Trump vs Powell, Solving the Debt Crisis, The $10T AGI Prize, GENIUS Act Becomes Law

Jason Calacanis 0:00 So, uh, Gavin, were you at the, uh, Coldplay concert in Boston last night? (laughs)

Gavin Baker 0:04 (laughs) Uh, sadly, I missed that. It's-

Jason Calacanis 0:07 You did?

Gavin Baker 0:08 Whoopsy daisy.

Jason Calacanis 0:08 Who were you with? (laughs)

Gavin Baker 0:09 Yeah, exactly.

Jason Calacanis 0:10 Woo!

Gavin Baker 0:10 I was at home with my wife, but yeah. Wow, how insane.

Jason Calacanis 0:14 There's just so many layers to that story, it's impossible to get away from. Uh, it'll be 72 hours of memes. Dave, um, were you at the Coldplay concert in Boston last night? (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:26 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 0:26 And if so, were you with Woody, your astronaut friend? Did you take Woody to the concert?

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:32 No, Counselor. I was here in Santa Cruz last night-

Jason Calacanis 0:36 Oh, you were in Santa Cruz on a business trip?

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:38 ... conducting business. Mm-hmm.

Jason Calacanis 0:39 Okay.

Gavin Baker 0:39 The funny thing is, if they had not reacted the way they did, the camera would have just panned away.

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:44 Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 0:45 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 0:45 Nothing.

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:46 No one would have ever known.

Jason Calacanis 0:47 There is some great irony to the head of people and human resources being in an affair with the CEO, apparently, allegedly. I don't know.

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:56 Don't jump to conclusions, Jason.

Jason Calacanis 0:57 No, it could've- I...

Chamath Palihapitiya 0:59 He could have been cracking her back, you know, like, when you get your back typed and then comes behind and...

Jason Calacanis 1:01 Yes, he could've been a chiropractic-

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:03 Yeah, a chiropractic move.

Gavin Baker 1:04 (laughs)

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:04 Oh my God. (laughs)

Narrator 1:08 What's going on? Let your winners ride. Rain Man, David Sachs. What's going on? And I said, we open source it to the fans, and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you guys. Queen of Kinwa. What's going on?

Jason Calacanis 1:23 All right, let's get to work. It is, uh, the slow, slow news weeks of summer, and we are delighted, delighted to have fan favorite, super intelligent bestie, Gavin Baker with us from Mitrades. How are you, sir? How's your summer shaping up?

Gavin Baker 1:40 Fantastic. Um, it's been awesome.

Jason Calacanis 1:42 Stock market is back. That's good for you because you invest in both public and private companies, yeah?

Gavin Baker 1:49 My firm does, yes. Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 1:51 Gavin, let me ask you a question. How do you price tariffs today? So, where do you think this ends up? Obviously, there's a lot of back and forth, and, you know, everyone's trying to make a read on what the end game is. What's your market take as you're making investments right now and where we end up on the tariff front?

Gavin Baker 2:07 It is a good question. It's, it's open. We're gonna see what happens with sectoral tariffs. I think it's, it's hard. You're doing the Winning AI Summit. It's gonna be hard to win in AI if we put, um, tariffs on semiconductors. But for a lot of what I do for now, tariffs are not super relevant. But, you know, for, for the market, for the economy, they are relevant. But for AI, they may be a little less relevant, because I think everyone is, is maybe a little more sophisticated about the downsides of tariffs for constructing data centers here in the United States.

Chamath Palihapitiya 2:44 Mm-hmm.

Jason Calacanis 2:45 And ultimately, don't we look at the tariff situation and say despite the shock and awe of the opening salvo, it's quite a boring position now? It just seems to be reciprocity and reasonable reciprocity at that. Yeah, that's how we would sort of categorize the end game here?

Gavin Baker 3:06 I would say for everyone but China. Um, you know, it is... And, you know, we're, we've clearly reached some sort of deal, uh, with China, you know, rare earths for H20s and MI308Xs. But it's interesting, and one of the, the trade deals that have been finalized is Vietnam, and there's a special carve out for goods that were transshipped from China through Vietnam. So, they are clearly focused on China, more than almost an- you know, any other country, rightly or wrongly. But yeah, and I do think there is... (laughs) You know, there was maybe three months where, where Trump said he did not care about the stock market, but now he's back to quoting the market at all-time highs.

Jason Calacanis 3:48 Yes.

Gavin Baker 3:49 He clearly cares and is clearly very sensitive to market feedback. So, I think that that will be a, um, dampening mechanism on tariff volatility. But, you know, they passed the bill, and he immediately went back to tariffs. And, you know, we'll see where we land in August. But I just think the most important thing in the market by far is AI, kind of overwhelms everything else.

Jason Calacanis 4:15 Absolutely. And, uh, I guess the other big story with, uh, the market... And we'll get into the H20s. Uh, David Sachs will be joining us in a moment, so he'll be jumping in halfway through it. But let's start with maybe this, uh, soft launch of the firing of Jerome Powell. On Wednesday morning, Bloomberg reported that Trump was likely to fire Powell soon after talking with Republican lawmakers. Shortly after that, The New York Times reported that Trump had actually drafted Powell's termination letter. Market instantly reacted negatively, dropped 1%. Bond yields rose about 10 basis points. You can see the blips here on these charts starting around 11:30 AM when the article was published. Polymarket reported Jerome Powell out as Fed chair in 2025 spiked up to, uh, 30% on Wednesday before dropping back down to 20%. Trump, uh, quickly squashed these rumors, markets rebounded, and Trump said, "We're not planning on doing anything regarding Powell." Some people speculating maybe this was Trump testing the market reaction. As you talked about earlier, Gavin, he, uh, he does seem to care about the market as most presidents do. If you remember, Trump nominated Powell as Fed chair November 2nd, 2017. And he has (laughs) gone on a tirade the last couple of months calling Powell stupid, numbskull, stubborn, low IQ, a knucklehead, mentally average. (laughs) Uh, it's a long list of descriptors of the person he placed. Powell's term ends May of next year. White House officials have confirmed Trump is in the process of selecting his successor. Polymarket says that could be Kevin Warsh, 22%, Kevin Hassett, 19%, Scott Besson, 15%. This hasn't actually ever happened, right? We've never had a Fed chair fired. But we have inflation coming back a bit. If you all remember, there's a dual mandate for the Fed to keep unemployment low, check, that's pretty good, and keeping inflation under control.That's been going very well since our massive inflation spike over the past couple years. And, uh, here we go. CPI ticked up 10% from 2.4% to 2.7%, 30 basis point increase over May. So, any thoughts, Gavin, on these macro issues around inflation coming back a bit, the, uh, the stock market at an all-time high, and unemployment? If you believe the unemployment data, and we've had a bunch of debates here about that, you know, h- how correct is it being at, uh, close to an all-time low in our lifetimes. Let's go macro.

Gavin Baker 6:47 Yeah. I wouldn't read too much into the CPI bouncing up a little bit. There's base rate effects, I think on a month over month, uh, basis, and if you looked at, you know, what, what economists call core, super core, different, you know, ways to maybe smooth out CPI, I think inflation is still relatively contained. As far as, but I mean, a lot of very smart people are convinced that tariffs will lead to inflation. We'll see. There certainly sound theoretical arguments for why they will, but it does look like maybe the, um, overseas exporters are eating a little bit more of the, uh, tariffs than, than people thought that they would, which is, which is good for US inflation. But, you know, the combination of a very weak dollar and tariffs theoretically should lead to a little more inflation. Firing Powell, I worry that the market only went down 1%. I do think the market would go down quite a bit more if Trump did fire Powell. I think it would be a mistake. I hope he doesn't do it. And, you know, there are very sound reasons for the Federal Reserve to be independent. And I hope he does not read from that trial balloon down 1% that that's all that would happen. Look, the world would continue spinning, America would go on, but it would be a mistake.

Jason Calacanis 8:15 Mm-hmm. Friedberg, we have, uh, this idea that there would be a couple of rate cuts and maybe we would get monetary velocity going again, people would be able to take more loans out, invest more in business, but with the stock market tearing it up, there's a lot of wealth being put into the system with the big beautiful bill. There's a lot of spending in there as we've talked about here. Putting that aside, it feels like the economy's in really great shape. Chances of a rate cut has now flipped. No change is now the favorite option for September, whereas a week ago, the favorite option was 25 bps. So, this idea that we're gonna cut, or the Fed's gonna cut, that seems to be changing as well. So, your thoughts on the, um, the macro picture here?

Chamath Palihapitiya 8:57 So, I'm not sure like, the firing of Jerome Powell necessarily solves the US fiscal challenge, which is rising interest rates on the long end of the treasury curve. So, if you look at the s- the 30-year treasury yield over time, and Nick, maybe you could pull this up while I'm talking, but as of today, we're at exactly 5% on the 30-year. And you can see that this 5% yield, which is what the market is demanding the United States government pay in order to be loaned the money to make the bill payments that the US government has to make every year, is the highest it's been. The borrowing cost is the highest it's been since going all the way back to 2007 as of today. And I think this is the real story for the United States. We have $36 trillion of debt. The average interest rate we're paying on that debt today is 3.3%. That's the average of all the treasuries that the Federal Government has issued, the Treasury Department has issued to borrow the money that it is using and has used to pay all its bills. And if you look at the 5% number, that's a 1.7% hike. At 3.3%, which is the current average rate we're paying across $36 trillion, we're, we have a run rate interest expense, so just the money we're paying each year on the interest of the outstanding debt is $1.2 trillion a year. And if this spikes up to 5% from 3.3, we're talking about nearly $2 trillion a year in interest expense. And that number's only gonna get bigger as we borrow more money each year and the loan balance goes up, the outstanding debt goes up, because we are still running a deficit. The government's spending more than it's making every year. So, the crisis that America faces is a more profound fiscal crisis, where the rates that we're having to pay are a function of what the market is telling us. The market does not want to loan the United States money over a 30-year period for less than 5% as of today. And so making adjustments to the short end of the treasury curve, making overnight loans cheaper, which is what the Fed can do, will stimulate the economy and make more money flow easily because now you'll be able to borrow money overnight to do stuff like build a building and then sell the building next week or next month, or take out a car loan and pay it down and use your car to go drive for Uber and grow the economy and other things. So, the theory is that if we can, you know, drive rates down on the short end of the curve, we'll grow the economy such that we'll be able to make those payments on the long end of the curve. Um, but there comes a point where, again, you're only gonna be able to move the market so much until the more important fiscal situations are gonna-

Jason Calacanis 11:40 Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 11:40 ... be addressed, which is spending, taxation, and some of the other key policy issues. So, I think what the market is saying is it's not as much about Jerome Powell and frankly, getting rid of a prudent individual may be more challenging than it is beneficial when the real challenges facing the United States need to be more heartily addressed. So, I think that's my-

Jason Calacanis 11:59 Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 11:59 ... kind of take on this whole point.

Gavin Baker 12:01 I-

Jason Calacanis 12:01 Can I-

Gavin Baker 12:01 Yeah, go ahead, Gavin. Build on it. So, point number one, the 30-year has gone up since Powell started cutting rates. So, th- that is just empirical proof that what David is saying, I think, is right. And second, uh-The deficit has been a feature of American politics dating back to Ross Perot's, you know-

Jason Calacanis 12:24 (laughs)

Gavin Baker 12:24 ... 1992 presidential run. But it never-

Jason Calacanis 12:27 His independent third-party run.

Gavin Baker 12:29 (laughs) His, his independent third-party run.

Jason Calacanis 12:30 Here we go.

Gavin Baker 12:30 But, yes. But it, the deficit never really mattered because interest rates kept going down, such that even as our debt grew, interest expense as kind of a percentage of the government's budget stayed relatively l- low. Now that rates have gone up and don't seem like they're, you know, going down anytime soon, the deficit does matter, and it really matters. And y- you can kind of run a, a couple of scenarios, but, like, pick your, pick your metric. If the deficit kind of continues at current levels, and we were to refinance the debt at the prices that, uh, you know, David was talking about, you know, it's, it's only a few years before spending on interest is significantly larger than spending on Medicare and Medicaid or Social Security or the military. So pick something you care about. But, you know, our current course and speed, it's, it's in the not too distant future where interest expense is the biggest line item for the government, and that is not healthy. And that's why the deficit finally matters, it's just that rates are higher. But the great thing is, is there is a virtuous cycle here. As you close the deficit, rates should theoretically come down, and then those both feed on each other to kind of help the problem. And it is possible, there's no silver bullet here, but some combination of slowing government spending, extra revenue, and-

Jason Calacanis 14:05 Hm.

Gavin Baker 14:06 ... you know, tariffs are effectively... We've never had a consumption tax here in America, which I think is a good thing 'cause consumption taxes are very regressive. But the reality is, like, even when Obama controlled the House, the Senate, and was the most popular Democratic president of our lifetime, I don't think federal government tax receipts as a percentage of GDP got above 18, 19%. So that's kind of the ceiling, and it, for income taxes alone. And tariffs are really just a consumption tax that kind of incents domestic manufacturing. I mean, there's all sorts of reasons they're bad ideas, you know. David Ricardo, the theory of comparative advantage, 100% correct. Free trade is a good thing. But introducing some sort of a consumption tax, growing the economy a little bit faster through deregulation, and slowing government spending-

Jason Calacanis 15:01 Hm.

Gavin Baker 15:01 ... I think there is a way out of this for America.

Jason Calacanis 15:04 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 15:04 But it's important to find the way because the deficit finally does matter, after really never mattering in my political lifetime.

Jason Calacanis 15:12 It is interesting. We've never had to worry about our debt. It was always manageable because it wasn't that large, and even when it got large, it wasn't compared to GDP 'cause the country was doing so well. We had the PC revolution, we had the internet boom, I mean, we've had boom after boom after boom in efficiency that we've led the world. When these companies like Google or Apple take over the world and all those tax receipts and income comes into our country, that does sort of, um, make you not look at it. I guess, I, you know, I've been talking to you, Gavin, uh, and not to make this super political, but both parties have proven that they have no interest, historically and in, in the current one, with cutting spending. I- it's just the nature of it. So we can sit here, whether you're a Biden fan, Trump fan, put it all aside, both parties love spending and they're not stopping. One of our friends has proposed, "Hey, maybe in the midterms we have a couple of, uh, these House positions, couple of senators, maybe we try to flip them and create a new party that cares about this issue." What are your thoughts broadly on that? If couple of more Joe Manchin types were in the House and Senate, could this country maybe start to make this the, um, the deciding issue? A- and maybe could we see some movement on the other two parties, some pressure on them by a third party, an America Party perhaps?

Gavin Baker 16:30 Yeah. Well, I think a few things. I do think there is room for a much more centrist party in America. You know, the way the primaries work, it, you know, leads to more maybe extreme candidates than anyone would actually want, you know, b- being each party's candidate. So I think a third party would be helpful, you know, and, you know, I think there's plenty of room for a party that is, you know, kind of a, you know, fiscally conservative, you know, reasonably socially liberal, pro-American energy production-

Jason Calacanis 17:09 Hm.

Gavin Baker 17:10 ... all kinds of energy production-

Jason Calacanis 17:12 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 17:12 ... including solar, importantly. So I think there is room for that and I think it is right that if you just target a few races, you can have a big impact. But I would just say-

Jason Calacanis 17:23 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 17:23 ... humbly, I think the America Party is a great idea.

Jason Calacanis 17:26 Hm.

Gavin Baker 17:27 I just don't know that it is the highest and best use of Elon's talents-

Jason Calacanis 17:31 Oh, no. Yeah.

Gavin Baker 17:31 ... at this moment in time-

Jason Calacanis 17:33 (laughs)

Gavin Baker 17:33 ... with what's happening with AI, and just, you know, to the extent, uh, Elon is a friend of the pod-

Jason Calacanis 17:41 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 17:41 ... I just think staying focused, AI, Mars, that might be the highest and best use of his particular talents.

Jason Calacanis 17:49 100. 100%.

Chamath Palihapitiya 17:50 Hasn't that been the case for, for some time, Gavin? And any time there's something, whether it's Neuralink or Boring Company or some other new project that there's these claims that this is a distraction away from the highest priority work that should be done? I mean, is the political stuff unique? And then his point of view on the political stuff, just like it was with Twitter, is that it's existential to society and civilization and our ability to function and to do...... you know, to achieve the progress that he aims to achieve in his core function.

Gavin Baker 18:22 So obviously, he is succeeding being the CEO of many different companies. But, you know, I think a big part of what makes him kind of exceptional as a CEO is the perfectionism, the drive. And, you know, politics is not a game of perfection, it's a game of compromise. So I am sure if he sets his mind to the America Party that he will succeed, but I think there are other things for him to focus on. And, you know, the Boring Company, Neuralink, these are games of perfection. These are, you know, this is about engineering. This is about solving a problem. It's not, you know, compromise and the art of the possible. So, I think he would succeed, I just think that there are other things that may be a higher calling for him.

Chamath Palihapitiya 19:12 Hmm. Yeah.

Gavin Baker 19:13 Yeah, I mean, and the, the cost of being away from his businesses this last time around, as he said very publicly was severe. (laughs) It was intense and he's had to really regroup, but

Gavin Baker 19:24 we got this incredible news when Grok-4 came out, and I think we should maybe talk a little bit here about what that big prize is. The big prize, I think is most, well, it's actually, uh, gonna be an open question, uh, Friedberg. I think the big prize is whoever wins general intelligence, superintelligence, or the biggest cluster or the most power to power the biggest cluster that powers general superintelligence. So, where do we sit on the language models today, Gavin, and Elon's recent... let- let's just call it what it is, I mean, incredibly dominant release of Grok-4. I don't think people expected that. They didn't expect him to be able to leapfrog everybody. And, and let's be honest, people are leap f- frogging each other every four to six months, so I- I fully expect Gemini will leapfrog Grok and OpenAI will have their time in the sun again as well. But this was pretty impressive, right? I would say this is the biggest leapfrog we've seen in quite some time, and I think the benchmarks that matter are ArcGI2 and Humanities Last Exam, where it did, in- in the case of ArcGI2, it's called semi-private, which is important 'cause it means that some of the questions were held back. 'Cause the criticism of these models is they memorize the answer, and so ArcGI2, it has not seen the questions before. And it did roughly twice as good as, you know, the state-of-the-art Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic models. And then on Humanities Last Exam, you know, we can call it 50 to 75% better. You know, and exceptional humans score 5% on that. It scores in the 40s. So this is incredible progress, and I think it's worth mentioning, th- this model was trained on Hopper, so this, this model is probably about as far as you can take the last generation of NVIDIA GPUs. The next models we see, you know, Grok-5, you know, o5 from OpenAI, whatever they're gonna call Gem- the next Gemini, they will be trained on Blackwell and I think that will be a really big step function. But I do think the ultimate prize here is, um, artificial superintelligence. Like, I think artificial general intelligence will create a lot of economic value, but, you know, and, you know, maybe we will be able to work less as humans, but I think ASI, artificial superintelligence is what is really exciting, in terms of maybe, you know, being able to live longer, you know, really kind of fundamentally kind of change the fabric of our lives. Can you take a stab at explaining that difference in definition to the audience who, they hear these terms and we kinda bundle them into either a transcendent intelligence that we haven't seen before that we as humans can't comprehend, it goes beyond human intelligence, or this is the smartest human on the planet, a- and where we are right now in this journey. 'Cause I think these terms are all getting muddled together, and I think we have an interesting conversation here if we parse them. I think artificial general intelligence, I would define it as an AI that can take economically useful actions in a variety of domains and be better than the average human in most domains, all domains. But that's very different than superintelligence. Okay. You know, being, you know, being able to draft a contract, that's not superintelligence, but it is useful. Being able to do a medical diagnosis, it's not superintelligence, but it is useful. You know, being able to book my travel, so on and so forth. Superintelligence means exactly what you said, that it is smarter than any human, but it has, you know, access to all of human knowledge. And I think one of the most interesting questions is what will the economic returns to superintelligence be? And they are definitionally unknowable 'cause we have never seen superintelligence before. If, as humans, we have kind of, um, pushed the limits of physics, biology, chemistry, the laws of the universe, then maybe the economic returns to superintelligence won't be that high. But if superintelligence is curing cancer and inventing warp drives, then the returns are gonna be really, really high- Huh. ... and it's fundamentally unknowable. Yeah. Okay. So we're at general intelligence. Hey, your lawyer, your tax, your accountant's gonna go much faster, they'll have a co-pilot, this is all gonna be great for a business. Every business gets 10% more efficient a month. Seems like a reasonable bogey, which means every seven, eight, nine months, every business (laughs) is gonna get twice as efficient at these kinda chores. Yeah? I think that, I wouldn't say that's a reasonable bogey, I think that might be a little aggressive. It's, you know- Okay. ... the world, the world always, it's, you know, I think it's a, a Bill Gates quote, you know the, "The world always changes less than you expect over the next one, two, three years, but way more-" Yeah. "... than you expect over 10 years." Yes. It just takes time for technologies to diffuse. You know, maybe really nimble startups will see some of the gains y- you know, that you're talking about. But I mean, if we doubled productivity, I mean, that would be, like, an economic revolution.

Jason Calacanis 24:23 I mean, we're seeing it in programming. I'm, I, I, I... For sure. If you talk to the average developer, they, I think, would say they're getting 5 to 10% better a month, better being defined as faster shipping more code, rule of 72, hey, you know, every year- (laughs) ... at least you're gonna, (laughs) you're gonna be twice as good. Yeah. I think that actually seems to be happening with developers. I think it is happening with software. I think software is the first area where you've seen a real, true, kind of economic productivity impact, generalized. A lot of companies are having incredible su-success with AI for customer s-, you know, support, for sales. I think you see it more in startups than big companies, but it, the impact it has had on coding is undeniable. Freeberg, let me swing this around to you. We've got the super intelligence out there. We've got AGI out there. One of the things Gavin said was, by definition, you can't quantify (laughs) the gains of super intelligence. That is the big prize here. That's why people are putting this much money into these kind of data centers. Yeah? In your mind? It's not just the general intelligence, that would be the silver medal. People are going for the gold here, not general intelligence, super intelligence, breakthroughs that we can't imagine. Am, am I... Would you say that's a fair way to, uh, sum up the massive interest in investing in these projects?

Chamath Palihapitiya 25:43 Yeah, I mean, I think there's something where everyone has identified this asymptotic return moment, where if you get to that moment, you're limitless in terms of the upside. Is there one winner? I don't know. I don't think so. But I, I would also kind of reframe this as being some binary condition that I think we're talking about it, as being, quote, "general intelligence", super intelligence, as being on a spectrum of leverage towards complexity.

Jason Calacanis 26:16 Mm-hmm.

Chamath Palihapitiya 26:17 Complexity meaning, like, I can do a simple task, like instead of writing a letter and putting it in an envelope and having some guy carry it to my mom, you know, and she gets it the next day, I can digitally get her that message instantly over email. That creates an incredible amount of leverage and solves a lot of the complexity of getting her that communication from me. So if I, as a human, said, "I would like to harness fusion power," similar to what the sun uses to make energy, and I want to do that on Earth, today, we're in, call it year 40 or 50 of a research cycle of humans trying to solve that particularly complex problem. It's a scientific problem, it's a discovery problem, it's an engineering problem. And this idea of super intelligence is that it could give us immense leverage in solving that complex problem that we otherwise may be challenged to solve over decades or hundreds of years, or think about one day solving a problem that would take humans thousands of years to solve. I, I don't think that humans are limited in our ability to solve problems. I think we're limited in terms of time and what intelligence, what digital intelligence gives us is leverage on time so that we can now tackle ever more complex tasks that as you think about these tasks, the amount of time isn't just an incremental one year or two years, but it becomes 100 years or maybe 1,000 years. So this relates to, I think, projects around physics, around chemistry, around transportation, around biology, where we're probably fundamentally scratching the surface today, and where the super intelligence is an enormous leverage creator for us. And so I don't view it as some like species or race that independently persists in its own intentions, but it is a tool that provides leverage in a way that is orders of magnitude greater than the leverage we got from yesteryear's digital tools and probably today's D- AI tools, and probably tomorrow's g- general intelligence tools, is kind of how I would, I would think about it. And, you know, maybe it's because one model does so much stuff better than any human, you can call it super intelligence, but I think functionally, leverage and co- into complexity is, is where this becomes super compelling for humans, and it's why I think we can and should be highly optimistic about living very long lives and traveling anywhere we want and having abundance in food-

Jason Calacanis 28:43 Yes.

Chamath Palihapitiya 28:43 ... and having abundance in resources, and having abundance in recouping our time to do the things we want to do instead of the things that we have to do today, because we don't have access to this incredible leverage. So that's where I get kinda compelled by the... Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 28:55 Gavin... I love it, Freeberg. I think it's a great way to look at it, but l- I wanna go back to the silver medal here in this sort of competition. Gold being super intelligence, we start solving fusion and really big problems on deep research cycles and the velocity of that goes up. But just going back to the silver, you know, everybody in the economy becomes, I don't know, single digits more efficient every month and, you know, some amount every year. I've been trying to back of the envelope what I think the value is for, uh, a human being in the West in the modern world, and what they should spend on AI per month. I've come up with a number of about 75, 150 bucks. Somewhere in that range is a no-brain- brainer to spend on your AI per month as an individual working in the world. If that's the premise, right? I think there's a billion people in the developed world who could spend, let's call it 100 a month, so 1200 a year. Doesn't take a genius to figure out this is a trillion dollars in revenue. Based on market cap, that's probably $10 trillion in market cap, and then we just have to back into the spending what it costs to build this. You're doing these kind of calculations, I'm sure, at Atreides, yeah? And, and where this general back of the envelope that I've come up with in my mind for a mental model that there's a $10 trillion prize, $1 trillion in revenue, just in the silver medal, does that jive with the spending we're seeing today? I think people are putting in $10 billion worth of equipment a year i- across five different companies, right?

Gavin Baker 30:30 Well, I think they're putting in quite a bit more than 10 billion per year. Um-

Jason Calacanis 30:34 Um, each? (laughs)

Gavin Baker 30:36 No, no. No, no. Each... each is putting in-

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:37 No, no. Google alone is doing 70 billion this year.

Gavin Baker 30:39 ... each is putting-

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:40 Each is putting in 70.

Gavin Baker 30:41 Yeah. Most-

Jason Calacanis 30:41 But is that... is that 70 billion they're putting in this year gonna be repeated for the next five years so it will be 350 billion?

Gavin Baker 30:47 If you look at-

Chamath Palihapitiya 30:48 TBD? (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 30:48 (laughs)

Gavin Baker 30:48 If you... Well, yeah, TBD. The future is always uncertain.

Jason Calacanis 30:51 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 30:51 But, um, you know, if there are economic returns to that, they will keep doing it for sure. You know, something interesting is, you know, AI is, you know, as we discussed in previous All-Ins, extremely compute-intensive. And it's just at no point in my career as a tech investor except the very beginning which was kinda the end of the PC wars which Dell won by being a low-cost producer, going direct, cutting out the working capital, you know, the components in a PC depreciate, so if you have to go through a, a store, um, where, where it sits on the shelves, you're at a big disadvantage from, you know, either a, you know, call it a cost or a quality perspective. But at no point in the 25 years I've been a tech investor has being the low-cost producer mattered. Being the low-cost producer is really gonna matter in AI because, um, at some level, the amount of tokens you produce is intelligence because of test time compute, um, you know, post-training reinforcement learning. And so if you can produce those tokens at a lower cost, you'll have a big advantage. You know, if for that 75 billion or 30 billion or 50 billion you're spending per year in cap ex you can produce more tokens, that is a profound advantage. I don't... Like, your, your calculations, like, just as a back of the envelope, you know, kind of scratch, they seem reasonable to me.

Jason Calacanis 32:11 The trillion dollars a year in revenue because of AI seems quite reasonable when you frame it as $1,000 for a person to be, whatever, 30, 40, 50% more efficient at work every year.

Gavin Baker 32:25 Yeah. And it's just u- we can probably go back and look at kind of like the early days of, you know, cellphones and what were people willing to pay relative to disposable income.

Jason Calacanis 32:33 Your PC analogy would actually be the perfect one. A PC at back in the er- that era was, what, three, $4,000 per person? They lasted-

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:40 Right. Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 32:41 ... three years. So it was exactly-

Gavin Baker 32:42 Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:42 Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 32:42 ... a thousand a year.

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:43 But this is why-

Gavin Baker 32:44 Yeah.

Chamath Palihapitiya 32:44 This is why creating such delineated distinction between different types of AI I think is, is also, like, the equivalent of trying to create distinctions between other types of technology. So the, the automobile, the airplane-

Jason Calacanis 33:03 Mm.

Chamath Palihapitiya 33:03 ... the telephone, the computer, all of these technologies are tools that created leverage, uh, leverage on things that were otherwise complexity and reduced them down to simplicity from a human perspective. Pick up the phone, make a call instead of getting up on your horse and going across the country to deliver a message or using a computer to do a spreadsheet that calculated everything for you rather than calculate it by hand and so on and so forth. Like, all of these tools reduce complexity to simple tasks for humans. And the ever increasing complexity of what we can accomplish with digital tools is, you know, continuing in this kind of era now. But that's why I think it's very similar, Jason. Like, we... This is not some new concept. It's, it's the continuation of human productivity. It's the continuation of the improvement of what humans can do, what we can produce, what we can... And, and, yes, there's a concept now that intelligence has become such a, like, it's caught up to everything. (laughs) But... And, Gavin, I don't know if you think that there is this concept of some moment of singularity, but it, it does feel to me like there's just extraordinary leverage that's being created that feels similar to-

Gavin Baker 34:08 Well, for-

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:08 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 34:09 For sure that's true. I hope that's true. I hope your vision of it being a productivity enhancer for humans is correct. You know, I do think, you know, people deep in AI do think there's some probability that it goes sideways, uh, but I hope, I, I hope that you're right. But coming back to, to J-Cal's, you know, $10 trillion prize and, you know, relative to, you know, the market caps of the companies involved, it, it, it needs to be at least $10 trillion. Something that I think is, is interesting and, and, and relevant particularly to Grok-4 being the best product is the best product doesn't always win in technology.

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:46 No. Data matters.

Gavin Baker 34:47 And, and-

Chamath Palihapitiya 34:48 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 34:48 Yeah. In sports, you know, they say, uh, defense wins championships. And on the internet, distribution wins championships. And Grok-4 has formidable competitors with lots of distribution in Google and-

Jason Calacanis 35:02 Meta.

Gavin Baker 35:03 ... you know, Meta, if they get their act together-

Jason Calacanis 35:05 Microsoft.

Gavin Baker 35:06 Microsoft. And so from an industrial logic perspective, something that I think makes a lot of sense particularly since OpenAI bought Johnny Ives' hardware startup which will place them into competition with Apple at some point, is xAI and Apple are natural partners. There's been a lot of news about Apple thinking about buying Perplexity or Mixtral, but that's just a Band-Aid. Those companies don't get Apple what they need. And Apple's had an incredible partnership for many years now with Google that's generating tens of billions of dollars for both companies. And I think there is solid industrial logic for a partnership. You could have Apple Grok, SafeGrok, whatever you wanna call it, you know, so that Apple feels comfortable and that probably also helps Grok in the enterprise. And then it also helps both Apple and Google with this DOJ trial. And so I think in this, you know, incredibly high-elo chess match that is being played between the leading labs, like, that is... that partnership makes a lot of sense for both companies.

Jason Calacanis 36:11 Fascinating. It's the first time I've heard anybody sort of make that natural connection. But you're right. Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs at one point had this discussion which was, "Hey, we've got search and you've got a browser now," because the iPhone didn't have a browser, you know, uh, or, you know, they could have built their own search engine, they could have partnered with Yahoo, but they decided to make this long-term partnership with Google and, man, that dropped, what, 20, 30 billion to the bottom line at Apple and-... cemented Google's search franchise.

Gavin Baker 36:40 Absolutely. And right now, that deal is being litigated by the DOJ, and the DOJ is considering remedies. And so if you bring on a really kind of effective, credible AI provider, I think it could help both Google and Apple with their antitrust issues. And at the end of the day, you know, Google, they have Android and their Pixel phones. OpenAI is making hardware. Anthropic is kind of a captive of Amazon. Meta is kind of a, um, you know, they're, they're in a death match with Apple. So I think there is really sound logic for that partnership.

Jason Calacanis 37:18 I love it.

Gavin Baker 37:18 I think it'd be good for both companies. Love to see it happen.

Jason Calacanis 37:22 It feels to me like the interface is gonna be the browser. (laughs) I know this sounds crazy, but I've been playing with the Comet browser from Perplexity. Did you play with it yet, Gavin, or look at some of the demos?

David Sacks 37:32 Yeah. Uh, I do th- it- it-

Jason Calacanis 37:34 What, what are your thoughts here? Because it's really ... And, and then ChatGPT just launched a virtual desktop that pops up to go do (laughs) your, you know, little web-based scrapes, agents, assignments, whatever you want. I'm gonna call it assignments, you know, homework, chores. Go do your chores. (laughs) What, what are your thoughts on this modality?

Gavin Baker 37:57 Yeah, the browser is part of distribution winning championships. Apple has Safari. Google has Chrome.

Jason Calacanis 38:02 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 38:02 And if you're not gonna strike a partnership with one of those distribution channels, you will eventually need to do your own browser, and you can extend that logic, you know, all the way. You know, that's why they, Google, they did a browser. They did a phone. But I also do think the, um, you know, the Companions from Grok have been interesting to play with, and they certainly-

Jason Calacanis 38:24 Yes.

Gavin Baker 38:24 ... make it more engaging.

Jason Calacanis 38:26 That becomes the agent. It's a kind of incredible, mind-blowing concept for that to be the interface.

Jason Calacanis 38:33 All right, listen, here we go. Calling in live, got a Breaking Bestie coming on board here. Uh, David Sacks calling in live. I c- I see the pale yellow paint, uh, and an ancient building. You must be in some sort of wing of the great White House. Is that correct, David?

David Sacks 38:55 I am. Well, I'm actually not in the White House per se. I guess I'm on the White House grounds. We're in the, uh, Eisenhower Executive Office Building. That's where my office.

Jason Calacanis 39:02 Yes. I can tell from that building-

David Sacks 39:04 Friedberg and Schott have been here. (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 39:06 Yeah, no, i- they said great things like ... And I checked my calendar.

David Sacks 39:10 It is beautiful, JCal. I'll s-, I'll send you some photos. It's great. Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 39:12 Well, no, but the calendar's wide open between now and the All In summit, allin.com/yada-yada-yada. So the window's there, Sacks. The window's wide open. And I'll see you in the cafeteria, I guess.

David Sacks 39:22 Play your cards right on stage next week, JCal-

Jason Calacanis 39:24 (laughs)

David Sacks 39:24 ... and you might get invited after the, uh-

Jason Calacanis 39:26 But, yeah, you fl- (laughs)

David Sacks 39:26 ... the AI summit we're doing.

Jason Calacanis 39:27 Yeah.

David Sacks 39:27 Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 39:28 Absolutely. Let's, uh-

David Sacks 39:29 We got the AI event in DC next Wednesday, which has been publicly announced, so it's gonna be exciting.

Jason Calacanis 39:33 David, you, uh, you brought a friend today. Maybe introduce your friend and tell us, uh, what you got done. What have you gotten done in the last week for the American people? They wanna know. What ... 'Cause you weren't here last week doing the pod, so you must have gotten something done for the American people. Let's hear it.

David Sacks 39:47 Well, first of all, this is the czar behind the czar, Beau Hineman.

Jason Calacanis 39:50 Okay.

David Sacks 39:51 He's the executive director of the president's working group on digital assets. So that's the working group that I chair, but he actually does all the work. He's the executive director, and he's here every day. And, um, he's been working on crypto pretty much nonstop since we started the administration. And he's kinda the unsung hero within our operation here on these two bills that just passed the House, which are historic and quite momentous.

Jason Calacanis 40:26 So, uh, Beau, welcome to the program. And, uh, maybe you could tell us a little bit about these bills and what they do for the American people.

Bo Hines 40:35 Yeah. Well, first of all, David, you're, you're too kind. We've had a blast working together. I mean, we connected, uh, back in transition, I think, in late November, and we started mapping out a plan for this. And to see it come to fruition this week is, is really like ... It's unbelievable. Um, the fact that we had the bipartisan votes we did today in the House, um, is remarkable. It's unprecedented, and it shows you that, you know, leaders on both sides of the aisle understand that our country has to be at the forefront of this technological development. But let's start with GENIUS, because I think GENIUS is really the foundation for everything else we can build upon in this space. A lot of industry cares about market structure, as do we, and we wanna see it done on the president's desk as well. But GENIUS is unique, because it really updates the payment rails inside of our current financial system. I mean, th- the payment rails have been archaic, and I've likened it to the fact of the ways in which we've communicated have changed quite dramatically over the course of the last several decades. The ways in which we move money really haven't, and we have the technology there in blockchain technology. So what we're doing here is we're fixing the plumbing of our financial system. We're securing US dollar dominance for decades to come. If you wanna access our capital markets, you're gonna have to use a dollar backed stable. You're also providing a pathway for, you know, tokenization of public securities and 24/7 markets and the things that people have dreamed about for, for quite some time. This is a revolutionary piece of legislation. And the fact that it had this much bipartisan support is incredible. It's a testament to President Trump's leadership. It's a testament to our fantastic AI and crypto czar, David's leadership. I mean, he's truly been the guiding star behind the ideology and what we're pushing here. And, you know, he has a phenomenal team as well. I mean, I'd r- I'd be remiss not to thank Tracy, who's David's chief of staff. I mean, in the midst of all of the chaos to get this done, and, like, there were so many steps to this. We had to beat the banking lobby to get it past the Senate. Then it moved over to the House, in which we had to, to, to basically fight some members that, that really misinterpreted or misunderstood what this bill actually did. And the president stepped up. David stepped up in an enormous way. It wouldn't have happened without either of them.And so now, we have this bill heading to his desk tomorrow. And to pivot to market structure really briefly, this provides, like, the rules of the road for the exchanges, the brokers, everyone in the space. They desperately need it, so th- that we can break down the wall between traditional financial institutions and these digital asset players. I think that's, that's well underway. Obviously, you know, getting a vote as strong as they did in the House is indicative of what can happen in the Senate. If we deliver on these two pieces of legislation, I mean, that's about 90% of what needs to be done for crypto to make the US and crypto a capital of the world, and, you know, uh, it's, it's just remarkable. I mean, we're, we're over the moon.

Jason Calacanis 43:17 Okay, Sacks, you got these two things over the finish line. Congratulations on that. Lots of compromises you had to make, so I wanna get into what were the compromises to get this done.

David Sacks 43:27 Just to clarify one thing when you say finish line, so like Bo was saying, there's two bills. There's the GENIUS Act, which is the stablecoin legislation, and then there's the CLARITY Act, which is market structures. Basically, all the other tokens besides stablecoins. Where we are is that both passed the House today, but GENIUS has already passed the Senate. So it is going to the President's desk tomorrow, and it will become law. We're doing a bill signing with the President. By the time this pod is released, it will probably be law. I think we will have the, the signing. CLARITY started in the House, and so it has passed the House and now it's going to the Senate.

Bo Hines 44:04 Okay.

David Sacks 44:04 And they still have to do their hearings and markup on it, and we expect that'll happen over the next couple of months. In fact, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Tim Scott, has said that he wants to finish with the market structure legislation by the end of September. So if all goes well, then we could be looking at a second bill signing in, say, October. And like Bo said, that would be pretty much the crypto industry's wishlist for having a clear legal framework in the United States for both stablecoins and other crypto tokens, so it's really pretty amazing. I mean, when I started this job, I'll just tell you, one of my friends in Silicon Valley said that, "You know, you may be able to get some AI things done, but you'll never get anything done on crypto." And, and the reason is because the entrenched interests are too powerful, and they'll stop it. The banking lobby will stop it, or Elizabeth Warren will stop it, or just all the, uh, uh, status quo players who could get disrupted by blockchain-based technology will somehow find a way to stop it. And that didn't happen. Like, we've actually now moved forward. GENIUS is about to become law, and I think CLARITY is looking like it's gonna have the votes in the Senate as well to become law. So it's really pretty amazing how much progress we've made in just six months. And like Bo said, this really comes down to President Trump's leadership. He made the promises during the campaign to prioritize crypto, to make the United States the crypto capital of the planet, and it was his negotiating skills and deal-making that made this all happen. I mean, (laughs) this p- past week has been a little bit of a roller coaster. There were reports over the last couple of days that the whole thing was falling apart and wouldn't happen. There was a moment, I think this has been publicly reported, but give you some color on it, is there were 12 members of the House whose votes were necessary to advance the bill to this vote today, and at a certain point, President Trump brought them into his office, the Oval Office, and worked out all the differences personally, and that's what put this bill over the top. If it wasn't for the President's direct involvement and action and understanding of the issues, he listened to all the concerns and he paid attention to the ones that were real and then rebutted the ones that weren't, if it wasn't for his direct involvement, we would not be here today.

Jason Calacanis 46:25 And he understands crypto. He's involved in it, is, uh, seems to have an understanding of the value of stablecoins for the US dollar. That seems to be a key motivator for this being bipartisan. You got, um, twice as many Democrats as you thought you would get. Is that because people wanna make sure the dollar supremacy gets locked in, and stablecoins is a way to do that? Because you can't have a stablecoin unless it's backed by a dollar.

David Sacks 46:51 Yeah, I mean, like I've talked about on, on this show before, it shouldn't be that hard to sell regulation to Democrats. I mean, what we're doing here is providing a regulatory framework for the industry. They didn't have one before, and that's why the number one stablecoin player in the world right now is an offshore entity. They will have to come onshore as part of this bill in the next three years. So what we're doing here is creating a regulatory framework. But the reason why it's substantially bipartisan is because the industry wants this regulation because they want the stability it gives them-

Jason Calacanis 47:22 Mm-hmm.

David Sacks 47:22 ... in terms of having that legal authorization. They wanna make sure that if, you know, 4 years, 8 years from now, 12 years from now, whatever, there's not some new Gary Gensler who comes in and turns the whole industry upside down because he doesn't like some aspect of what they're doing and he just starts prosecuting them, which is what the industry experienced over the past four years with Biden's war on crypto. So we, meaning the, the Trump administration, could fix the, the Gensler issues just with agency rulemaking, and we're certainly on that path to do that, but if you want long-term stability that goes beyond just this administration, you have to get legislation. You have to canonize it into law. And that's why the industry was so interested in getting these bills passed. So I think that's why you're seeing some bipartisanship here. Like Bo said, I do think that there's a substantial number of Democrats who understand that this technology is the future and it's a positive thing for the US. What could be bad about allowing digital dollars, which extends the dollar's dominance online, so that it basically bolsters the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency? Over time, as we get challengers from BRICS, for example, this is gonna make the US dollar stronger. And every time a dollar token trades somewhere in the world on a crypto wallet, there has to be a physical dollar in a US bank account invested in a US Treasury, and that creates demand for our debt, which is another positive thing. And there have been studies done that show that...The results of this bill could be trillions of dollars of new demand for our debt, which is only a positive thing.

Jason Calacanis 48:56 And if you don't allow a legal way to do this, and you don't have a proper framework, you ha- you've been dancing around, uh, this person who has three years to get their act together, that's Tether, I'll say it. You can ty- you can do a search for Tether controversies or, uh, shenanigans, and you'll find plenty of them.

David Sacks 49:11 Hold on. I don't think it's fair to say they don't have their act together. I think they have their act together. It's just that they did not know how they'd be treated operating onshore in the US under Gary Gensler and the Biden administration, and so they operated offshore. And, and, and what was happening under the last administration is that the last administration, by creating all this uncertainty and doubt, was driving all the innovation offshore.

Jason Calacanis 49:37 Okay, fine. I, I, they have a sordid past. I, that's my statement, not yours. But now they have to clean up whatever messy stuff they have in their past. That's me saying it, not you. You can have your opinion. I'll take mine. But I, we are, we're in agreement that if you don't have a framework, they would be doing even more things (laughs) that were maybe off the reservation, in my mind. Gavin, any thoughts here on crypto? I'm not sure you've participated in it particularly because it didn't have a framework, yes?

Gavin Baker 50:02 I would just say, uh, one, David, congratulations. Seems like an incredible achievement. Two, I try to invest in areas where I feel like I, I at least believe I have some sort of, uh, competitive advantage. And it's not clear to me that I have any sort of competitive advantage in crypto. But three, David, I am curious, for the stable coins, is it, does the GENIUS Act limit them to dollar-backed stable coins? So it's not like you can create the stable coin and then swap in something other than a dollar. Is that, is that true?

David Sacks 50:34 Well, I mean, anybody can create a stable coin that's backed by anything. And in fact, I think there are, like, euro-backed stable coins out there, for example, but nobody uses them. I think if you look at the stable coin market share, it's like 98% US dollars, 2% euros, because there's a flight to quality. I mean, everyone wants to use the best one, right? And this is why it's in the interest of the United States to basically enable this technology to continue flourishing is because, as the best fiat currency, we're the one that's gonna get used the most. There's no reason to have multiple fiat stable coins, not really. So that, this is gonna accrue to the benefit of the United States. Jake, I was, let me go back to something you said. So I don't necessarily agree with your criticisms of, of that particular company. But where I, I will agree is that this bill will provide additional comfort for consumers and additional protection for consumers because now all the stable coin companies will have to operate in the United States. They'll be subjected to quarterly audits, and we will know that every stable coin that's been issued is fully reserved or backed up by a dollar in a US bank account. And so therefore when a stable coin holder eventually wants to cash out, and they go to basically an off-ramp, the money will actually be there. Now, I'm, I'm not saying that the money isn't there with any of the current providers. In fact, I think it is. But now consumers will have the additional protection and confidence to know that all these entities have been audited, they've passed these audits, and they're regulated entities under US law. And that creates confidence for the market, and it's good for everybody, and it will spread it, the adoption of this stable coin product.

Jason Calacanis 52:20 And if they don't, they can't participate in our market, right? So that's the, the good news here is, you know, if you choose to not go through those audits, and you do attestations or other fugazi, Fugazi stuff offshore, you know, not saying anybody's doing that, but people have, you know, then you just don't get to participate. And, and this is the great thing about having some basic rules of the road.

Jason Calacanis 52:42 We should talk a little bit here about infrastructure sacks. You were in Pittsburgh this week. There were some announcements. This was another bipartisan win, I think. Shapiro was there. A bunch of investment going on there. Maybe tell us a little bit about the progress made in Pittsburgh with regards to AI and infrastructure.

David Sacks 53:00 This was a energy and innovation summit that was organized by the Pennsylvania senator, Dave McCormick, and his wife, um, Dina Powell McCormick. And they did an amazing job bringing together all of these different companies and interests that have a stake in energy in Pennsylvania and, and the development of AI. And Pennsylvania is, I think, it's the number two energy-producing state in the US. It has tremendous amounts of natural gas. They feel like they can expand that. I think there's been a lot of fracking in the past there. For example, they even have nuclear Westinghouses there. And it makes sense to have the data centers near the power source, right? And so we know that these big AI data centers can be powered by either natural gas or nuclear. And so Pennsylvania just makes a lot of sense as a place to build this AI infrastructure. So this was a summit to announce new investment in Pennsylvania, something like $90 billion. President Trump was there to keynote the summit and talk about these investments. It's his policies towards energy that he started describing long ago. I mean, remember, uh, he made the campaign promise of "Drill, baby, drill." He's been talking about the need for energy expansion in America for many years, and I think he was very far-sighted in seeing that energy is the basis for everything. It's the basis for AI. It's the basis for all other kinds of growth. So by promoting energy dominance, we also get AI dominance. And we've talked on this show before about how we're gonna need that energy to power the electricity of all these new AI data centers. So this summit brought together all these different groups. And the thing I thought was really interesting, the thing I learned from it was just how diverse the business interests are that are gonna participate in this whole AI boom. It wasn't just big tech. Yes, Ruth Porat from Google was there.It's also small tech. There was hardware companies, there were robotics companies, but there were also these energy companies. There was nuclear, there was gas. The trade associations were there. It's construction, it's electricians, it's carpenters. And so there's a huge diverse array of different parts of the economy that are gonna experience growth from this AI boom that's taking place. It's not just a Silicon Valley thing. So, that was what I took away from Pittsburgh and it was a really cool experience being there.

Jason Calacanis 55:18 I thought there were two interesting notes as well. Hydro, I saw Google was investing in hydro and upgrading some dams there. This is, I think, Gavin, one of the great upshots of the AI boom is that the AI companies, whether it's Meta or Google, they're so motivated that they'll actually go and upgrade the infrastructure. They'll invest in the, you know, small modular nuclear reactors that are coming and, uh, even gas turbines, uh, obviously natural gas is, is a major part of this as well and, and you saw that up close and personal with the build out of Colossus here, Gavin.

Gavin Baker 55:55 Yeah, absolutely. I mean, electrical production is fundamental to AI. If we do not significantly increase kind of domestic energy production and electricity generation, you know, we are already at a disadvantage to China, and I do think we want to close that kind of electrical generation gap as quickly as we can. You know, and natural gas is great, nuclear's great, solar's great, batteries are great. We need it all.

Jason Calacanis 56:22 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 56:23 All of it.

Jason Calacanis 56:23 And Sax, uh, I saw your favorite governor, Josh Shapiro was there, and, uh, he was being very positive about finding common ground on energy, economic development, and, uh, saying, "Hey, this is like a great example of bipart- bipartisan efforts to collaborate." So maybe you could talk a little bit about that 'cause you had two great moments of collaboration between the Trump administration and the Democrats. This is, uh, this is good for the American people, yeah? Both on the crypto project and on AI in Pennsylvania.

David Sacks 56:54 I've never met Shapiro. I did see him there at the event-

Jason Calacanis 56:57 Oh.

David Sacks 56:57 ... but I didn't see him on the stage.

Jason Calacanis 56:58 Yeah.

David Sacks 56:58 I don't know if he was part of the round table, so I don't know exactly what his status was. But what's interesting about Pennsylvania right now is that it's a state that's turning red. And so, you see-

Jason Calacanis 57:09 Hm.

David Sacks 57:09 ... that Fetterman, who's probably the most right-wing-

Jason Calacanis 57:13 (laughs)

David Sacks 57:13 ... member (laughs) of the Democratic Party in the Senate, and Josh Shapiro obviously is tacking towards the center because they see the direction-

Jason Calacanis 57:19 Yeah.

David Sacks 57:19 ... of travel in Pennsylvania. So yeah, I think you've got some centrist Democrats in that state.

Jason Calacanis 57:24 Yeah, working out pretty well.

Gavin Baker 57:27 Josh Shapiro every two days tweets something about how he's deregulated something, he's made it easier to do business. Like, he is, he's on the program.

Jason Calacanis 57:37 Yeah.

Gavin Baker 57:37 Seems like a sensible man.

Jason Calacanis 57:39 Yeah, 100%.

David Sacks 57:40 I'll just give a final shout-out to Bo here for all the work-

Jason Calacanis 57:43 Okay.

David Sacks 57:43 ... that he did on Genius. I mean, he's kind of the unsung hero-

Jason Calacanis 57:46 And Bo, how are you, uh, how are you doing all this while finishing up your degree? When do you, when do you graduate from college?

David Sacks 57:52 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 57:53 The kid looks like he's 20 years old. How old are you, Bo?

Bo Hines 57:55 I have the baby face. I'm 29, turning 30 next month.

Jason Calacanis 57:59 Look at you. 29 in the White House, lead and working with David Sax. This is a dream come true for you, huh?

Bo Hines 58:05 It is. I mean, David's been incredible. I've learned so much from him. Just the way that he negotiates and the way that his, his brain works, it's been, it's, it's been a blast just to be a part of it. But I have a 10-month-old now, so I should have bags under my eyes, uh, from lack of sleep. But Jason, I'll make one more point before I jump off on, on the Tether topic. Like, the one thing that I think your viewers should know is this year they'll be the fourth-largest purchaser of US treasuries and I think that's something that, you know, we should really contemplate. You know, I, I agree with David Senman on this. I'm excited to see what they do here in the US. I'm glad they're gonna be a part of our system under the regulatory regime, but so will everyone else. And I think that's a great thing for our country. It allows us to have control.

Jason Calacanis 58:45 That's great that you guys are backing them up because they've been banned so many times by other governments. I'm glad you got their act together. I'm gonna, I'm gonna keep on those Tether guys until they get their act together, so.

David Sacks 58:56 Keep qualifying that. You speak only for yourself.

Jason Calacanis 58:58 I only speak for myself. I've been following that Tether story for a long time, and I think it's great.

David Sacks 59:04 I wanna make this point. I always know that our critics have never actually watched the pod when they start talking about the All-In point of view on something.

Jason Calacanis 59:13 Hm.

David Sacks 59:14 Right? As if there's a singular point of view, uh, from-

Jason Calacanis 59:17 No.

David Sacks 59:17 ... the All-In pod. Like, you know, it's like the-

Jason Calacanis 59:19 No. 00000000

Bo Hines 59:19 We got different views.

David Sacks 59:19 ... All-In pros or whatever think something. When anyone who's watched the show knows that we've been fighting like cats and dogs for years and there's four distinct points of view.

Jason Calacanis 59:29 Mm-hmm.

David Sacks 59:29 And sometimes we agree, but f- there's almost always some disagreement, so.

Jason Calacanis 59:34 We, we've disagreed about this issue. We also, uh, Trump and I, as you know, are relentless supporters of Ukraine. We believe we should be giving them weapons-

David Sacks 59:43 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 59:44 ... and support. And David, you happen to disagree with me and our president on that. You've had a different position historically.

David Sacks 59:50 (laughs)

Jason Calacanis 59:51 So, here we are.

David Sacks 59:52 I'm gonna stay in my lane on that one.

Jason Calacanis 59:55 (laughs)

Gavin Baker 59:56 David, can we talk about the H20s or would you rather not?

Jason Calacanis 59:58 Sure.

Gavin Baker 59:58 'Cause I feel like you have been, like-

Jason Calacanis 1:00:01 Let's go.

Gavin Baker 1:00:01 ... so dead right about this, and I am, you know, I... It seems like the export, um, they're gonna get the licenses and that is 100% the right decision for America. And I do give you credit for championing that. I'm happy to talk about why I think it's great, but we just, you know, if-

Jason Calacanis 1:00:19 Well maybe, can you frame it for a second for the audience, Gavin, what we're talking about here? NVIDIA obviously was banned from selling their latest and greatest to China, and even the last generation, the H20s, and obviously that creates, uh, an opening for Huawei and, and other players-

Gavin Baker 1:00:36 Yeah.

Jason Calacanis 1:00:36 ... to create competitor products as opposed to using the standards built here in America. Yeah.

Gavin Baker 1:00:40 Well, I think, I mean, I think you said it well, but first of all, it's not the latest and greatest.

Jason Calacanis 1:00:44 Right. 00000000So, remnants.

David Sacks 1:00:56 It's a less powerful version of the Hopper chip, and now they're onto Blackwell. So it's... Anyway, Gavin can explain.

Gavin Baker 1:01:03 Yeah, it is. It's many, many years behind, but while it's many years behind the kind of state-of-the-art here in America, it is, I think, kind of devilishly clever because it's, call it two years ahead of kind of the chips from Huawei. And so it kind of gives America an advantage while preventing China from developing kind of a domestic NVIDIA alternative, and the real threat is 'cause China... They do have more electricity. They can do things that we cannot do here in America. You know, Blackwell racks are exquisitely designed to be as power efficient as possible. If you don't care about power, you can make very different kind of design decisions. Huawei has something called the CloudMatrix 384, which uses fiber optics instead of copper to link the chips together, and while it's not nearly as power efficient as the Blackwell NVL 72, they have all the power they need. And so I think it's very... It's, it's, it's a smart decision for America to sell this chip that gives America advantage in AI and keeps China from developing kind of their own domestic alternatives, which could eventually kind of challenge, you know, NVIDIA, AMD, you know, other kind of American AI accelerator champions globally. We don't want that ha- that to happen, so I thought it was a mistake when they banned the chips, and I'm really happy and think it's really good for America if that is being reversed, and kudos to you, David.

David Sacks 1:02:32 Gavin, you said it so well, I don't think I have anything to add. (laughs)

Gavin Baker 1:02:36 Can I just say one thing on crypto? You guys can put it in or not, but it j- I thought it was interesting, David. I was always worried about stablecoins as a risk to the dollar, but I think you make a very good point that w- when you are the dominant currency, they entrench the dominance, and I just had not thought of them that way.

David Sacks 1:02:53 Well, I think what's gonna happen with these dollar-based stablecoins is they'll start being used all over the world. Let's say that you're in a country, maybe it's a developing world country, where the fiat currency's not trusted, and now all of a sudden you can transact in dollars using a wallet on a phone, you know, and the merchant also has a wallet on a phone and now you can just transact in dollars. You could see a large portion of these economies dollarizing from the bottom up. Because, again, once you have your choice of fiat currencies-

Jason Calacanis 1:03:25 Yeah.

David Sacks 1:03:25 ... through stablecoin, why wouldn't you just use the best one? And tha- that's what I think is really interesting. So I do think it extends the, the dollar's dominance internationally into the online realm.

Gavin Baker 1:03:35 100%.

Jason Calacanis 1:03:35 Yeah. A- and previously people were basing their stablecoins on a basket of assets. Some treasuries, some real estate investments because they were seeking yield, Gavin, so they would buy real estate or, you know, short-term, long-term treasuries. They might put equities into it. They might keep some in cash, and none of that was known, and so that's where this big fear came. Hey, these things are getting pretty big. There's obviously a demand to use a s- this concept of a stablecoin, but what if there's a run on the stablecoins? And that was always the big fear with various players was what if everybody wants to withdraw their stablecoins? Are there enough dollars or liquid assets in there? And that's where I think certain players have maybe, you know, moved the asset allocation, and in order to be in the US market, Tether's gonna have to be 100% in treasuries, right? They're not gonna be allowed to be, say, in real estate. There was a, you know, a concept that maybe they were buying Chinese paper for real estate back in the day, and people were concerned about that. So this cleans all that up and they have an easy path, but you can't make interest on it. That's actually a very interesting portion of this. So that will have to come at a later time so the banks don't lose anything here, right?

David Sacks 1:04:47 Well, just to, just to clarify one point on that, one of the concessions that was made to community banks is not to have an interest feature because the community banks were worried that this s- new stablecoin industry would put them out of business. I think that that fear was wildly overblown on their part. I don't think that's what's gonna happen remotely, but when you have a new technology like this in a, a very established industry, you can see why maybe they'd be afraid. But the bill allows for all sorts of marketing, promotions, rebates, that kind of stuff, so maybe it's not called interest, but it... Th- there, there are mechanisms to create, let's say, rewards-

Jason Calacanis 1:05:25 Mm.

David Sacks 1:05:25 ... for stablecoin holders so it's not as, like, black and white as just, oh, there's, like, nothing a stablecoin issuer can do to attract or incentivize or reward one of their holders.

Jason Calacanis 1:05:37 Okay.

David Sacks 1:05:37 It is a dimension they could compete on.

Jason Calacanis 1:05:39 So maybe if I were to buy $10,000 worth of a stablecoin, I could get mileage-like points or maybe a load-in gift card or something like that.

David Sacks 1:05:48 Maybe. I don't know. Yeah. We have to-

Jason Calacanis 1:05:48 Yeah.

David Sacks 1:05:48 ... interpret the language, but the mechanism-

Jason Calacanis 1:05:52 Yeah.

David Sacks 1:05:52 ... is there.

Jason Calacanis 1:05:52 Okay. Well, there you have it, folks. All right. Reporting from our Capitol, David Sacks, our czar of AI and cryptocurrency. I'll see you next Wednesday in DC for a very important

Jason Calacanis 1:06:06 summit. (whoosh)

David Sacks 1:06:07 All right, besties, I'm here at the White House with Senator Bill Hagerty from Tennessee, the principal author of the GENIUS Act. He, I would say along with the leadership of President Trump, are the reason why this bill happened, and that we have stablecoin legislation just signed into law by President Trump. Bill, you did a phenomenal job. I got to observe this whole process, and you really played the critical role. You were a very skillful legislator crafting delicate compromises. You were kind of the glue that held the whole thing together. Congratulations on getting this done.

Jason Calacanis 1:06:35 Thank you.

David Sacks 1:06:35 Is this your first bill that you've gotten done as a senator?

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:06:38 It, it is. Um, I've, I've served in the Senate for over four years, but we were in the minority for the past four years, so this is the first opportunity since the Senate, uh, w- was taken by the Republicans to actually drive legislation through. And the fact that we had the House of Representatives and the Senate and the White House made this possible. It was just a threshold concern. We worked so hard, as you know-... to retake the Senate in 2024, to retake the White House in 2024, and hold onto the House of Representatives as it worked. And that's the only thing that's enabled us to deliver this type of meaningful legislation. And I say this too, it's been a great team that has done this. I may be the author of the legislation, but the leadership that you've brought to bear from the White House, coming in and donating your time from the private sector, working as a volunteer here, but making certain that the leadership and the vision is present here in the executive branch, you've been absolutely great. And that vision, I think, has carried forward into the Senate, the House. More and more people are understanding this and catching on. And I think what we've done today is launch the catalyst for what's going to make America the crypto capital of the world.

David Sacks 1:07:37 Yeah, it's been, it's been really amazing and interesting for me to watch this whole process. They say that you shouldn't watch legislation or sausages being made, but, you know, earlier in the week, the media was reporting that this bill was dead because there were a dozen holdouts. And President Trump made calls late into the night, he gathered people at the Oval Office, he cajoled, he twisted arms, and, uh, and he also persuaded, and he, he got us over the finish line.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:08:03 Yes.

David Sacks 1:08:03 It was pretty incredible.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:08:05 Well, I think the founding fathers made it actually quite difficult to legislate for a reason. Uh, but it is difficult. It's taken months upon months to get to this point, and the legislation, the, the GENIUS Act has been killed a couple of times in the media. Uh, Elizabeth Warren declared victory, uh, early on that she killed the bill. That didn't happen.

David Sacks 1:08:21 (laughs)

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:08:21 She didn't have the juice to do it. But there've been many, many attempts-

David Sacks 1:08:24 But that, that's a big deal, because until now, the crypto community has been living under Elizabeth Warren's reign of terror.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:08:29 That's exactly right.

David Sacks 1:08:29 I mean, she basically was calling the shots-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:08:32 Yes.

David Sacks 1:08:32 ... during the Biden administration on crypto, and I was there when the GENIUS Act passed the Senate. I was up in the bleachers or whatever, and she was not happy. I mean, you, there were photos of her and she, she, she did not like losing.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:08:45 There's, there's a fundamental reason for this, David, because Elizabeth Warren and her crowd want to see a central bank digital currency.

David Sacks 1:08:52 Mm-hmm.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:08:52 What they want is control of our transactions. They want the ability... They're the ones that wanted to get to a $600 threshold for your Venmo transactions, reporting everything. They want the ability to do Chokepoint 3.0.

David Sacks 1:09:02 Right.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:09:03 And if you think about it, if they had visibility in our transactions, the ability to centralize and control them, they could control our lives. It may be okay for the Chinese Communist Party, but that's not gonna work here in America, and this legislation put the final nail in the coffin to that.

David Sacks 1:09:16 It's really amazing that you got it through. And to get this passed the Senate, you had to have 60 votes, right?

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:09:21 Right.

David Sacks 1:09:21 Because reconciliation, you only need 50 plus 1, but for a regular order, I guess, to get past the, the potential for a filibuster, you need 60.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:09:30 That's exactly right. That's exactly right.

David Sacks 1:09:31 So what demands did that put on you in terms of getting Democrat votes? Because the Republicans have what, 53?

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:09:37 Yes.

David Sacks 1:09:38 So we need at least-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:09:38 And we didn't have all the Republicans.

David Sacks 1:09:39 We didn't have all the Republicans.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:09:40 We lost two Republicans, but, but what enabled me to get the other nine Democrats to come on board was really an education process. Because it, at its core, this shouldn't be a partisan issue.

David Sacks 1:09:49 Mm-hmm.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:09:49 This is about taking America's payment system into the 21st century. This is about making our nation (laughs) more competitive. This is about great... you know, expanding demand for the US Treasury securities that we issue. This is about the dominance of the US dollar. It's hard not to like it, but I, I think there's a partisan bent here in Washington that's so strong that their objective is just to keep Republicans or Donald Trump or David Sacks from, from getting a win here. And, and through education and through listening, and frankly, I don't think it's my legislative skills, I think it's the business skills that I brought to the legislative branch, uh, I think it's through the business skills and the ability to negotiate that we've actually gotten to this point today.

David Sacks 1:10:26 And so tell us about that. So before this, you were a businessman, then you became ambassador to Japan.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:10:30 Mm-hmm.

David Sacks 1:10:31 You met President Trump, you told him you wanted to run for senator. He told the story up at the, in his speech.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:10:35 Yeah, yeah.

David Sacks 1:10:35 You said that, uh, you had learned Japanese in like six months as ambassador to Japan. (laughs)

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:10:40 It, it was a little longer than that. (laughs)

David Sacks 1:10:43 (laughs) Okay, fine.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:10:44 There's a, there's a piece of this story missing because I, I started my career at a place called the Boston Consulting Group.

David Sacks 1:10:49 Oh, of course.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:10:49 And they sent me to Tokyo for three years back in the late '80s, early '90s.

David Sacks 1:10:52 Mm-hmm.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:10:53 That's when I learned the language. Um, and to go back as US ambassador to Japan under President Trump in 2017, the honor of a lifetime. I can tell you, representing the greatest nation in the world any place in the world is an honor. But particularly in a region like that, that has so much strategic, uh, you know, so many strategic initiatives that are underway right now. You think about this, Japan has more US military stationed there than any place else in the world. Japan is one of the toughest environments in the world. If you think about the neighborhood that they're in, North Korea, Russia, China right at your doorstep. Uh, the time that I spent in am- as ambassador really helped me dig in deeply in terms of the national security issues that our nation confronts and those that our allies confront. At the same time, we did two trade deals with Japan. Nobody thought it could be done, uh, and we were able to navigate that, uh, with Jamison Greer working right beside Bob Lighthizer. Um, I loved working with those guys and we got two great trade deals done. Jamison is back now as the US trade representative, and I'm very optimistic that we're gonna see more trade flourish. President Trump knows how to do this. I've been with him in the trade negotiations, he knows exactly how to navigate this, and I'm looking forward to great results from our trade negotiations as well.

David Sacks 1:11:59 Excellent. And so we're only six months into this administration-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:12:02 Yeah.

David Sacks 1:12:02 It feels like so much has happened, so much has been done. I mean, we just had the One Big Beautiful bill, now we have this legislation. What's next in, in your view? What do you think is, is gonna happen next?

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:12:13 Well, what, what's happening right now in the United States Senate, we just put through a rescissions package for a little bit over nine billion dollars. That's a, that's a small amount, it's a large amount of money, of course, but it's a small amount relative to the entire budget. And the Democrats have had, uh, just, they- they've just, uh, gone apoplectic over this.

David Sacks 1:12:30 (laughs)

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:12:30 Any, any effort to cut back on spending, somehow they've got to be against that. They're only for spending, and we're trying to bring physical sanity back to America. So the focus is gonna be to continue to find opportunities to basically legislate what has been found in DOGE, the other activities well beyond DOGE. Every department head, every agency is looking for ways to streamline regulations and to cut costs and to operate more efficiently, and I've got to believe there are tremendous opportunities there and many billions more dollars that'll come out of the budget as a result. But we've, we've gone into a fairly partisan mode right now, and I think it's gonna be tough for the next little while. While we're in this sort of partisan-... uh, gap. I think what we should be doing is focusing on market structure for digital assets, and, and we're working on that. I just talked to some of my colleagues in the House today about how we're going to marshal that forward. I'm gonna look forward to your leadership there as well, and many people in the industry. But-

David Sacks 1:13:18 And just so everyone knows what that is, so market structure is the legal framework. It's the rules for all the crypto tokens that are not stable coins. So the GENIUS Act just passed that gave legal framework for stable coins. Now we got market structure for all the other tokens.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:13:31 Mm-hmm.

David Sacks 1:13:31 And it deals with questions like what's a crypto security, what's a currency, what's a commodity, who regulates those things.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:13:37 Yeah.

David Sacks 1:13:37 Just providing clarity. That's the name of the bill. (laughs)

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:13:41 That's exactly right.

David Sacks 1:13:41 So that market participants know what the rules are, because the last four years under Gensler, they were basically prosecuted-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:13:47 Mm-hmm.

David Sacks 1:13:47 ... without knowing, uh, you know, how to, how to, uh, abide. Uh-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:13:51 Yeah, they called it regulation by enforcement. You don't know what the rules are, but they just launch an enforcement proceeding against you. And President Trump was funny today, because he looked at the audience, he said, "I guess half of you were being prosecuted here about a year ago by the previous administration."

David Sacks 1:14:04 Yeah.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:14:04 Things are gonna change.

David Sacks 1:14:05 He was, uh, he was on fire today.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:14:06 (laughs) Yes.

David Sacks 1:14:06 I mean, uh, people should go back and watch. I mean, he, he spoke, um, uh, off the cuff basically like he normally does for 20 minutes, and it was very funny. But part... the reason why he said that is, when we did the crypto summit at the White House back in March-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:14:21 Mm-hmm.

David Sacks 1:14:21 ... the, uh, you know, the Winklevoss brothers, uh, Tyler and Cameron, were there. And they told the story about how a year before, they thought it would be more likely that they'd be at... in the big house in the White House. That, th- it was like...

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:14:35 (laughs)

David Sacks 1:14:35 The fact that they were at the White House was-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:14:37 (laughs) Rather than in the big house.

David Sacks 1:14:38 Yeah, because that's the way it was looking.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:14:40 Yeah.

David Sacks 1:14:40 I mean, they were dealing with so much unfair lawfare. But in any event, we've m- we've moved past that. So thank you for your leadership on this. And by the way, on the rescissions, I know that this is the one issue that I think all of the hosts, the four hosts of the All-In Pod-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:14:52 Mm-hmm.

David Sacks 1:14:53 ... all agree on, is that deficit spending is out of control.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:14:56 It is.

David Sacks 1:14:56 And anything we can do to try and rein it in and have more fiscal sanity is appreciated. Even Cal Canis can, uh, can agree with that one. He's sort of like the, the token, uh, lib on the podcast now. (laughs)

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:15:08 Well, tell him we're, we're gonna continue to work along those lanes. That the B- The Big Beautiful Bill is doing... it's oriented toward growth stimulation, right?

David Sacks 1:15:14 Mm-hmm.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:15:14 Everything that, that we can do to stimulate more capital investment in the United States is embodied in the, in the tax law as part of that bill. So with the growth coming out of the Big Beautiful Bill, and if we continue to go through the cuts with rescissions, I'm very optimistic that we're gonna get back on the right path. That's the objective, that's the goal. Meanwhile, uh, taking us into the 21st century with our payments, uh, with digital assets, we're gonna continue to work along those lanes as well. And I appreciate your leadership in that regard.

David Sacks 1:15:38 Well, and we appreciate you. I think the state of Tennessee, where, by the way, I grew up. I grew up in Memphis.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:15:42 Yeah.

David Sacks 1:15:43 Uh, is very lucky to have you as their senator. Uh, the Republican Party is really ha- lucky to have you. The Senate's very lucky to have you. To have someone with your business background-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:15:49 Thank you, David.

David Sacks 1:15:50 ... to have your skills, who has now gotten through this first piece of legislation, through... again, this wasn't a, a budget bill. It took 60 votes in the Senate. I mean, when's the last time that even happened? I mean, it's been years. I, I-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:16:00 It's, uh, it, it's, it's a very-

David Sacks 1:16:01 I heard the Senator Banking Committee... I mean, I heard they hadn't passed a bill in like 10 years basically, because it takes 60, so.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:16:07 It's been over 10 years to get out of the Senate Banking Committee. One of my friends wrote me yesterday and he said, "I didn't think you could get the 10 Commandments passed out of the United States Senate, so congratulations."

David Sacks 1:16:15 (laughs)

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:16:15 And I, I, I don't wanna take the, the credit for it because it's been a wonderful team. As I said, your leadership, and the White House, and the Executive Branch, our friends in the House of Representatives, my great staff led by Luke Petit.

David Sacks 1:16:25 Yep.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:16:26 Done just a terrific job.

David Sacks 1:16:27 Luke Petit was amazing. We worked closely with him. Um, Bo Hines-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:16:30 Did a great job.

David Sacks 1:16:30 Yeah, he was the director of the Crypto Council, who was on the show earlier today.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:16:34 Tyler was wonderful at Treasury.

David Sacks 1:16:35 Yep, Tyler Williams at, at Treasury, who was Secretary Besant's, um, staff person. The staff people never get the credit they deserve for all the work they do, right? But, but Tyler, Luke, and, um, and Bo were, were amazing through this process.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:16:48 And I... And the Senate too. We- we've had great leadership. Our chairman for the Senate Banking Committee is Tim Scott. He's been a true proponent of this. Cynthia Lummis is, is, uh, very focused on, on, on digital assets, was very supportive of me as she chairs the Digital Assets Subcommittee of our Banking Committee. So we've had great support in the Senate, and I think it's gonna continue to grow, both sides of the aisle.

David Sacks 1:17:08 Uh, L- Um, Cynthia Lummis, she's been great. I've met with her many times. Tim Scott's been great.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:17:13 Mm-hmm.

David Sacks 1:17:13 Um, I understand that Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democrat senator from New York was-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:17:16 She's absolutely great to work with.

David Sacks 1:17:17 She brought in a lot of Democrat votes. I think you got 18 in-

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:17:20 And the great thing about Kirsten too, is she was a Wall Street lawyer at Davis Polk.

David Sacks 1:17:23 Mm-hmm.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:17:23 She understands the, the, the markets. And have her level of technical expertise was a huge asset.

David Sacks 1:17:29 Mm-hmm.

Kirsten Gillibrand 1:17:29 And she was able to, to really convey to the Democrat side, uh, that we were here trying to get the right thing done for the country. This was not a partisan effort. This was something that really is aimed at growth, uh, leadership, uh, technology leadership, and frankly, dollar dominance that we all should be for.

David Sacks 1:17:45 Amazing. So I think it's really amazing that we got this done. When you compare this to where we were a year ago, I mean, it was non-stop, uh, I guess regulation by enforcements, basically regulation through prosecution, lawfare. And the crypto community was being driven offshore. There, there wouldn't have been a crypto community in the United States. And then President Trump won