 50 bucks is in the best interest of the shareholders." Let's assume though that you're on that board and you know about some super secret plan that you believe in the next 30 days is gonna get the stock price to 60, and your belief in that plan and your understanding of that plan gives you a good rationale for having a debate as a board that this deal doesn't make sense at 50. We should hold out until we finish our plan over the next 30 days, get the stock up to 60, and then we'll see if someone comes in and says, "Hey, I'll give you even more than, than 60."

Jason Calacanis 10:38 Could be something on the product roadmap, right?

Chamath Palihapitiya 10:40 This is the complicated point. It's not just about the current share price, and there was a history in the '80s and '90s, uh, early '90s when stocks would drop tremendously for market volatility reasons or, or various... Uh, some bad news event or someone quits the board, macro, and all of a sudden the stock price drops and you have a hostile buyer that says, "Oh my God, this company looks super cheap. I'm gonna come in and buy it while it's cheap and I'll ge- offer them a premium to the current share price." And the share price recently may have been much higher than the price that's being offered and the board says, "You know what? We're gonna get back to that share price because the market will pick up again. Th- the things we're working on are gonna grow us out of this hole." And so it's very hard for us to sit here as... And, and I know that I want everyone here on this, this Zoom to suspend your alliance to Elon and belief that Elon will do a better job just for one second and just think about the board members. They've all been working on quarterly plans, strategic plans, et cetera with the current CEO and as a board for Twitter that gives them a point of view that says... Uh, may give them a point of view that says, "Hey, you know what? We can get back to 70 bucks a share." So remember, it was only a few months ago Twitter stock was trading at 70, the stock price dropped with market compression we've all experienced, and then Elon's come along and said, "I'll offer you guys 54 bucks." And the board's like, "Wait, a few months ago we were at 70. We have all these great things we're working on." And so I'm, I'm just trying to paint the other side for everyone that this is not just like a clear-cut obvious deal. It's their judgment at this point that they should get more for the stock given where they think the company's headed and where the stock price will, will eventually get to.

Jason Calacanis 12:08 All right. Going to you, Sacks.

Narrator 12:10 Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 12:10 You heard from Friedberg to suspend disbelief that the greatest entrepreneur on the planet running two of the most important companies is not-... more qualified (laughs) to run Twitter than the current CEO.

David Sacks 12:21 Yeah, I'm not- I'm not gonna suspend my disbelief.

Jason Calacanis 12:23 Go ahead, Zach. (laughs)

David Sacks 12:24 I- Let me make the case for the clear cut- for the clear-cut case here.

Chamath Palihapitiya 12:27 Sorry, l- let me just say something. He could be better at running this company-

Jason Calacanis 12:30 Could be?

Chamath Palihapitiya 12:30 ... but the share- Okay, he will be better, Jason, but the shareholders don't benefit from that, 'cause he buys-

Jason Calacanis 12:35 Yeah, they do.

Chamath Palihapitiya 12:35 ... the whole company for 50-

Jason Calacanis 12:36 Of course they do.

David Sacks 12:37 Well, h- hold on. Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 12:39 They're getting $54 of cash. They do not have any ownership in Twitter after Elon takes over. That's the deal that's on the table. So if I, as a shareholder, get $54 of cash, I don't care if Elon does a better job running Twitter down the road 'cause I have no interest. Suddenly, if-

Jason Calacanis 12:53 W- one- one fact check on that, one fact check on that. He said he wants to bring along-

Chamath Palihapitiya 12:56 Yeah, but that's- that's not in the deal.

Jason Calacanis 12:57 ... as many of the shareholders as possible.

Chamath Palihapitiya 12:57 J- J Cal, that's a thing he said. That's not actually-

Jason Calacanis 12:59 Okay.

Chamath Palihapitiya 12:59 ... in the proposal, right? So as a board member, I have to look at the proposal on the table, which is, I gotta take $54 of cash-

Jason Calacanis 13:06 Okay, fine. Sax?

Chamath Palihapitiya 13:06 ... for my shares and give up all the upside.

Jason Calacanis 13:08 Sax looks like he's gonna explode. Go.

David Sacks 13:09 Fair enough. Look, th- here's the reason why fiduciary duties exists. Let's just explain where this concept comes from. There is fundamentally a principal-agent problem, this is what it's known as, um, between stockholders and the people running the company. So in other words, the owners of the company are the stockholders, okay? They appoint agents, managers, to run the company for them, but those managers can be conflicted. They have an incentive not just to get the highest share price for the stockholders, but to pocket, personally, as many benefits as they can. And the whole reason why fiduciary duty was invented is to prevent that agency problem. So, if the board members or the CEO of the company are just looking out for themselves and trying to pocket personal benefits, excessive compensation, or turning down an offer to sell the company for a much higher price, that would be a breach to their fiduciary duty because they're looking out for themselves. Parag knows that if Elon buys this company, he is out of a job. His head is on the chopping block. He is fired right away. Elon has made that clear. He said in this letter, on this SEC filing on Thursday, "I have no confidence in the comp- in the management of the company. If I'm unable to buy the whole thing and take it private, I will dump all my shares." It's all or nothing for him. So Parag is interested in preserving his job. If Elon wins this battle, Parag is gonna have the shortest executive career since that pope who got poisoned, okay?

Jason Calacanis 14:35 (laughs)

David Sacks 14:35 To borrow a line from Wall Street. So he is incentivized to fight this thing, whether it's in the interest of shareholders or not. Now, one is-

David Friedberg 14:43 What do you think the incentives of the board are?

David Sacks 14:45 I think they're the same. These are guys who love the power they derive from being on this board. We know Twitter has enormous cultural power. These guys, they enjoy all the benefits they get. They probably do get some compensation being on the board, but they enjoy being in this very exclusive club that wields enormous power over our culture, and they have no incentive to give that up. And by the way, how much of the company do they really own? You know, not that much.

Chamath Palihapitiya 15:13 If you look at the wealth of the people on Twitter's board, and we know all the people on Twitter's board, their wealth is significantly greater than whether Twitter's stock sells for 60 or 70. So, and- and I think that we all know that these are all sophisticated actors. They are all high-integrity people. We all personally know many of the people on Twitter's board. I don't think that it... You know, look, may- maybe there's a- a variety of people on the board-

David Sacks 15:35 They're conflicted. They're conflicted. It's got nothing to do with integrity. The fact of the matter is-

Chamath Palihapitiya 15:38 But J- But you could say the same about any board, Sax, that it's-

David Sacks 15:41 No, b- because it's different... Listen, when we're on a board, okay, 'cause I'm on plenty of boards, we own a huge percentage of the company. So when somebody makes a takeover offer to buy one of our companies, we're thinking like stockholders. We're fundamentally aligned and have ownership-

David Friedberg 15:56 You have massive skin in the game.

Chamath Palihapitiya 15:57 Yeah, financial skin.

David Sacks 15:57 We have massive skin in the game. These people on the board, what skin in the game do they have? Most of them are these directors who are just appointed. And it is, it's like a club. These guys-

Jason Calacanis 16:06 Yeah.

David Sacks 16:06 It's all big backscratching club. These guys are all on a bunch of different boards. They're-

Jason Calacanis 16:09 So wait, you think they're motivated by the influence of being a Twitter board member-

David Sacks 16:12 Yes, of course. Why do they do-

Jason Calacanis 16:13 ... at being at the nexus of power?

David Sacks 16:14 Why do they serve on these boards?

Jason Calacanis 16:15 And that is what this is shaping up to be, as the nexus of power, and who controls the power 100%.

David Sacks 16:18 By the way, none of them- none of them own much of Twitter. None of them own much of Twitter.

Chamath Palihapitiya 16:22 I do 100% agree with Sax. I've always believed what I think Carl Icahn said, or- or whoever it was, that the board should be represented by the biggest shareholders, th- the- the- the folks who actually have skin in the game, the folks who actually care about the share price. You know, having some nominal number of shares issued to you as a board member of a public company, showing up, you know, patting each other on the back, it certainly, generally speaking, leads to non-founder-led companies ultimately dying, um, because there is no motivation and incentive and drive from anyone.

David Friedberg 16:52 Let me take the other side partially. Um, I think you're mostly right. Um, I would never join a public company board that I did not own a significant piece of.

Chamath Palihapitiya 17:01 Right.

David Friedberg 17:01 And I- and I have never.

Chamath Palihapitiya 17:03 Right.

David Friedberg 17:03 Now, the reason to be on a public company board is that, unlike a private company, the single biggest advantage, there are many disadvantages of being public, but the single biggest advantage of being public is that you have a lower cost of capital. So if you have an ambitious company, an ambitious leader, and an ambitious plan to build and compound value, you cannot do it privately forever. (instrumental music plays) You must do it in the public markets because there's just an infinite amount of capital that's available and an infinite amount of ways in which you can raise capital relative to you being private. So with that being said, when you are public, I think the best boards are the ones that are sort of 50/50 split between the biggest shareholders and people who are very much experts in a handful of things, and I just wanna be specific. In a pel- pa- company board, you have to have a lot of focus these days on things like governance, audit, um, because you have to attest to these financial statements, right? Cybersecurity becomes a huge one 'cause you have to disclose these risks. And so, I think that it really behooves boards to have a few experts who can chair those committees. Um, compensation tends to be another one, as David mentioned, that can be a real hot button. But there are experts you can find. They're not gonna own a large piece of the company.... but they're gonna do a really good job of managing those things. That minimizes risk for the business, so that then the rest of all, of, of the board, which are the large shareholders, can really use their influence and strategic understanding of the business to build huge equity value. When those things come together, you have great outcomes. But I, I, I really agree with you. If you stack the board, and you know, we've, we've had this issue. Public boards in America got perverted over the last, sort of last few decades, to being these little badges of status that people would collect. And now, you know, we're starting to see a real pushback on what's called over-boarding, right, where these distinguished folks will pick up five, six, seven boards. All of a sudden, that's the fastest way to make $3, $4, $5, $6 million a year. How can you sit on five or six company, public company boards?

David Sacks 19:14 Right.

David Friedberg 19:14 It's impossible and add any value.

David Sacks 19:16 Exactly. And do you think-

David Friedberg 19:17 Let me ask you a question.

David Sacks 19:17 Do, do, do you think those people get appointed to boards by standing up to the CEO?

David Friedberg 19:22 No, the opposite. 100% the opposite.

David Sacks 19:23 They're there to be a safe vote for the CEO.

Chamath Palihapitiya 19:25 So let me ask you guys a question. What do you think is the right thing to do as companies that go public mature, and their ownership base disperses? So, you know, in Europe and Asia, many companies go public, families own them for a very long period of time, as you guys know. They're, they, they remain significant owners. They don't sell off the shares. In the US, traditionally, as companies have gone public, the shares, the founders, the ori- original investors, 'cause we have a lot of venture capital in this, in this country historically, compared to other countries, so those owners end up selling off their shares and they get dispersed, and a long tail of owners end up owning the bulk of the shares. How do you think those companies can be best represented on the board, given that there isn't concentrated ownership in public companies, generally mature public companies in the US? Like Twitter, the largest, you know, owner is Vanguard, with five million other investments, and then Jack Dorsey, who only owns 2%. What do you guys think is the right thing to... How do you create good alignment with board members that, that could be better, you know, placed and better suited here?

David Sacks 20:26 Well, I think one of the ways that you do it is that when somebody wants to step up and acquire a concentrated position because they have a plan for the company, you don't stand in the way and completely thwart that.

Chamath Palihapitiya 20:36 Your job isn't to assess their plan, because your job is to assess the dollars you're getting paid today for your shareholders. And then whatever they're gonna do with it, it's their thing, but are you getting a fair price, is it? Right?

David Sacks 20:45 Elon is willing to put massive skin in the game in order to basically fix this company and get the best value, and so-

Chamath Palihapitiya 20:51 We all agree, but that's not about the shareholders, Sax. Like, I agree with you. I think Elon should own and run Twitter. I'm with you on it.

David Sacks 20:57 Well, let's evaluate. Let, let, let's, let's evaluate this poison pill for a second, okay? So Elon comes in. He starts buying up the stock. The premium he's proposing is something like a 50-something percent premium from when he started accumulating.

David Friedberg 21:09 54%. Yeah.

David Sacks 21:10 It's about... 54%, it was like a 38% premium-

Chamath Palihapitiya 21:11 But a 40% discount-

David Sacks 21:13 ... from the time, from the time, from the time he basically made the offer. And by the way, the stock is going right back to that previous level if they turn down this proposal, okay? So he's made them a good offer. Okay, now, I think it'd be acceptable for the board to say, "Okay, this offer is attractive, but we need to shop this. We're gonna run a process, and we're gonna see who else is out there. And if there's nobody better, then we're, you know, why wouldn't we take this?"

Chamath Palihapitiya 21:37 There's one thing that's left over that you didn't mention. The thing that's left over, you're right, they absolutely have a responsibility to shop it and find the best price. But what's left over is their judgment that the company's stock price-

David Friedberg 21:48 No, no, no, no, no, no. Hold on.

Chamath Palihapitiya 21:48 ... will get above that level. They have the, they have the ability and the right to do that, and the responsibility to do that as a board. This happens all the time.

David Friedberg 21:55 The problem is-

Chamath Palihapitiya 21:56 And the board, the board can look at the deal and they can say, "You know what? We believe that this business in the future is gonna be worth a lot more than what we're being offered for cash today."

David Sacks 22:04 Right, so they have some insider information. Yeah. Go ahead, Chamath.

David Friedberg 22:07 The problem, the problem with that argument is that this is what activist firms use all the time, in reverse. The inverse of the argument is more powerful. You've been a director with purview into all these confidential plans that has effectively caused this company to tread water for five years. Why should we believe you now?

Chamath Palihapitiya 22:28 Mm-hmm.

David Friedberg 22:28 And that argument is way more credible than, "Actually, you can really trust us this time." Because if you look at the tenure of all these folks, you know, the last sea change that happened on the Twitter board was when Elliot pushed to add, I think, two or three directors.

Chamath Palihapitiya 22:42 Yeah, yeah.

David Friedberg 22:42 But in the absence of that, I think David is largely right. These are status games. And when status games ultimately play out over years, they either play out in the stock price one, one way or the other. And in this case, what's true is that this is a languishing stock that has largely been going sideways-

David Sacks 23:00 Right.

David Friedberg 23:00 ... independent of anything that's been happening in the company.

Chamath Palihapitiya 23:03 And what about the fact, Chamath, that, that less than 90 days ago, it was trading at $70 a share?

David Sacks 23:07 Oh, you mean during the COVID bump-

Chamath Palihapitiya 23:09 Yeah, yeah.

David Sacks 23:09 ... when everybody was betting stocks? I mean, let's look at the history-

Chamath Palihapitiya 23:12 Look, I get it, but, but-

David Sacks 23:12 ... of Friedberg. It was $69.

Chamath Palihapitiya 23:14 Guys, just remember, I'm not, I'm not arguing-

David Sacks 23:15 Incidentally on Ja- Hold on. Just to give, you have to give some context. January 3rd, 2014, the stock was trading at $69. The fact that it got a, a ridiculous bump like the entire market did during the Robin Hood, stocks, you know, heyday during COVID means nothing.

Chamath Palihapitiya 23:34 Fool's gold.

David Sacks 23:34 Right. That was market beta, not their performance.

David Friedberg 23:36 Exactly. That's exactly, that's exactly what I was gonna say. This, if you could actually point to some alpha, meaning there was a strategic misstep or something that happened that was fixable. A b- a better example would be, let's just say that there was a, let's just say that ins- that, that Twitter instead was not a technology company, but a pharma company, 'cause this, this example would be easier to understand. The stock is at $69 and you get some interim results from your phase three trial. People misread it and the stock tanks. Meanwhile, the stock market, broadly speaking, is at the same level. You could say, "Well, that negative alpha can actually be fixed because of our strategic plan." But what Sax just said is more true in this case. In this case, what's irrefutable is that there's been a broad-based drawdown in the markets. There is nothing that you can point to...... that says this is something inside of Twitter's control to get the stock back to $69. Meaning, 69 three months ago is actually 38 or $40 today. We're, we're, we're at an apples to apples even comparison. So from there, the real question is, this 20 or 30% premium to this, can you actually show a plan? I think the right thing for Twitter's board to do, just to be very precise, is the following. They have to take Elon's offer and they have to create a go shop. "I will go and try to get a better price." They won't be able to and the reason they won't be able to is not a single person who is capable of stepping up with $43 billion would ever get it through regulatory muster. Not gonna happen in my opinion. And anybody with the 43 billion who could buy it will never take it on. Meaning, could Comcast show up? Sure. Could, uh, Disney show up? They'll never even look at it.

Jason Calacanis 25:23 No, they're not interested.

David Friedberg 25:24 The pe- the people for whom this asset is strategic, Apple, Facebook-

Jason Calacanis 25:28 Google.

David Friedberg 25:28 ... Google, can... ByteDance can never-

Jason Calacanis 25:30 Amazon.

David Friedberg 25:30 ... Amazon could never get it done. So-

Jason Calacanis 25:32 Lina Khan, no-brano.

David Friedberg 25:34 (laughs)

David Sacks 25:34 I think that's probably right, Chamath, but there is a chance that they do get higher bid.

David Friedberg 25:36 So I just wanna, I just wanna finish.

David Sacks 25:37 Yeah.

David Friedberg 25:38 I just wanna finish. So-

Jason Calacanis 25:38 From who?

David Friedberg 25:39 So hold on. Just let me finish.

Jason Calacanis 25:40 Okay, you're gonna finish, Chamath. Yeah. And then Sax, who?

David Friedberg 25:42 So, so I think basically it's like, Elon, thank you. We're gonna create a go shop. We'll try to find the best offer. I don't think any offer comes in. But then I think what they can do, Friedberg, is if there is this magical plan to shoot rainbows out their ass, they should actually put that to a shareholder vote and let people decide. And I think that's a really fair thing to do that also allows them the credibility and the air cover to say, "Look, we actually have been working on a plan. We think that that will create an amazing amount of shareholder value and we just want shareholders to be able to-"

Jason Calacanis 26:15 Yeah.

David Friedberg 26:15 "... see that, compare it to Elon's offer, and decide for themselves."

Jason Calacanis 26:18 Who's the white knight, if anybody? I heard Comcast. We know that big tech can't do it because of Lina Khan, and then we'll go onto the next topic, uh, th- the next nuance here. Sax, do you have anybody, a financial player, anybody who h- w- is a dark horse in your mind? Somebody, you know?

Chamath Palihapitiya 26:33 I think it could be Disney. Jack is on the board of Disney. They have a lot of relationships. Sorry, go ahead.

Jason Calacanis 26:38 They tried to buy it. Bob Iger said he bailed on it.

David Sacks 26:40 Listen, I think there's a lot of companies that could be interested in Twitter, and I think you, you create the period to shop it to see. And by the way, listen, I think-

Jason Calacanis 26:48 Name one, Sax.

David Sacks 26:49 ... I think this administration does not wanna see Twitter become a free speech company again. And so the political winds will blow towards letting, I think, Twitter be acquired by a big tech company, even if it means big tech gets bigger.

Jason Calacanis 27:05 Wait a second.

David Sacks 27:06 So I think that, I think they will put Lina Khan on pause to allow Google to buy-

Jason Calacanis 27:10 (laughs)

David Sacks 27:11 ... this company if that's what it comes down to.

Jason Calacanis 27:12 You're kidding me. Your conspiracy theory is that-

Chamath Palihapitiya 27:15 I would bet 100 to one against that.

Jason Calacanis 27:16 ... Biden's gonna come and hold onto that.

Chamath Palihapitiya 27:17 Will you take 100 to one odds against that?

Jason Calacanis 27:18 There is no way-

David Sacks 27:19 I'm saying if it comes down to it, I'm saying, I'm saying it's-

Jason Calacanis 27:22 No way-

Chamath Palihapitiya 27:22 Oh, no way on planet Earth.

David Sacks 27:22 ... listening.

Jason Calacanis 27:22 ... Biden's gonna whisper in Lina Khan's ear, "Put your thumb on the scale and let Google buy this thing-"

David Sacks 27:27 I'm just saying-

Jason Calacanis 27:28 "... so that the dems can own it, the libs can still own Trump?"

David Sacks 27:30 ... I'm saying, I'm saying if it was a choice, if it was a choice between-

David Friedberg 27:34 What David's saying is, "My enemy's enemy is my friend." And so-

David Sacks 27:37 Yeah.

David Friedberg 27:37 ... instead of having Elon's stated goal-

Chamath Palihapitiya 27:39 This seems farcical.

David Friedberg 27:40 ... I guess what David is saying is instead of having Elon's stated goal of having a free speech platform at scale exist on the internet, which they may believe is even the bigger threat to political power, they'd rather it go into the hands of companies that will acquiesce to them, at least on the margins.

David Sacks 27:55 No question about it.

Jason Calacanis 27:56 But you think Biden would tell Lina Khan to put her thumb on the scale? Chamath, you believe that?

David Sacks 27:59 It's the lesser of two evils.

Jason Calacanis 28:01 You believe that conspiracy theory?

David Sacks 28:02 From their point of view.

David Friedberg 28:03 I do not personally, but I, I, I'm just trying to explain-

Jason Calacanis 28:05 Now, Friedberg, do you believe this nonsense or not?

David Friedberg 28:06 ... I'm just trying to expl-

Chamath Palihapitiya 28:06 This, I feel like I'm on AM radio-

Jason Calacanis 28:08 ... what David is saying?

Chamath Palihapitiya 28:08 ... but go on, yeah.

David Sacks 28:09 (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 28:09 (laughs)

David Sacks 28:10 Listen-

David Friedberg 28:11 Yeah, where's my tin, where's my ti-

David Sacks 28:11 ... what is this all about?

David Friedberg 28:12 ... where's my tinfoil hat?

Chamath Palihapitiya 28:13 I, I, like, and, and by the way, I just want, I just, just to go back-

David Sacks 28:16 What is this all about?

Chamath Palihapitiya 28:16 ... I just sent you guys, I... Hold on one sec. I just sent you guys the revenue chart for, for Twitter. It may not be that impressive relative to enterprise software companies and others, but I, I, I, and I'm, uh, I wanna be really clear. I am not arguing against this deal. I'm trying to give you guys the perspective so we all have a, a really kind of honest dialogue about this, why this board may actually stand on their own two feet and win with shareholders by saying, "You know what? Look, our revenue's been going up. We're continuing to grow revenue. We're continuing to grow usage on the platform. We've got all these products that we're working on. There's a real reason that we're gonna make more than $54 a share over the next 12 to 18 months as we start to deliver this year's numbers and we start to deliver these product features that we've all been sharing and talking about and the progress we've been seeing." And that's th- that's honestly, I think, the most likely kind of middle ground here is that this board has enough to stand on by looking at the fact that it doesn't matter the stock's gone up and down. What matters is that they've been, in their minds, steadily improving the business and continuing to improve the business, and it is an iconic asset that the market should own, not a single person and yada, yada. And I think that's gonna be part of the case.

David Sacks 29:21 Let me make two points. First, the problem with Friedberg's argument is that there's no limiting principle to this. Any board at any time-

Chamath Palihapitiya 29:28 That's right.

David Sacks 29:28 ... could always claim that they've seen the magical plan-

Chamath Palihapitiya 29:31 That's right.

David Sacks 29:31 ... and therefore, they can reject the bid.

Chamath Palihapitiya 29:33 You're right, by the way. You're right.

David Sacks 29:34 That's the problem with it. And-

Jason Calacanis 29:35 Okay, agreed.

David Sacks 29:36 And particularly in this case, we have to look at the track record of this management team, which barely exists-

Jason Calacanis 29:43 (laughs)

David Sacks 29:43 ... but also this culture at Twitter, okay? This is a company that's languished for years. The culture, look, this culture-

Jason Calacanis 29:51 A decade.

David Sacks 29:52 ... a decade. This culture has been-

Jason Calacanis 29:53 Long decade.

David Sacks 29:53 ... so inept that in response to Elon's takeover offer, they gave all the employees a day of rest because-

Jason Calacanis 29:59 Oh, no, that's a reoccurring monthly thing. They have a day of rest.

David Sacks 30:01 Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:02 No, they don't. Do they really?

Jason Calacanis 30:03 Yeah, there's a day of rest every month.

David Sacks 30:03 But the employees were so stressed out, the employees were so stressed out, they told them to stay at home and take it easy, okay?

Jason Calacanis 30:08 (laughs)

David Sacks 30:09 This is, this is a weak-

Jason Calacanis 30:11 Sax, you don't know the emotional labor it takes to deal with this. (laughs)

David Sacks 30:15 This team is weak, okay?

Jason Calacanis 30:18 Soft.

David Sacks 30:18 And, it's soft, okay? And-

Jason Calacanis 30:20 Workplace and weak. (laughs)

David Sacks 30:21 ... and Elon would give the whole company an enema and fix this thing.

David Friedberg 30:25 (laughs)

David Sacks 30:25 And that is why they don't want him taking over it. And listen, and, and, and-

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:27 Yeah, but that's... Y- you are, you are 100% right. But it, but that's not the-

David Sacks 30:30 Right. And, and, and-

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:30 ... that's not the question at hand. That's not the-

David Sacks 30:31 But, but this is why-

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:32 Yeah.

David Sacks 30:32 ... this is why you should not let this board and this CEO invoke some magical plan that they don't have, that they never came up with, and they would never come up with, because it's just a big excuse so they're not out of a job. Okay? But now, let me, let me go-

David Friedberg 30:45 Here's the thing-

David Sacks 30:45 ... wait, wait, wait. I never got a chance to make the second point. Let me respond to the tinfoil hat thing. So,

David Sacks 30:50 listen, what is this story really about?

David Friedberg 30:53 Mm.

David Sacks 30:53 It's about free speech. It's what it's about for Elon. He said in this takeover, and then at the speech that he gave at TED, that, "Listen, this is not about economics for me. Twitter needs to be the open town square. It is the marketplace for ideas. We're gonna make it a free speech platform. We're gonna open source the algorithm so people know when they're being canceled. They know why they were taken down." Is that algorithmic? Was that a human intervention? This is what it's about for Elon.

David Friedberg 31:18 Transparency. We all want that.

David Sacks 31:19 It's also what it's about... Hold on. It's also what it's about for all the elites, for everyone observing this, for everyone who's criticizing it, listen, look at the, uh, look at the reactions. We, we haven't talked a- at all about the hysterical reactions to all of this news that happened. I mean, there was a fan- fantastic, uh, tweet here. Well, Business Insider said that, "Elon Musk's attempt to buy Twitter represents a chilling new threat, billionaire trolls taking over social media." There's just one problem. Back in 2013, Business Insider's headline was, "Billionaire Jeff Bezos Washington Post Buy Marks a Fascinating Cultural Transition in America." So, these guys are completely hypocritical. When it's a billionaire that they like, they praise it. When it's, when it's a billionaire supporting free speech, they oppose it. That's what's going on. You had Jeff Jarvis with this insane-

David Friedberg 32:07 Oh, Professor Jeff Jarvis? (laughs)

David Sacks 32:08 Yes, saying-

David Friedberg 32:09 (laughs)

David Sacks 32:09 ... "Today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar Germany." I mean, somehow these people think that the reinstitution, the restoration of free speech is somehow like the, uh, the end of Weimar Germany. And then I think probably the best example was this tweet by Max Boot, where he says that, "For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, i.e. censorship, not less." So, in the warped mind of all of these elites in the media, the corporate media, they think that for democracy to survive, they need more censorship. It's crazy.

David Friedberg 32:47 This is the worst thing the Democrats ever did, is give the Republican Party free speech. That was our issue. How we gave it to you guys is just insane, David.

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:54 By the way, this is your bias in evaluating this deal. I wanna point that out. You, you talk about the board's bias, but you do have a bias on, on... And that's not really the question at hand. The question at hand is $54 the fair price to pay for this company?

David Friedberg 33:07 No, I know-

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:07 That's it.

David Friedberg 33:08 ... but it is also about free speech. There is another-

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:10 It, that, that's the motivation.

David Friedberg 33:11 ... issue here at, at its core.

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:11 That's not, that's not the... Sorry.

David Friedberg 33:13 I, well, I agree it's not about the deal, but that is why Elon's buying the company.

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:16 I agree. I agree. I agree.

David Friedberg 33:17 He's not doing it for profit.

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:18 I'm just pointing out that we all, we all criticize the board and we all criticize them for not taking the deal. We're motivated generally because we wanna see the deal happen, we wanna see Elon do it.

David Friedberg 33:27 I wanna be, I wanna be very clear. Couple things. First of all, the stock is basically the same price it was in December of 2013.

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:34 (laughs) Right. Right.

David Friedberg 33:36 Okay. So-

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:37 What happened in the market during that time? (laughs)

David Friedberg 33:40 It went absolutely up and to the right in a violent manner.

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:43 Right. So if you had a strategy to not grow (laughs) and you deployed it, could you actually achieve this performance? (laughs)

David Friedberg 33:50 So, I'm, I'm just saying that's just an objective fact-

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:52 Yeah.

David Friedberg 33:52 ... that we have to keep in mind.

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:53 Yeah, that's true.

David Friedberg 33:54 Whatever, whatever, whatever has happened has collectively not worked. And it is, it is systematic, meaning the underperformance is not a quarter, it's not in a month, but whatever has happened here collectively inside this business has not been working for nearly a decade. Okay? So just getting all the emotion out, that's a fact.

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:13 Right.

David Friedberg 34:13 Okay? And so at some point people will say, "Well, the devil I don't know is better than the devil I do know, because the devil I do know is destroying money for me at a, at a horrific rate," which if you look at how the S&P has compounded since 2013 versus now, I mean, my gosh, if you had done a spread trade of long the S&P and short Twitter, you would've made a fortune.

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:34 How about long Tesla, short Twitter? (laughs)

David Friedberg 34:36 Well, I'm just trying to give the, just-

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:37 Or trade that. (laughs)

David Friedberg 34:37 ... the general market. No, I'm just trying to give you the general market math, right? Forget-

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:41 Yeah.

David Friedberg 34:41 ... even any individual stocks.

David Sacks 34:42 Right. And, and, and, look, Friedberg, it's not just ideological here. I think we all agree on the correct economic thing to have happened here, which is that the Twitter board should run a process. They should see if there's a better bid out there. If there is, you play for the bigger bid, make Elon come up on the price. Okay? But if there's not a better bid, Elon's offer is the best deal on the table, I think you take it. That's what economically should happen. But it's not gonna happen. And the reason it's not gonna happen is not because of superior economics or a magical plan. It's gonna be because the, the, uh, board members on this country club they call a board, their interest is to stay on that board, Parag's interest to stay as CEO-

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:18 Yep.

David Sacks 35:18 ... and all the elite observers in the media, all the people denouncing Twitter-

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:22 I'm gonna give you guys some numbers.

David Sacks 35:23 ... want this to, want censorship to remain in place. That is what's going on.

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:26 Give me one second. I wanna ask one question. Sachs-

David Friedberg 35:28 Okay, Friedberg.

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:28 ... h- you have a lot of Bitcoin? You have a decent amount of Bitcoin?

David Sacks 35:31 A little bit. Some.

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:32 Bitcoin's trading at like four-

David Friedberg 35:33 See what I speak?

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:34 Bitcoin's trading at like 40,000. If I said I'm gonna buy out all your Bitcoin for 45,000, would you take it?

David Sacks 35:40 Well, that's a, it's a different situation 'cause you can't, you can't make an offer for that. And by the way-

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:45 But let's assume I can.

David Sacks 35:46 ... there's no-

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:46 Let's assume I can, let's assume I can...

David Friedberg 35:47 The answer is zero.

David Sacks 35:47 Here's the difference.

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:48 That's a nice theoretical answer.

David Sacks 35:48 Here's the difference. There's no principal-agent problem in that context.

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:52 I know. It's my point of view-

David Sacks 35:52 It's a fully decentralized currency.

Chamath Palihapitiya 35:54 But you have a point of view on, on, on Bitcoin. I... No, forget about the structure. I'm, I'm coming to you and I'm saying, "Hey, Sachs, I wanna buy all your Bitcoin for 45,000." What's your answer? It's trading at 40-

David Sacks 36:02 Th- that's, that's not-

Chamath Palihapitiya 36:03 It's trading at 40.

David Sacks 36:03 That's not a share. That's not a share of stock.

David Friedberg 36:05 So then put it, put it to a vote.

Chamath Palihapitiya 36:07 Yeah, I'm trading... I-

David Friedberg 36:07 Then put it to a vote.

Chamath Palihapitiya 36:08 Right.

David Friedberg 36:09 Let every single shareholder decide, then put it to a vote and we'll see.

David Sacks 36:12 Yeah. And by the way, Friedberg, there's no limits on your ability to go on the open market and buy Bitcoin.So if you do wanna try and acquire 100% of Bitcoin, go on the open market and acquire it. There are all sorts of limits to-

Chamath Palihapitiya 36:24 I mean, there, there are people trying to build big positions exactly that way.

David Sacks 36:25 Yeah, exactly, so go do that. But there are huge limits.

Chamath Palihapitiya 36:28 I just, I just wanna-

David Sacks 36:29 There, there are-

Chamath Palihapitiya 36:29 By the way-

David Sacks 36:29 Hold on. There are big limits on the ability of Elon to go on the open market and just keep buying up all of Twitter.

David Friedberg 36:34 Yeah, the poison pill has whacked-

David Sacks 36:35 And now with this poison pill, now this poison pill, they've stopped it.

David Friedberg 36:38 Do you agree with the poison pill, Friedberg?

Chamath Palihapitiya 36:40 See, J-Cal, hang on. I wanna explain why that is, 'cause this is really important from a corporate governance perspective. So people understand, what you're saying is right, but the job of the board is to look out for the interests of all shareholders, particularly minority shareholders, people that own a small stake in the company. So if someone came along, let's say a private equity firm owned 60% of a public company, the board can't just act in the interest of the private equity firm. They have to protect the smaller shareholders. And so their job is to say, "Is there upside for the smaller shareholders that their vote should matter more?" And that's why we have a board to have that judgment debate and to decide. And I, I'm not arguing against you as much as I'm explaining what goes on in the lawyers'-

David Friedberg 37:17 Okay.

Chamath Palihapitiya 37:18 ... meetings with the board. This is what they're telling me.

David Friedberg 37:20 I think basically what-

Chamath Palihapitiya 37:20 And they're saying, "Your job is to look out for all shareholders." So Elon can go out and buy a bunch of shares, but if he doesn't have 30% of the shares, the board has to represent the interest for those 30%.

David Friedberg 37:29 Right. But I think-

Chamath Palihapitiya 37:30 That's how it works.

David Friedberg 37:30 ... I thi- I think, I think what the, what, what also works and what normally good boards will do, and I don't know whether Twitter will or will not do this, but I'm assuming these are, you know, they'll, they'll do the right thing here, um, 'cause we do know most of them. Um, they should probably get a fairness opinion. I'm sure Goldman is doing a valuation as we speak. But again, when you factor in what's happened to this stock over the last decade and when you factor in the market beta today, it's, I think you're going to have a very hard case to make that there is a path to an outcome that's a lot bigger in an obvious way here. And I don't think that that's gonna pass a lot of muster. And so the pr- the, the, the problem that this board will have is justifying the alternative of not taking this. I think it's going to be harder than you think.

Chamath Palihapitiya 38:22 Yeah.

David Friedberg 38:22 And I think it's gonna create an enormous amount of backlash where, you know, there's a probably a lot of shareholders that would probably wanna get out. You have to understand, like why are Vanguard and all these guys owning Twitter? They have to own it through these ETFs that they've created and reached for.

Chamath Palihapitiya 38:38 That's right. That's right.

David Friedberg 38:39 They don't necessarily have a view on Twitter.

Chamath Palihapitiya 38:41 They don't care. They don't, they don't have a point of view on the company. Right. I agree.

David Friedberg 38:44 And so, you know, they're out to just basically... So when you really boil it down, how many concerned interested shareholders are there? Well, he's, Elon is clearly the largest there, you know? And then after that, it's probably only 30 or 40% of the total outstanding equity. So-

Chamath Palihapitiya 39:00 I bet Jack has a really, I bet Jack is the linchpin in what's gonna happen here. You know, his point of view on this transaction and whether or not Elon should be the steward of this business going forward and whether this is a fair price for him is gonna sway a big part of how this process is gonna go.

David Sacks 39:14 Jack owns 2%. Elon owns over 9%.

Chamath Palihapitiya 39:16 Yeah, but he, my point, my, my point is I think Jack's gonna be a, a big opinion setter in that board discussion 'cause he's on the board.

David Friedberg 39:21 And, and they're-

David Sacks 39:21 Okay.

David Friedberg 39:21 Uh, uh, I think they're sympatico and they're friendly. So just to give you guys a number to react to here, uh, 2021 revenue was five billion. They have 8,000 employees. Back-of-the-envelope, $625,000 per employee in revenue. Uh, just looking at Google, which is the greatest business (laughs) ever created perhaps in terms of efficiency as we've talked about, they have 135,000 employees and revenue was 257 billion. Uh, which puts them at, uh, two, close to two billion, uh, two million per employee. How many people, Sachs, on an operational basis does this business actually need-

Chamath Palihapitiya 39:53 (laughs)

David Friedberg 39:53 ... to run efficiently? 8,000?

David Sacks 39:57 Yeah. You could fire half those people or more, there'd be absolutely-

Chamath Palihapitiya 39:59 (laughs)

David Sacks 39:59 ... no impact to the business. In fact, they'd probably run better because right now they probably got too many meetings happening with too many people. We all know this. That company-

David Friedberg 40:06 Okay. So-

David Sacks 40:07 ... culturally has been broken for a long time.

David Friedberg 40:08 Elon comes to you and says, "You're my guy. You did Yammer. You're in charge."

Chamath Palihapitiya 40:12 Would you run it, Sachs?

David Friedberg 40:13 What?

Chamath Palihapitiya 40:13 Would you take the CEO job?

David Sacks 40:14 No. No.

David Friedberg 40:14 Of course he would. Of course he'd take the job.

David Sacks 40:15 No. I'm a VC now, guys. Come on.

David Friedberg 40:16 Nope. Wrong.

Chamath Palihapitiya 40:17 (laughs)

David Friedberg 40:17 You'd take the job for 10%.

David Sacks 40:18 No, I wouldn't. No, I wouldn't.

David Friedberg 40:19 You're a liar.

Chamath Palihapitiya 40:20 Would you take the job for 10%?

David Sacks 40:21 No. I'm done operating companies. I'm sick of it.

Chamath Palihapitiya 40:24 (laughs)

David Friedberg 40:24 What if, what if your funds got con-

David Sacks 40:26 I don't like doing real work.

David Friedberg 40:28 Hold on. Wait. Hold on. Hold on.

Chamath Palihapitiya 40:29 (laughs)

David Friedberg 40:29 I think, I think, I think that's true.

David Sacks 40:30 (laughs)

David Friedberg 40:30 I think this is time, I think this is time where we, where we can share that-

David Sacks 40:34 I'm too old.

David Friedberg 40:35 ... I think it was six years ago, five years ago-

Chamath Palihapitiya 40:37 Uh-oh. Oh-oh.

David Friedberg 40:37 ... I did approach Twitter with a, a, another large investor, but it was more of a friendly activist thing. And David was our nominated CEO- Oh.

David Sacks 40:47 (groans)

David Friedberg 40:47 ... to rip that place apart. Breaking news. Musk

Narrator 40:49 I don't know.

David Friedberg 40:50 ... credit hole in. But now after that meeting, which, which was a little heated, their VP of engineering and CTO quit the next day, I remember. (laughs)

David Sacks 40:57 Yeah.

David Friedberg 40:57 That was really funny. (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 40:58 Oh.

David Sacks 40:58 Yeah.

David Friedberg 40:58 What? Just at the concept of reporting it to Sachs they quit? (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 41:02 (laughs)

David Sacks 41:02 Yeah.

David Friedberg 41:02 They rage quit at the possibility-

David Sacks 41:03 Elon made this point, you know. Uh, startups are like the NBA. I mean, you get to a certain age, you, you're just, you know, you're too old. I mean-

David Friedberg 41:10 You're the coach. You'll, you'd be Phil Jackson.

David Sacks 41:12 I'm done, guys.

David Friedberg 41:12 Just hobble over.

David Sacks 41:13 Guys, I, I'm flattering, it's flattering, but I'm done. I'm done operating.

Chamath Palihapitiya 41:16 (laughs)

David Sacks 41:16 I'm so sick of all that.

David Friedberg 41:17 Wow. I mean-

Chamath Palihapitiya 41:17 Sachs, who do you think pro-

David Friedberg 41:18 Talking too much?

David Sacks 41:19 I, I go on Zoom calls a couple of times a day. It's a great life. I mean, come on.

Chamath Palihapitiya 41:22 Yeah. Sachs, Elon can't run it. He's got a lot going on. Who do you think should be the actual CEO, the day-to-day CEO there?

David Friedberg 41:26 (clears throat)

David Sacks 41:27 Well, I think Elon would figure... I think he would go in and figure it out. I mean, he is obviously an extremely-

Chamath Palihapitiya 41:32 But who would be his guy?

David Sacks 41:33 ... competent operator.

Chamath Palihapitiya 41:33 Who would be on the ground?

David Friedberg 41:34 (clears throat)

David Sacks 41:35 Well, he's got a lot of people you can probably plug in there.

Chamath Palihapitiya 41:37 (coughs)

David Sacks 41:37 You know that. My understanding of the way that things work at-

David Friedberg 41:40 But J-Cal-

David Sacks 41:40 ... Tesla and, and-

Chamath Palihapitiya 41:41 J-Cal's starting his job. (laughs)

David Sacks 41:43 ... maybe Spa- no, SpaceX is, he's got some terrific young talent who he appoints to these sort of project manager or product manager positions.

Chamath Palihapitiya 41:50 Yeah.

David Sacks 41:50 And they... And he's got like 20 of them reporting to him, and they run the company doing a whole sequence of, of projects in parallel.

Chamath Palihapitiya 41:56 Right. Right.

David Sacks 41:57 So he has like a bench, a deep... Like Elon is the new GE. Back, remember when GE, when all the talent used to go there?

Chamath Palihapitiya 42:03 Right. Yeah. Right.

David Sacks 42:04 Elon's got so much incredible talent on his bench, he could parachute in some amazing operators there and clean up that place.

David Friedberg 42:09 Well, let me tell you something.

David Sacks 42:10 It'd be incredible.

David Friedberg 42:11 The AI team on that self-driving team, which I've met and I've seen their work, like, you know, in private and it's so impressive that if he took one of the AI people working on self-driving and dropped him into Twitter, um, one-

Jason Calacanis 42:24 ... they would solve the bot problem, the spam problem in 30 days with one. And if, God forbid, he sent three, they would solve it in the weekend. The fact that they can't solve spam and bots and other meshuganah going on at that company is, uh, crazy.

David Sacks 42:40 Right.

Jason Calacanis 42:40 And-

David Sacks 42:40 He would fix that. By the way, there would be less, um, sort of, uh, there would be less, uh, problematic content on that site with Elon running it. Why? Because-

Jason Calacanis 42:49 Yes, there'd be less harassment.

David Sacks 42:50 There'd be less harassment because he'd get rid of all the bots. He'd, he'd impose an authenticity requirement.

Jason Calacanis 42:54 Of course. Who's doing the brigading? It's all these bot armies.

David Sacks 42:56 Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 42:56 The problem is, they don't want the bots to go 'cause the only sign of life in that business is spammers and, you know, all these fake accounts being created, so they're just scared to take that 20-

David Sacks 43:05 Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 43:05 ... uh, percent hit.

David Sacks 43:06 But the site would be cleaner without it. But, but look, Ja- Jason, I, I really think

David Sacks 43:10 that part of the problem with our conversation today is that we're viewing this whole Elon versus Twitter thing purely in economic and, to some degree, operational terms, when really I think this is also an ideological and cultural battle or struggle.

Jason Calacanis 43:23 All right. We'll go to that. Let's do it.

David Sacks 43:25 And this is why it's really captured the imagination of the public. There... Look, what is the... If you were to sort of zoom out, 30,000-foot view, the big struggle of our time, politically and culturally, is populist versus elitist, okay? That's the big battle that's happening. Elon is, uh, one of the rare billionaires who is sort of anti-elitist. He pokes fun at their pieties all the time. This is why they call him a troll, okay? He wants to restore free speech. Somehow, the elites are now on the side of censorship, like Max Boot said. They believe that in order to protect democracy, they need more censorship. What they really mean is to protect their control over democracy, they need censorship. Why? Because they're greatly outnumbered. There's more populists than elitists. So if... The more democratic this country becomes, the more they are gonna lose power and be kicked out. That is why they are so fiercely resisting the restoration of Twitter as a free speech platform. It means the end of their cultural power.

David Friedberg 44:23 To your point, the, the Axios headline encapsulates that to a T. Um, I gave you guys the link. Nick, you can show it. "The world's richest man, someone who used to be compared to Marvel's Iron Man, is increasingly behaving like a movie super villain, commanding seemingly unlimited resources with which to finance his mischief-making." I mean, what a... Like-

Jason Calacanis 44:48 Yeah.

David Friedberg 44:48 ... are you really? Are you serious? This is the same guy that's basically-

Jason Calacanis 44:50 That's journalism?

David Friedberg 44:51 I mean, this is the same guy that's, that's doing more on climate change and has been doing it two, you know, 20 years ago when it wasn't popular, and satellites. But I, I said this before-

Jason Calacanis 45:01 And space travel.

David Friedberg 45:02 And space travel. I... And I, and I said this before, but I just wanna say it again. I think if he does get, uh, control of Twitter and there is a strong, reliable moral force for free speech, I think that's actually gonna be his biggest contribution to society. Because independent of all these other things, you know, we want sort of this political philosophy of democracy and capitalism to roughly work together, and I think it sits on top of this fundamental idea that you can say what you think without retribution. And it's only there you can actually seek out different opinions and try different ideas and say things, and most importantly, make mistakes. And right now, we, we have such a high cost for making mistakes that it just shuts so many people down and out. And if he does that, that's actually a really big deal, I think, uh, globally.

Jason Calacanis 45:54 You know what that Axios headline could have said, Chamath? It could have said, "Elon Musk spends significant portion of his fortune to restore trust in public square by open-sourcing-"

David Friedberg 46:03 No, but you can't because-

Jason Calacanis 46:04 Open-sour- Hold on. Open-sourcing the API and allowing transparent, um, uh, moderation.

David Friedberg 46:11 No, Jason, they-

Jason Calacanis 46:12 'Cause that's what he said in his TED Talk.

David Friedberg 46:13 No, Jason, they can't because they lose power if Elon wins and gets control of Twitter.

David Sacks 46:18 Right, exactly. Look, the, the, the corporate jour-

Jason Calacanis 46:20 But I'm just saying that's the accurate headline.

David Sacks 46:21 Corporate journalists like Axios, they don't make a lot of money. What they have is some degree of status, but more importantly, they have influence. That's why they do those jobs. And the fact of the matter... And, and their influence is enha- enhanced when other people don't have the right to speak. And, and the reason why Elon is a super villain in their eyes is because he's gonna give the people their right to free speech back. That is what this is really about, and they are adamantly opposed to that. Now, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, every member of the press would have defended the First Amendment. They saw freedom of speech, freedom of the press as synonymous and fundamental to our republic. Today, they don't believe that anymore. History has been inverted. Glenn Greenwald actually had a great paragraph about this. Um, if I could just... I know Jason's getting mad-

Chamath Palihapitiya 47:05 Here we go, in thrall to Greenwall. Here we go.

David Sacks 47:07 ... in front of the fact that... Look, I mean, I'm a Glenn Greenwald stan, I'll admit it.

Chamath Palihapitiya 47:08 You are a fan. You're a super, you're a Stan.

David Sacks 47:09 But what he said is that somehow the- these elites, they've somehow inverted history, so now they believe that it is not censorship that is the favored tool of fascist tyrants and authoritarians, even though every fascist and despot in history used censorship as a key means for maintaining power, but they instead believe that it is free speech, free discourse, and free thought that are the instruments of repression. So that is what it is about, but, but the, the irony is that these elites now believe in the use of authoritarian tactics to preserve their cultural power. That's, that's the battle that's taking place right now.

Jason Calacanis 47:44 I think they're conflating harassment on a platform or hearing opinions they don't like with s- with, you know, like actual censorship. There's gonna be harassment, sadly, in the world, and you can build tools to mitigate that. I mean, I... One of the things I don't understand, you know, um, I don't know if you know this feature they added last year or so where you can say only your followers can reply. Uh, you know, all these people who are complaining about harassment, I never see any of them say, "My followers can reply." If they did, they would never have anybody reply who they didn't want to reply. The problem would be solved. Okay. Lots more to come on this topic. I wanna just get final predictions-

Chamath Palihapitiya 48:19 That was a long topic for us, wow.

Jason Calacanis 48:21 Well, I mean, it, it, it, it's, it is, like-

Chamath Palihapitiya 48:23 Touched on a lot of topics.

Jason Calacanis 48:23 ... the perfect topic for us 'cause you have...... freedom of speech, you have markets, you have governance. I mean, it's just everything, entrepreneurship. I just wanna end with, you know, we're here 30 days from now. What is your majority case? What is your majority probability here, of what happens? Give it a second. What is the stock trading at, and who's running the company in 30 days? Sacks, you're first.

David Sacks 48:48 He- here's what's gonna happen. This goes back to my tinfoil theory. I think one of two things is gonna happen, okay? First of all, Elon is gonna be thwarted by these folks.

Jason Calacanis 48:56 Okay.

David Sacks 48:56 He's not gonna get control of this company. They're... The vested interest in stopping him by the board, by the new CEO, and by the corporate media and, and, and the political elites is too great. They will find a way to stop him, okay? And one of two things is gonna happen. Either the poison pill will win, and Twitter's stock will be down in the dumps 30 days from now. It'll be the same price it was when Elon started accumulating-

Jason Calacanis 49:21 $30, $35?

David Sacks 49:22 Around that price. It's gonna be r- back in the dumps. And to Chamath's point, all these board members are gonna be sued, justifiably so, because they did not pursue the best deal to the company. Or, there's one other possibility, that they will find a buyer for Twitter, and that, the, the way they will defeat Elon will be to find another buyer at, you know, the same or greater price, and they will place Twitter in the hands of another company who they regard as culturally safer, because that company buys into the regime of censorship. And it might be Disney. It might even be Google. I, I'm telling you, I think that if Google were the company to step up, the administration would ultimately support that deal, rather than Elon getting the company. And I think they would tell-

Jason Calacanis 50:09 Okay, number one outcome...

David Sacks 50:09 ... Lina Khan to stand down in that instance and let it go through.

Jason Calacanis 50:13 Okay, Lina Khan, you have any objections?

David Sacks 50:14 And we will find out, and I'm telling you, in 30 days, we will find out how rigged this game is and how deep the corruption goes, 'cause they will do anything to stop Elon from acquiring this company, even if it means violating their fiduciary duty or violating antitrust law.

Jason Calacanis 50:28 Okay. There, you got it. Alex Jones position.

David Sacks 50:31 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 50:31 Let's go Friedberg.

Chamath Palihapitiya 50:32 (laughs)

David Sacks 50:33 I mean, I am not at all as-

Jason Calacanis 50:35 What is the majority case in 30 days? What's your best guess?

Chamath Palihapitiya 50:37 I'm not at all as conspiratorial as Sacks. I don't think that this is a bad-

Jason Calacanis 50:40 I agree with your first part, Sacks, yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 50:41 ... protect... I think that, I think that we have a board of rational actors, I really do. I think that they're gonna do what they think is in the best interests of shareholders, in terms of price per share. I think that's how they're gonna operate. They're all super smart, super ethical, high integrity people on that board. I... Now, would I like to see Elon own and operate Twitter, personally? Yes, I would.

Jason Calacanis 51:00 Why?

Chamath Palihapitiya 51:00 Well, I think he's gonna be a better operator. I think he's gonna buil- make that product better. I think he's gonna make the business better. I think it's gonna be-

Jason Calacanis 51:06 Better product company.

Chamath Palihapitiya 51:06 ... like he's gonna, he's gonna have a much more rational view on, uh, moderation, uh, that-

Jason Calacanis 51:11 Got it.

Chamath Palihapitiya 51:11 ... I, I think has been lost over the last couple of years. And I think he'll innovate in ways that we haven't seen in that business in many years. So I, I'd be excited for him to own that business as a user of Twitter. That's awesome. But I don't think the... I think the board's gonna act irrationally. They're gonna try and find the best price. They're gonna reject his offer. I don't think he's gonna up the offer significantly, to the point to get it, to get it done. They're gonna go out and run a long strategic process. Three months from now, we're still gonna be running that process. That process is not gonna be done. No one's gonna have a real answer. H- Elon's gonna trail off and do something else, and this whole thing will kind of fade into the sunset.

Jason Calacanis 51:39 And stock will be trading where in three months?

Chamath Palihapitiya 51:41 35...

Jason Calacanis 51:42 Okay.

Chamath Palihapitiya 51:43 ... bucks a share, 37-

Jason Calacanis 51:43 Chamath-

Chamath Palihapitiya 51:44 ... bucks a share. Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 51:44 What is the majority case here? 30 days, 90 days from now?

David Friedberg 51:49 I think the, the 30 days is we're kinda kind of still be here. Um, I don't think much is gonna get figured out in the next 30 days.

Chamath Palihapitiya 51:56 Yeah.

David Friedberg 51:57 In the next 90 days, I don't think you're gonna see a better offer. Um, I don't think anybody wants to buy this dumpster fire. Because you have to understand, this dumpster fire is twofold, right? On the one hand, you have a whole user usage, bot, spam, harassment problem. And then you have an internal, you know, issue around culture and monetization and all of this other stuff. And so, you know, you have to be really prepared to step in and deal with both of these two issues in a really definitive way. I think that that... I'm not sure that corporate boards and companies and CEOs have the stomach for all of that. So, I don't think there's a better bidder. But I think within 90 days, they're gonna probably first try to reject it. I'm not sure that that's in the best fiduciary interests of shareholders. Um, in fact, I don't think it is. And I think to reject it would be more a sign of ego than a sign of logic. And then I think they are gonna get sued, and they're gonna be embroiled in lawsuits for years.

Jason Calacanis 53:00 So no sale happens. The stock languishes again. Stalemate, disaster.

David Friedberg 53:05 Well, I, I think by saying it... Look, I mean, if you look at the stock, like, a simple stock market analyst would say whenever there's a merger announced, right, at like x price, right? Like, look at Microsoft and Activision. That's a better example. You know, Microsoft announces... The stock was at like, you know, $57, $58 a share. Microsoft says, "We're gonna buy Activision." I think it was for $95 a share, right? And if you notice, the stock hasn't gone to 95. Now, typically, merger arb, merger arbitrage, what happens is that the stock goes to $1 or $2 of the acquisition price right away, almost im- im- im- immediately, or it goes to within $5 or $10, or 5% or 10%, and then it bleeds towards the M&A price as the deal gets closer to certainty. So when there's a big gap, what the market is voting is that the deal's not gonna happen. And so when you look at the gap, Microsoft-Activision, it kinda says it's gonna take a long time, and there's a risk that it doesn't happen. Similarly, if you look at this Twitter thing, why didn't it go to 53 bucks a share? It's because a lot of people think that the board's not gonna do the right thing.

David Sacks 54:06 Agreed. The fix is in.

Chamath Palihapitiya 54:08 (laughs) So conspiratorial. Sacks, do you honestly-

David Sacks 54:11 No, it's not.

Chamath Palihapitiya 54:11 Do you listen to Alex Jones?

David Sacks 54:12 The fix is happening in plain sight, Friedberg.

Chamath Palihapitiya 54:15 (laughs)

David Sacks 54:15 Chamath has said it. Why is the price below $54?

Jason Calacanis 54:18 Here's what I, here's what I-

David Sacks 54:18 Listen.

Jason Calacanis 54:18 I-

David Sacks 54:18 Wh- wh- when, when a deal is gonna go through, the price goes right up to like, below that price. The price is well below 54.

Jason Calacanis 54:24 I think the reason the price isn't going up is there is no buyer who wants this asset. It's gonna be years to clean it up and-

Chamath Palihapitiya 54:29 No, no, no, no, no, Jason, Jason, there's a buyer who wants it.

Jason Calacanis 54:30 I don't think there's a buyer who wants it.

David Friedberg 54:32 E- e- even if you thought that there was another buyer that was gonna come at a higher price...... the, the, the money good thing to do is for people to basically buy that equity to basically bleed into the acquisition process.

Jason Calacanis 54:44 No, no, I get all that. Yeah, yeah. Well, um, I- yeah.

David Friedberg 54:45 And so the fact, the fact that, that, that it didn't move at all, in my opinion, is a concerted belief that the board is gonna reject the offer.

Jason Calacanis 54:54 Got it. Even if there was another offer.

David Friedberg 54:57 And, and what they didn't wanna do is buy the stock at 50, have the thing all of a sudden get announced as, "You know, we're not gonna take it." Elon dumps his shares. All the people that bought the stock at 50 hoping it'll go to 54 would all of a sudden lose a lot of money because the stock would instead be at 34. So the fact that the stock basically didn't move is essentially the market's way of voting, this is a head fake. We- you should take the offer. The board's not going to, and the stock's gonna tank back to its other- its original price.

Jason Calacanis 55:26 My prediction is the board, uh, tries to fight it. Stock collapses. Nobody thinks it's gonna get done. Elon lowers his offer and he wins it by the end of the year and gives them a lower offer. You didn't like it before?

Chamath Palihapitiya 55:39 Yeah, always with the optimism. I love it.

Jason Calacanis 55:39 Now we're going 49.

David Sacks 55:41 That's very Michael Corleone.

Chamath Palihapitiya 55:43 Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 55:43 Now the offer's 49.

Chamath Palihapitiya 55:45 I love it.

Jason Calacanis 55:45 And it goes down $2 every quarter until you guys acquiesce.

David Sacks 55:49 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 55:49 The end. It's trading at 30. I lower my offer.

David Friedberg 55:52 Jason, if you wanna, if you wanna just finish with this little coda. The, the, the Revlon story, it was actually kinda cool. Forstmann Little comes in to try to basically give, like, a white knight bid, and what Ronald Perelman did was basically say, "I'm just gonna, you know, top take every bid." He, he, he was pretty baller.

Chamath Palihapitiya 56:09 (laughs)

David Friedberg 56:09 He's like, "I'm gonna top take every bid." So Forstmann would be at 51 and then, you know, Perelman would be at 51.50. (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 56:17 (laughs)

David Friedberg 56:17 Then it would go to 54, 55, you know?

Chamath Palihapitiya 56:19 (laughs)

David Friedberg 56:19 And s- and so, he was almost-

Chamath Palihapitiya 56:21 The Pope.

David Friedberg 56:21 And he ex- he exhausted Forstmann Little, and eventually they just threw their hands up. They said, "We can't, we can't do this anymore."

David Sacks 56:27 I wanna, uh, just I wanna make a couple of movie recommendations real quick, because I, I tweeted a couple of things that got no-

Jason Calacanis 56:31 Barbarians at the Gate?

David Sacks 56:32 There's Barbarians at the Gate and Wall Street, and you know, I tweet these things and they get no likes, so I think people just don't watch old movies.

Jason Calacanis 56:37 Just watch them.

David Sacks 56:37 These movies came out, they came out in the 1980s. Wall Street-

Jason Calacanis 56:40 Oh, in movie clubs coming up.

David Sacks 56:40 ... is one of the all-time great movies. Certainly-

Jason Calacanis 56:43 All-time greats.

David Sacks 56:43 Probably the best movie about business that's ever been made. Oliver Stone directed it.

Jason Calacanis 56:46 You're saying Wall Street is, yes.

David Sacks 56:47 Wall Street is. Barbarians at the Gate was-

Chamath Palihapitiya 56:49 I think it's pretty good. I really like Margin Call, but yeah, I agree.

David Sacks 56:51 Barbarians at the Gate was, uh-

David Friedberg 56:53 Better book, better book than the movie.

David Sacks 56:54 Yeah, it was a, it was a TV movie with James Garner.

David Friedberg 56:56 Yeah.

David Sacks 56:56 It was good. I, you know, it's worth watching too, but-

David Friedberg 56:59 Yeah, yeah, the book is excellent. The book is excellent.

Jason Calacanis 57:00 The book is next level.

David Friedberg 57:01 I gotta go eat lunch.

Jason Calacanis 57:02 All right, everybody. Love you, besties.

David Friedberg 57:03 Love you guys.

Jason Calacanis 57:04 Bye-bye.

David Sacks 57:04 Back at ya.

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:05 Going all in.

Jason Calacanis 57:08 Hey, everybody. We decided to split this epic episode into two parts, one, two parts, so we can get you all the Elon Twitter discussion out as soon as possible for your Friday night viewing pleasure. Stay tuned for episode 76.5, that's part two, coming out in just a few hours. We're gonna talk about the global food crisis, China's plan for, uh, food storage, geopolitics, including the French election, and we got a bunch of all-in summit talk. Uh, everything is heating up, so stick with us.

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:37 Going all in.

David Sacks 57:38 Let your winners ride.

Jason Calacanis 57:41 Rain Man, David Sachs.

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:43 I'm going all in.

David Sacks 57:45 And I said we open sourced it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

Jason Calacanis 57:49 Love you, besties.

David Friedberg 57:49 The queen of quinoa.

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:51 I'm going all in. Let your winners ride. Let, let your winners ride. Let your winners ride.

Jason Calacanis 57:58 Besties are back.

Chamath Palihapitiya 57:59 (laughs) That's my, uh, dog taking an O in your driveway, Sacks. (laughs)

David Friedberg 58:06 Oh, man.

Chamath Palihapitiya 58:06 No, no, no. I'm just kidding.

David Friedberg 58:06 Oh, man.

Jason Calacanis 58:06 My happy place, meet me at Glazer.

David Friedberg 58:08 We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just used to... It's like this, like, sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

David Sacks 58:16 Wet your beak. Wet your beak.

Chamath Palihapitiya 58:18 Wet your beak.

David Friedberg 58:19 Wet your beak. (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 58:22 We need to get merch.

Chamath Palihapitiya 58:23 Besties are back. I'm going all in. I'm going all in.