All right, everybody. Welcome back to

the number one podcast in the world.

It's the all-in podcast. David Saxs

couldn't make it this week, but we have

the trio. David Freeberg is here, your

Sultan of Science, Jim Polatia. SpaceX

filed confidentially to go public on

April 1st, targeting a 1.75

trillion with the T valuation. When

SpaceX goes public, if it's at that $

1.75 uh trillion dollar valuation, so

weird to say trillion dollar valuation

for an IPO, uh they would be the eighth

largest company in the world, right

behind TSMC and Saudi Aramco. They're

both worth $1.7. Uh at the taping of

this podcast, Tesla is number 10 with

$1.37 trillion valuation. Hey, if you

were to combine those two, as many

people are speculating, will happen at

some point and you can buy the stock

ticker E, that would be a $3.1 trillion

company, and that would make them the

fourth largest company ahead of

Microsoft. They're aiming to raise

Chomoth 75 billion, which would be the

by far the biggest raise ever in an IPO.

Uh, expected to go out in June. I think

they were trying to hit the 420 date

because that would have been even more

hilarious, but uh they're not going to

be able to do that.

SpaceX uh recently acquired X.AI for 250

billion. That includes X and Twitter and

the XAI large language model AI company

Starlink, generating between 50 and 80%

of SpaceX's revenue. We'll have all

those details shortly. Um and it'll be

close to $20 billion a year according to

reports. Launch of rockets is the other

40% of the business, 5 billion in 2024

according to reports. Total revenue 2025

15 to6 billion with 8 billion in profit

according to Reuters. So let's stop

there uh and we're going to talk about

all the other IPOs that could be coming.

Uh Chamal,

I think people really want to know and

you may have mentioned this on an

earlier episode. What are the chances

that Tesla after if this IPO goes well

that Tesla and SpaceX could wind up

being the same company? We saw they're

collaborating

>> on a fab 100% is what you're putting it

on.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. Sorry. Let me let me be clear.

99.999%.

>> Okay. What will that mean when if those

two companies or when those two

companies merge? One of the great things

that happened in my career was there was

a point where you know how like you

grind at a level and then you know you

just get exposed to things at a

different level and then you grind for

years and you get exposed to things at

yet another level. In one of those

steps, I was very fortunate to be

introduced by Thomas Lefant actually to

the head of Wtel Lipton.

>> This is a law firm

>> law firm and his name is Ed Hurley

and he said this is the most important

well-known well-run powerful law firm in

America. Then I looked at the

transactions and they're just in the

middle of everything. And now, you know,

my lawyer, Raj Narian, who does

everything for me, one of the senior

partners at Wakdal, I can attest are

incredible. And they said to me in the

middle of all of this

stuff when I was doing a bunch of deals,

they said, "Just get ready to pay a

tax." And I said, "What does that mean?"

They said the way that the American

capital markets are set up is both that

you can be incredibly creative and do

incredible things, but and we talked

about this a little bit last week,

there's a bunch of tort that allows

folks to hang around the hoop and get

paid no matter what. You see this in all

IPOs. Shareholder lawsuits abound and

they try to create a class out of it.

And the reason they do that is that

there's DNO insurance that then will pay

out some number of millions of dollars.

The attorneys take 40 or 50% and then

these plaintiffs get a few bucks. You

saw how egregious this tort manipulation

was when this guy with 10 shares sued

Elon's comp package at Tesla and won.

And what was that really? That was the

trial lawyers trying to get paid

hundreds of millions of dollars by

exploiting a scene. Call it what

>> it was a shakeddown. Why am I bringing

this up? If you take the the Raj and Ed

example of this, this SpaceX IPO is

going to set up a couple of things. The

first is there's going to be the natural

noise in the market and Elon will have

to sort through all of the little ticky

tacky things. But the most important

positive thing that will happen from the

IPO is a validated external marktomarket

valuation of SpaceX.

and the market every day in real time

gives you a valid marktomarket

assessment of the value of Tesla. And

this allows you to put these two things

together to minimize these losses.

>> And I think that that's what Elon really

needs. It'll make his life tremendously

simpler from a governance perspective.

It'll make the companies and this

quibbling about his time a non-issue

because again nobody talks about Zuck or

Satya or Sundar

or Jensen allocating time across various

projects inside of Meta or Google or

Microsoft or Nvidia. nor should they

really make this claim from Elon because

as you're seeing there's actually an

enormous overlap and commonality to the

various things that he is doing. He's

building the robots but they're used

inside of SpaceX. He's building a

terrafab they're used inside of Tesla.

He's building XAI they're used across

both. So I think we need to do this.

It'll minimize the shareholder noise

because it'll give less room to somebody

that says, "Hey, he set evaluation out

of thin air." Well,

>> but dollars to donuts, these things are

going to merge

>> and it speaks to the singularity that's

going on right now.

>> You know, you had a car company, you had

a space company. Okay, that was a pretty

How do those two things overlap? And

it's like AI data centers in space.

Where do you get chips from? and then

actually going to raw materials inside

of one factory going out the other and

having discussed it with Elon many times

when he learned you know at Tesla or

SpaceX about advanced materials informed

different products at the different

companies and now you just you'll have

all of that in one place and then you

think about the brain trust that he

built at those two companies plus boring

company plus Neuralink if they're all in

there all this cross-disciplinary

learning is going to compound and

compound and compound. Elon knows more

about factories than probably

>> anybody

>> anybody like some people in China who

have you know

>> Foxcon knows a lot about factories you

know so there are some people who know

as much or or probably even a little bit

more about some aspects of it but that's

a true advantage of bringing those two

teams together and you saw it people

would go from one company to the other

Freeberg my question for you very

acutely with your NASA hat and uh you

know your your background today is

20 years ago He he started trying to get

to space with SpaceX and here we go.

There's more rockets going off in a

month now than there are days in the

month for for the entire country and

he's got rockets going up every 2 or 3

days. You can just basically hop on a

SpaceX flight and get to space. Maybe

you could just use your vision there to

tell the audience what could things look

like in another 20 years if SpaceX

continues at this cadence or even, you

know, goes faster because of AI. Well,

this week's a pretty important milestone

for that point because we just launched

Artemis 2 yesterday, which is man's

returning to the moon. So, the United

States shipped this rocket with four

astronauts on board. They're going to do

an orbit around the Earth, head to the

moon, come back around, and come back to

Earth in anticipation of landing on the

moon in about 2 years.

And getting to the moon, I think, is

going to be very important. Not just

because there's this important social

milestone and race happening on right

now with China, but I think the moon

could end up being kind of the next

industrial frontier for humanity. And

the reason is if you can get to the

moon, the moon has an extraordinary

abundance of material that we can mine,

process, and manufacture into goods. And

ultimately the cost to ship those goods

back to the earth is zero. It will cost

less to move goods, manufactured goods,

processed ore, uh, precious metals from

the moon to a specific point on Earth.

It will cost less to do that than to

ship it using any other terrestrial

conventional method, whether that's a

boat, an airplane, or a railroad. And

the reason is that on the moon, you can

take advantage of the low gravity. It's

about 16 the gravity and the complete

lack of an atmosphere, meaning that it's

frictionless to move material off of the

moon and very low energy to move it off

of the moon. You do not need to use a

rocket propellant with high energy like

we have to do to move things off of the

Earth. In fact, the design for moving

material off of the moon is to use

what's called a mass driver, which is

like a a train track, like a rail, like

an electric rail. You kind of see these

in, you know, high-speed trains that

work on kind of magnetic levitation. And

you could put a package on that rail and

use electricity to accelerate that

package to 100 g force, shoot it back to

the Earth, or theoretically shoot it to

Mars, and it will go to the exact point

on the Earth you want it to go to,

re-enters the atmosphere, and lands with

a a simple parachute where you want it

to go. So we could run continuous

mining, continuous manufacturing

processes on the moon at a fraction of

the cost of what it would take to do it

here on Earth. The biggest limiting

factor getting people to the moon. And

that is largely solved or will be solved

in the next few years by robotics. So I

think that there's this pretty profound

intersection with what's going on in

robotics with this moment for space

industrialization and moving to the

moon. So, you know, Tesla, I think 20

years from now is actually a more

interesting story, whether they're the

same independent company or the same

company. I think we're going to look

back one day and have this kind of

laughing observation that Tesla started

out as an electric car company.

>> 100% ended up becoming an autonomous car

company. And the autonomous competency

is what led to the robotics revolution.

and the robotics revolution. Even if the

socialists ban robotics on Earth and

tell us no robots allowed, they're

taking all the jobs, you could ship all

those robots to the moon and they could

get to work and create an entirely new

manufacturing frontier for our

civilization, for humanity. That

frontier can manufacture precious metals

and other goods and ship them back. You

could manufacture semiconductors on the

moon. All that's missing is the robots.

So moving the robots to the moon or

setting up the materials for robots to

build themselves on the moon is kind of

the first phase of this transition, you

know, asking about 20 years from now.

And then the next phase is building this

all out. So look, I mean, I think that

this may not be and it certainly won't

be limited to just SpaceX. But SpaceX is

demonstrating its capacity at being

effectively the railroads. You know,

what the railroads were to the west and

to the frontier in the west, you know,

in the last generation. SpaceX will be

to the moon and ultimately to Mars. And

there's going to be an extraordinary

abundance of production that's going to

come out of the moon. The moon has

everything by the way and I'll say one

more thing about SpaceX. SpaceX has also

created and this is going to be a big

part of the valuation analysis that many

are doing. They've created a backup to

the internet. You know the internet is

fundamentally limited by all of the

nodes on the network and the

connectivity amongst all those nodes.

And that connectivity is largely driven

by copper and fiber optic cable. So in

space with the number of satellites

going up with Starlink and to actually

deploy data centers that can output data

on those nodes on that network, SpaceX

has largely built a backup internet. And

that backup internet can coincide with

the Earth's internet, but it creates

this extraterrestrial communication

network that gives us theoretically the

ability to think about, hey, if

governments collapse, if there's

civilizational upheaval, etc., etc.,

etc., this becomes, I think, a

fundamentally kind of important

technology infrastructure that's going

to exist in parallel. So, I'm pretty

excited about like these two separate

paths for SpaceX and where they

intersect with Tesla, I think, is pretty

profound at the moment.

>> Yeah. And it can't be understated what

lowering the cost per kilogram to get to

space has done to entrepreneurs around

the company. There's multiple

entrepreneurs who are now doing asteroid

mining or VA doing experimentation in

space and I have a I've been doing some

latestage stuff with my syndicate and

one of the interesting companies we

syndicated

we we did zipline which is a great

company but we also did this company

called VAS vast space uh Jed is the

founder he he created uh Ripple and uh

and and some other crypto projects and

he put a lot of his money hundreds of

millions of dollars into this company

vast case and they're designing a space

station. How did they do it? Well, they

just bought carriage on SpaceX rockets

and they paid in advance. They have

their slot and now they're doing this

massive innovation to make modular space

station components.

>> Here's what I'll

>> And the thesis is, hey, what if Google

or Amazon want to have a space station

in space? You know, it's completely

possible they may want that.

>> Here's what I'll say. I think

>> sometimes it's better to be lucky than

good. There are all of these ways that

so many people will end up with

participation into SpaceX. I think we

all owe Elon an enormous thanks. I think

that this is going to unleash just an

unbelievably large economy of things

that we have no idea about. And when I

see this thing, that video that you just

showed, what it reminds me is that we

have an very rudimentary capability in

space. What does that mean? If you take,

if you catch a ride on Falcon 9 or

Falcon Heavy, basically it's dropping

you off at 550 km. I think you have a

different problem if you're trying to

get to geo. But even if you get dropped

off at 500 or 550, how do you get to

your actual orbital plane? Right? So

meaning if you think of Elon as like the

big container ships that go from China

to America once it gets to Long Beach,

you need FedEx. There's an entire

infrastructure there that's going to get

all of this logistics built last mile.

There's a huge garbage collection

problem that's getting built up. We

still haven't technically solved how to

do garbage collection in space. There's

nets, there's magnetic plates. All of

that is getting fixed. Then there's

going to be an explosion in actual power

generation. The cell composition of

solar cells up in space are materially

different. It's a really incredible

thing. You look at these thin sheets,

they are like one millimeter thick. You

if you carried it on your hand, the

glass breaks, yet you can smash a meteor

into it when it's laid and laminated and

nothing happens. It's like the It's like

So my point is in every single dimension

of what the earthly economy looks like,

it's now going to go and get rebuilt in

space. There will be a FedEx of space.

There'll be a MK of space. There'll be a

I don't know what the garbage collection

companies are. Allied Waste of Space.

There's going to be everything of space

that exists in the United States.

Freeberg just talked about the Freeport

Macaran of space. Like everything

>> and that we owe to him.

>> Yeah. And I hope he gets that credit

because the amount of businesses I think

that can get created and the amount of

value that will be created on top of

SpaceX's shoulders is vast. It's the

beginning of the beginning of the

beginning and it's going to create

enormous opportunities for people who

are smart and resourceful.

>> And Freeberg, maybe you could comment on

the PGMs, the palladium that's on

asteroids and just how they're rare here

on Earth. If we had an unlimited supply

or a continuous supply of those

minerals, you know, what what could the

downstream effect of that be? And then

what if we find things in space that we

are unaware of? There are unknown

unknowns. Correct, Freeberg, when you

start to conceptualize this. I do think

like the asteroid mining is an

interesting concept but I do think it's

going to be more likely that we'll have

the need for infrastructure so we can

produce ores and refine and so on versus

you know bringing chunky rock back. I

think that you could do this very

effectively on the moon. The primary

elements that are missing from the moon

that we have on the earth are you know

carbon,

nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. basically

these things that make life on Earth.

But that's because they primarily exist

in a gaseous form and the Earth has

enough gravity to retain those gases and

have an atmosphere. The moon is too

small to maintain an atmosphere. The

gravity is too little. So those gases

all kind of went away. They evaporated

away in the early formation of the Earth

and the Moon. But on the moon, there's

everything else. There's aluminum,

there's silicon, there's palladium,

there's platinum, there's gold, there's

everything you possibly need. So, I

think as we do the calculus on all of

this, we'll end up realizing that the

moon is probably the best frontier. One

of the biggest issues is dissipating

heat because you don't have an

atmosphere. But theoretically, you could

recapture that heat and use like helium

gas or something to turn a turbine and

actually run production of even more

electricity. You just put a couple solar

panels out. I did the math on this. It's

like 500 square meters of solar panels

will let you run a 4 km mass driver to

ship material back to the earth every 10

to 15 minutes. One ton of material every

10 to 15 minutes

>> on the sled you described earlier that

Elon's been talking about as well. Yeah.

>> So you could think about having

autonomous mining vehicles deployed on

the moon processing the ore and then

sending completely processed material

back. And then for a heat shield for

re-entry to the earth you just use moon

rock. You only need about 15 cm of moon

rock at the front of the package and

then that'll burn up when it re-enters

the atmosphere and the package, you

know, kind of parachutes down and lands

where you want it to land in your

industrial shipyard or whatever. So

there's just like, you know, I think

we'll we'll continue to kind of iterate

on this. I'm speculating in a bunch of

different ways.

>> The beginning the beginning of the

beginning gosh I mean can you imagine

having a moon base in America

>> going like like Yeah. Well, imagine

Jacob like permanently present on the

moon is just and factories on the moon

is just wild to consider.

>> Can you guys just imagine like the

middle or the early 19th century like

the late 1700s, early 1800s in America

and there's like all this land out on

the west and like whatever people were

contemplating in that moment about what

they were going to go do with that land

on the west and they started to travel

west their minds would have been blown

to see what happened 100 years later or

now 150 years later. You know, like it's

just that's the moment that we're at

right now. And the railroads are being

built to get us to this next great

frontier. They're being laid out before

us. And the opportunity is really

limited only by our imagination. And

before we would have never been able to

tackle these great frontiers, but this

magical new technology came about called

robots. And these robots are are going

to allow us to actually make use of

these frontiers and explore them and

develop them. And that's why this is

such an incredible moment where this

intersection of autonomy and robotics

and space traversal kind of drive

forward humanity into this new era. And

it's again, this is not a zero sum game.

This is expanding humanity's potential,

expanding production, which is so

different than the way the socialists on

Earth are talking about it where

everyone's fighting against progress

because they think that progress is some

people taking things from other people.

And the truth is, it's about everyone

building stuff that's new and everyone

benefiting from this.

>> I'm gonna open a hotel casino in the

space.

>> Go. That'd be so serious.

>> Serious.

>> Absolutely.

>> You think it's funny, but I am.

>> I would love that.

>> Yeah. And then no rake. No rake. No

gravity. No rake. No gravity. Bob,

>> no tax on tips or poker winnings. I love

it. Whoever implements the red light

district in space is going to become a

trillionaire.

>> Oh, wow. That's Yeah, with the robotics

and the uh pleasure droids, replicants.

Oh, man. It could get crazy. All right.

Well, let's just hope you're we're not

the Donner party on the way there. Um

>> 2026,

>> don't worry. You'll be you'll be safely

on the ground

>> shing syndicates. You'll be fine. I

>> I'll tell you something. Uh thank you.

Shout out the syndicate.com apply to

join me in great companies.

>> Do you listen? I'm still You guys might

be retiring, but I'm in the game. I'm in

the arena trying things.

>> I'm selling I'm selling enterprise

software every day. That's what

>> I mean. He literally Truman said, "Hey,

Jake, can we wrap this up real quick cuz

I got to get on a sales call. I got a

discovery call."

>> Listen, I like the fact that we're all

working. We're working into our 50s. I

love it. Hey, 2026 could be an alltime

record for IPOs. Looks like it will be

Anthropic,

OpenAI, Data Bricks. I mean these are

all

nine and possibly 10 figure IPOs in

terms of the valuations. Long tale of

other companies uh Stripe, Cerebrus,

Canva,

Discord, lots of people waiting. Here's

your Poly Market. SpaceX 94% obviously

that looks like it's uh we just talked

about that for 20 minutes. Anthropic 41%

and people were saying 70% in February,

OpenAI 38%, data bricks 32%.

People are wondering what could um

derail this. Obviously we we we have a

very pro business group of people in

Washington DC, but you have potentially

this uh Iran war and we'll talk about

that later in the program could

potentially push us back if god forbid

it was to spiral or there was a

recession. Uh maybe the Democrats

you know, taking control of Congress,

Senate, etc. What are your thoughts here

on the flurry of potential IPOs? We're

talking about trillions of dollars of

companies, Chimath. And if that does

happen, let's start talking second and

third order impact of of that kind of

distribution chain that could happen for

LPS and then just also all these

employees. Uh, you know, and then a

currency for these companies. We go from

a mag 7 to a MAG 17. It looks like

>> I think that we have a bit of a risk

problem. And I think this is why it

makes so much sense for Elon to get out

first.

If you think about appetite as

equivalent to like a person at a

Thanksgiving dinner, when you first come

in and you see all of this stuff, it's

so plentiful. Your eyes are bigger than

your stomach. And I think in a moment

like that, you want to be the one that

is consumed first. M

>> and I think the risk increases when you

are at the tail end because the risk is

that the diners will run out of space

and if you use that fills up yeah

>> and if you use that analogy I think the

reason why people's plates will get full

are probably twofold and maybe

three-fold

the first and most important thing is

there's enough tactical event risk that

people generally want to be risk off and

have more margin of safety.

I think the Iran thing is kind of in

there, but I think the big tactical

event risk is that we have a lot of

these really important financial moments

tied to this concept of AGI, ASI, I

don't know if you saw the OpenAI

announcement on their final terms, but

you know, a huge slug of Amazon's

capital is tied to a 2028 IPO or a

moment that calls for this. Then there

was a bunch of leaked text messages or

whatever that said that there's a

version of some AGI running inside of

anthropic. Then there was the fact that,

you know, the leak of claude code

basically demonstrated that they had

feature flagged away a bunch of

improvements. So if you stack up all

these improvements, they're actually

much further ahead than the models

realized. If you take all of that as a

basket, it goes back to what I said last

week, which is we have a real pricing

problem. If AGI is real, the durability

of most companies is slim to none. If

AGI is not real, then the fundraising

capacity of these companies that are now

raising hundreds of billions of dollars

needs to get questioned and inspected

thoroughly. History will sort out which

one is right. But both cannot be right.

So in that vein, I actually think Jal, I

don't think we're going to have like

these quote unquote blockbuster stream

of IPOs. I think what happens is SpaceX

is going to get out. They're going to do

great

and then maybe the next one does good to

great, then the next one will do good

and then the appetite runs out because

you just can't absorb incrementally

trillions of dollars of new demand. And

if you think about it, where is it going

to come from? Is it going to come from

the sidelines? I don't know. I think

it's more of a reallocation exercise.

But if you look at the S&P, well, most

people are now defensively moving away

from these kinds of things towards the

things that are more protected, what the

industry calls halo, right?

High asset, low obsolescence kind of

businesses. Those things trade for zero

today, Jason.

>> You could buy hundreds of millions of

dollars of year of cash flow for two to

five times right now in the stock

market. And so why are you gonna go way

out on the risk curve and buy something

at 200 times

revs, let alone earnings?

>> Yeah. The the

>> So I don't know. I'm I'm more in the

camp of

I think it's good to be first. It's

pretty decent to be second, but if I

were you, I would get the heck out and

get public and get your money and

fortify your balance sheet ASAP because

I think the risk builds the further down

the IPO chain you're in. Yeah. There's

going to be a competition for investor

dollars, whether it's retail or it's

institutional or sovereign wealth funds.

They're going to have a lot of choices

here. Do you want to be in Nvidia? Do

you want to be in SpaceX? Maybe you have

to rotate out of Amazon or Google or

Disney in order to take on those

opportunities. And that's going to be a

great competition. probably we could see

a lot of these IPOs Freedberg trade

below their IPO price in the year or two

after they come out and get repriced.

Yeah, like we've seen before. I think

the market's going to need to find a

price. Remember, the share owners in a

lot of these companies have held on to

these shares for a long period of time

and the valuations are extraordinary. I

mean, hundreds of billions of dollars in

market value coming to market liquid for

the first time. Some of these investors

dep regardless of whatever their entry

price was are going to be looking for

liquidity. So there's only so much

capital to absorb those shares on the

buy side. Meaning if the buyers and the

bid is not there to fulfill all of the

selling then you're going to see the

share price decline and the market's

going to find a price. And so I I think

this idea that like an IPO is, you know,

just a step in driving the price or

value of a company up is a pretty false

sense. And I think we'll realize it's

pretty false as some of these IPOs take

place because there is so much pent-up

selling demand. There is so much value

that's being created. There's going to

be so much selling pressure and then

there's going to be very little buying

activity on some of these because anyone

that could have bought at scale on the

buy side postpublic were already in a

lot of these companies pre-public as

private companies and so I don't know

who the big buyers are that everyone's

expecting are going to show up. They're

probably thinking hey it's going to be

retail retail. Yeah. I mean it's like

>> yeah but how much money does retail have

left? I mean you if you look at retail

investors they have a certain amount of

powder and it's probably deployed. It's

not like they have unlimited places to

look for that. And you know, there's

some evidence of this. Bloomberg ran an

article on Wednesday. We tape on

Thursday, folks. And you get to listen

to the pot on Fridays. Open AAI is

falling out of favor with secondary

buyers. According to a report, OpenAI

investors can't find buyers at the new

$850 billion valuation that Shimoth

referenced earlier, investors Bloomberg

spoke to are looking to sell $600

million worth of shares. people are

looking for liquidity and said they were

institutional investors. Anthropic

currently valued at 300 billion is

seeing major secondary bids at a $600

billion valuation. So I think Chimoth

what this shows us is you're correct.

They're you know OpenAI and Anthropic

are the two next cards. That's your turn

in river folks. If SpaceX is the flop

and maybe they're massively overvalued

right now. Maybe they're three four 500

million billion dollar companies not

trillion dollar companies. And if you

look at the amount of revenue 24 billion

for uh open AI at 852 billion that's 35

times price to sales ratio and that is a

absurd price to sales ratio depending on

if the growth keeps happening and as you

referenced chimoth what if we are at

artificial general intelligence AGI and

the moes on these things is dimminimous

or or there is no moat anthropic just

got hacked all their secrets are out

Somebody transmuted the code into

another language, posted it on GitHub,

can't be stopped. I don't know if you

saw that story, Freeberg, but this is

kind of mind-blowing. Somebody took the

anthropic code, I don't know what it was

written in, and then basically just put

it into another language, reposted it.

If Anthropic comes and says, "Hey, you

can't do that." Well, that negates their

argument, Chimamoth, that they're

allowed to train on other people's data

and then spit out a different output. So

this is a very weird moment in time,

right?

>> It is. I think you're you're bringing up

a bunch of different points, so let me

just sort them out in the order that I

think is important.

>> Is there a market for open AI at 800

billion? Yes, and there should be. When

I read that press release, my mind was

blown. This is like I've never seen a

business like this. And I'd say the same

thing of Anthropic.

What an incredible thing that both of

these two companies have been able to

create. Nobody in the history of the

world has ever seen two businesses like

this at this scale. Okay, it's

unbelievable. These are trillion dollar

companies. They both are. And they both

deserve to be. How profitable they are,

I don't know. What their terminal

valuation is, I don't know. What will

people pay for at IPO? I don't know. But

Nick, I just shared something with you.

These two companies need to get out as

quickly as possible. And the reason is

every single company that comes after

it, all those companies that you just

named, Jason, are not nearly as

important and do not need the money

nearly as badly as these guys do. And

where will it come from? The specific

answer to your question when you look at

this chart is the tech sector PE is

going to shrink faster in my opinion

than the non- tech PE. And the reason is

because as these companies come out the

combination of SpaceX, OpenAI and

Anthropic, all three are baking an AI

technology that first and foremost will

go after the tech sector. It will

eliminate and it will cannibalize and it

will erode

most of the moes that support this

differential trading. So if I were a

betting man, my first bet is as those

three companies come out, these software

businesses are going to approach the

rest of the non- tech PE.

Okay, that's the first step that has to

happen. So the rate of change of of the

multiple erosion will basically say to

the world, hey, these tech companies are

I don't know, I'll buy the first five or

six years of this story, but I'm not

buying year 15 of this anymore because

these three guys are going to build

something. So that's where the money

comes from. That's why I think after

SpaceX, these two guys need to get their

act together, file quickly, get out and

just get the money, fortify their

balance sheets, and be in a position.

>> Everything that happens after that is a

total coin toss because once these three

companies are public, I think the blue

line will converge to the orange line

and it's going to be nasty.

>> Yeah. Freeberg, just looking at this, do

you believe that secondary market is a

canary in the coal mine here with Open

AI? Because if we we've and we've gone

through this year after year here. These

are exceptional businesses. They've

grown incredible. Customers love their

products, but the burn is brutal. The

circular financing problem is still out

there. Like what's reality here? The and

that's going to all come out when these

S1s get filed and they're publicly

traded companies and they have quarterly

earnings reports. Market share for these

could be flipping. Anthropic and and

Gemini, other players coming into the

market.

What are your thoughts here on uh

anthropic and open AI post the SpaceX

IPO?

>> Like I said, there's only so much

capital in the world. So, I do think one

of the things that's probably being

underestimated at the moment is the

liquidity crunch that's ahead for

capital intensive technology businesses

given the conflict in the Middle East. I

don't think that Qatar and certain Saudi

offices and certain offices in UAE and

Oman are as eager as they were or you

know have been to provide large slugs of

capital to support these initiatives and

remember that capital moves its way

through the markets whether it's through

JP Morgan and a loan to Soft Bank which

then gets paid to open AAI at the end of

the day there has to be unencumbered

debtfree capital that's being provided

to these systems.

from somewhere in the world. And if you

trace all of it back, like a large chunk

of it has historically in the last

couple of years come from Middle East

sovereigns and family offices. And I

think that those are likely going to

tighten up in the near term. That being

the case, there's probably less demand.

I do think that there's a lot of

secondary demand coming from family

offices in Europe and Singapore, places

like that that that generally have not

had great access or early stage access

to private companies. But at some point,

there's only so much demand there. So I

don't know like how far this is going to

go or when this capital crunch that's

going to emerge. I think from the Middle

East I don't think we've really felt the

shock wave yet on what's happening

because remember a lot of these Middle

East capital commitments were made in

the last cycle as LP commitments or

whatever. And you know if they stop if

they downscale LP commitments or they

stop doing primary and secondary

transactions you know it takes a little

bit of time before the market feels that

and then it's like oh the reliable goto

are gone and a lot of the big funds the

the mega funds that are out there

>> totally

>> that have Middle East LPS are gone and

suddenly everyone's going to be like

whoa and the shock wave will hit. So

let's see it is a risk for the United

States because China I don't think is

going to be as challenged. We're so

dependent on Middle East capital. It may

be that China has an a capital advantage

actually going into this next phase.

>> I mean, and we talked about forcing your

>> come into play here if this Iran thing

spirals, god forbid, out of control

>> or gets worse. People could say, you

know what, we're going to downscale our

commitments and hey, there's a war, so

we don't have to fund. I

>> think the markets I think the markets

have shaked that off, Jason. I don't

think that they they view this Iran

thing as a big thing. I think the big

event risk in the market is is AI real

or not real? And if it's real, what are

all of these companies worth? That is

the big sort of damices over the stock

market.

>> Yeah. All right. Well, that's a good

segue, I think, into talking uh a bit

about Iran. We took the week off from it

last week

and we're going to catch up.

>> By the way, not because we just to be

clear, not because we intended to, which

all the comments railed us on, but we

literally Jason did a terrible job

moderating. It was on the freaking

docket. We were supposed to talk about

it. We didn't get to it. He dialed it in

and we went right in.

>> He dialed it in. It's clearly my fault.

Um,

>> he DMV it. He, you know, it's like I'm

just protecting Trump. I'm out here

getting cover for Trump's mistakes.

>> Yeah.

>> Everybody knows I'm in the pocket of

President Trump.

>> Take a ticket. Take a ticket. Oh, you

have an issue. Okay. Well, you're issue

number 17.

>> Trump DM'd me and said, "Can you please

take this off the docket?" I was like,

"You got to bust."

>> And then you're like, "Oh, sorry. Office

is closed. Come back tomorrow. Today is

day 34 of the Iran War slmilitary

operation. Trump addressed the nation

Wednesday night for a brisk 18 minutes.

Here's a 40 secondond clip.

>> We're now totally independent of the

Middle East. And yet, we are there to

help. We don't have to be there. We

don't need their oil. We don't need

anything they have, but we're there to

help our allies. For years, everyone has

said that Iran cannot have nuclear

weapons. But in the end, those are just

words if you're not willing to take

action when the time comes. Our

objectives are very simple and clear. We

are systematically dismantling the

regime's ability to threaten America or

project power outside of their borders.

And tonight, I'm pleased to say that

these core strategic objectives are

nearing completion.

>> All right, the costs here are mounting.

Uh war is a very serious business. 13

American service members have tragically

died. Over 200 have been injured. On the

other side of the ledger, 3,500 Iranians

have died, including 1,600 civilians and

over 200 children. 1,200 people in

Lebanon have died from Israeli strikes.

And we now have 50,000 troops deployed

to the Middle East. Chances of a ground

invasion are increasing. War has cost

$70 billion so far. That's assuming $2

billion a day, which there seems to be

consensus on via the Department of War.

Pentagon has asked Congress for another

$200 billion.

To put that in context, the war in

Ukraine was $113 billion in the first

year. This could quickly exceed it when

we hit 50 days. This isn't cheap. There

are lots of costs. Here's uh your poly

market on a ceasefire. 25% chance of a

ceasefire by the end of April, 47 chance

by the end of May. The sharps are

thinking this could wrap up, but ground

invasion,

which would be just really

impactful. I think 63% chance by the end

of April, 71 chance by the end of

December. We're going to get into the

second order effects, but what do you

think, Chimamoth? Uh, this obviously is

super unpopular war.

>> I think two things. And the president

kind of alluded to one that I think is

very important, which is if you are not

energy independent, you are at risk. And

I don't know how many more examples now

that world leaders need to be shown to

get their acts together. So if the

Ukraine Russian conflict didn't show

Europe, then this should show not just

Europe, but the rest of the world. You

need to be in control of your own energy

infrastructure and energy independence

because stuff happens in the world and

you're not always in control or can

shape how that stuff

can indirectly or directly affect you.

The United States has energy

independence. It's an incredible

situation. What was interesting to me is

if you look at Europe, you know, they

gutted a couple of their energy markets

and they essentially seated control to a

combination of very expensive imports

and China. They did that in markets like

nuclear where they just went out of it.

They did that in things like Nack Gas

where again we can debate but where

where did Nordstream 2 go? We don't

know. And they did that in things like

solar where they just gutted all of the

credits. But what's interesting is

they're starting to turn that around. I

think Italy just reintroduced

effectively what's called investment tax

credits. Spain just did as well. Germany

is restarting nuclear. So if you just

look at the the last few months,

just that change is incredibly important

because our largest ally Europe should

be fundamentally energyindependent so

that they preserve complete and total

optionality like we do in how we respond

to these situations.

That I think is a is a critical thing

that is a positive outcome of what's

happening. And then the second Jason,

which I think is a huge question mark

and it builds on what Freeberg said

before, the Middle Eastern states,

specifically the UAE and Saudi, Qatar,

Kuwait,

they are our most important financing

and banking partner in the future.

And I think we need to see a conclusive

end to this war because they need to be

in a position to monetize these critical

assets. Because at the same time, if you

see these big pools of demand

start to become energy independent by

either accelerating nuclear, but I again

that's just problematic and slow, but

frankly they're just going to ramp up

solar. That's the only way that you can

dispatch energy quickly. I think what

that does is it decreases hydrocarbon

demand over the long run. That then

decreases the monetization capacity for

these countries. So if you put these two

things together,

all of these folks in the region want

safety, security, and they need a quick

end to this thing now.

>> Okay.

>> And I think that they're more

incentivized to put boots on the ground,

Jason, than America is. That's the point

I was trying to make. Freeberg, let's

talk a little bit about fertilizer.

You had brought up when we had the start

of the Ukraine war. Hey, this is the

bread basket. We could have a massive

famine. Thankfully, that was avoided.

There were carveouts for getting wheat

and and other crops out of Ukraine, but

here we are again with a significant

amount of fertilizer comes out of that

region and it's not flowing right now.

Do you have concerns this time around

that we could see something similar?

>> Fertilizer is made up of three elements.

There's different fertilizers. The one

element is N for nitrogen, P for

phosphorus, and K for potassium. Ukraine

is the largest producer of the K, the

potassium, the pot ash,

but the N in fertilizer is nitrogen. And

that is about 60% of what goes into the

ground. That's 60 to 65% of global

fertilizer is the nitrogen. That's what

really drives agricultural productivity.

And we need nitrogen fertilizer to grow

crops everywhere on Earth that we're

growing crops to feed people at scale.

That nitrogen is primarily made where

natural gas is produced and processed.

And the reason is that they use the

natural gas as an input to the

production process. They get the the

carbon, the hydrogen, the oxygen, and

then they compress, remember 70% of our

atmosphere is made up of nitrogen gas.

So they compress the nitrogen in the air

to 200 times atmospheric pressure, run

it over a electrical current with a

metal catalyst, and you break apart the

N2. you have just single nitrogen atoms

and then you combine it back and you end

up getting ammonia out of the other end.

That's why nitrogen fertilizers are

produced where natural gas is processed.

So the Middle East obviously is a

massive producer particularly in Qatar

of natural gas and that's why so much of

the world's nitrogen fertilizer is made

in the Middle East. In fact, about 35%

of the world's nitrogen fertilizer goes

through the straight of Hormuz, and it

is then shipped to countries around the

world that farm and that need it to grow

their crops. The swing producer in the

world is China. China historically makes

about 15% of the world's nitrogen

fertilizer. And when the war started a

few days after it began, China shut down

exports of their nitrogen fertilizer.

And so they basically choked out the

rest of the world. And so when the

straight of Hormuz shut the nitrogen

stopped flowing here you can see the

price spike that happened. So as the the

war began this is ura. URA is the solid

form of nitrogen fertilizer. So URA was

trading at about 350 bucks a ton before

the the conflict kind of took off and it

continues to spike up. It reached over

$700 a ton in the last two days. And

this is really really really impactful.

It's not just like oh the price is

double. Number one, there's a supply

deficiency. So farmers in places like

Africa and South Asia are not getting

the ura that they need to farm. That is

going to have a massive follow-on

problem. And in markets where they have

access because the price has spiked like

in the United States, our biggest crop

is corn. You need about 200 pounds of

that ura per acre for corn. And that

cost basically makes you unprofitable.

There is no way you can make a

profitable crop of corn. The other thing

that China did at the same time is they

stopped buying corn. So corn prices

would normally spike up and corn prices

have remained low while the input prices

have spiked for American farmers. So

American farmers are in a real pickle.

Fortunately for this spring planting,

which is happening right now, about

twothirds of American farmers had

already secured their fertilizer before

the this began, but a third did not and

they're switching crops typically to

soybeans. But we have a fall planting

coming up in a couple of months here and

the choke points on production is going

to keep prices very high. In the United

States, we make a lot of our own ammonia

at our natural gas facilities in places

like Oklahoma and Texas and Wyoming and

other places and then it ships directly

to the farms. But the cost is so high

because of the global market that it's

going to become very hard for farmers to

make a profit. And around the world

there are many farmers, millions and

millions of farmers that can't access

this fertilizer now. So the choke point

in the straight of Hormuz is turning out

to be a real critical global food supply

crisis yet again similar to Ukraine. And

remember there was about 400 million

people following the Ukraine war

globally that we saw enter into a state

of malnourishment. This means more than

one year of,200 calories or less per day

for a year. 400 million people after

Ukraine. So coming out of this crisis it

could be even more severe given the

criticality of nitrogen based

fertilizers and the shutdown of the

straight. Let me make two more points on

this. You would think, okay, we'll make

more nitrogen fertilizer. The facilities

take at least three to five years to fix

when they break, which is what just

happened in Qatar. That facility got

damaged, the main facility that's being

used to make fertilizer. So that is the

largest producer of ura in the world.

That's now going to be incapacitated for

3 to 5 years. And if you want to build a

new facility, takes about 7 years. All

the facilities around the world that

make ura and ammonia these nitrogen

fertilizers typically run 24/7 365 at

full capacity. There is no downtime

where you can just turn on excess

production in the world. So you know the

world is very delicate in its balance of

inputs and food production outputs. The

whole world has like less than 30 days

of food of calories stored up. So as

these kind of supply chain problems

start to percolate there's shock waves

that start to get felt around the world.

So, it's a pretty serious crisis ahead

and it'll take a few months before it'll

be fully realized. In the meantime, US

farmers are getting their asses handed

to them. They can't make money and China

is using this as a moment for

extraordinary leverage over America and

taking advantage of the situation by

shutting down exports of their

fertilizer and at the same time not

buying American production of corn. We

probably need Freedberg to have some

sort of resiliency here and address this

like we did with pharmaceuticals, PPE,

all these other things. Yeah, we should

have some sort of stockpile of

fertilizer.

>> Kimat's point is absolutely correct.

Natural gas reservoirs exist around the

world and we've been loathed to exploit

them or develop them because of the

climate change carbon risks and issues.

But I think what we're realizing is that

those are luxury beliefs to an extent.

You can only say let's not exploit

carbon resources until you hit a shock

wave like this and then people are like

wait a second we really do need to have

these systems up and running and we need

to have excess capacity and local

capacity in the system because single

points of failure for the whole world's

food supply is not going to cut it

anymore particularly as the world is

becoming more fragmented and multipolar

and there's less US policing of the

world that's going to happen and so on.

It's going to be very critical that

everyone starts to think about doubling

down not just on energy production but

some of these other critical inputs like

fertilizer and another output just as a

quick side story on that gas production

is when you pull that gas out of the

ground that's the primary place we find

helium and helium we're all waking up to

the fact you know we never really think

about helium we think about kids

balloons at birthday parties

>> but helium goes into MRI machines helium

goes into semiconductor manufacturing

helium goes into mass spec machines that

are used in chemical analysis with a lot

applications around the world. Helium is

a critical input to medical equipment,

to manufacturing equipment, and all of a

sudden, a third of the world's helium

coming out of Qatar is not making it

out. And so, we're now going to have a

helium supply shock that's going to

affect the world. So, we're starting to

wake up to the fact that perhaps these

nat gas fields that we've allowed to

kind of turn a blind eye and say, "Let

one country exploit them and let them

make all the nat gas." The US is

actively developing. You know, I went

down and visited that Chenny air

facility in Louisiana with Doug Bergam a

couple months ago, which was an amazing

site to see where we do all the LG

exporting, but the US has extraordinary

nat gas reserves. So do many other

places in the world that have failed to

take advantage of developing them. And I

think we're realizing the criticality of

doing so at this moment.

>> Looking at this, I think we'll have

Trump pivot extremely soon. I've brought

this chart up now. This will be the

fourth time.

>> Is that your prediction, Jal? think he's

going to wrap this up? I mean,

>> he's 100% going to wrap this up and I

and and I can show why. I mean, this

just basically look at the history of

this. You guys remember I brought up

this chart with Trump's net approval

rating and you you look at how this has

changed over the three times I brought

it up. First time in June last year,

then October. Uh, and again, I'm going

to bring it up here.

the stuff with ICE and, you know, the

Epstein files and just going right down

the line of unpopular decisions. Trump's

net approval rating now has just

plummeted to -17. This is the least

popular he's ever been. And he's had to

pivot here. Pam Bondi at the time we are

uh recording this as I predicted on a

previous episode that

Christine Gnome and Pam Bondi would be

fired uh or in I guess Trump's terms he

likes to uh get them a new job and give

them a window seat. This is absolutely

going to result in a quick pivot. Who

knows what the downstream effects are

but the inflation three handle is coming

back. According to Poly Market, gas is

over $4 a gallon. And then, you know,

it's easy to mock like we did earlier

these like no kings protests, but 8

million people came out for that. That's

a large number. And if you look at the

poly market for what's going to happen

in the midterms, 51% chance now that the

Dems take the Senate, 86% that they take

the House. And you know what you're

going to take from that is

>> wait, sorry, Poly Market is now showing

the Democrats winning both houses.

>> Yeah, pull it up, Nick. significant

chance of that. And you know when this

happens, how much money is being bet on

that? Let's just see.

>> 51% they take the Senate, 86% they take

the House, and four and a half million

$4.5 million on this.

>> Oh gosh.

>> Yeah.

>> I tend to I tend to filter how seriously

I take Poly Market just based on the

total quantum, but this is a big number.

>> Yeah. And and I you know, listen, I this

is not me trying to dunk on Trump and my

personal beliefs. I think when you lose

Tucker, when you lose Megan Kelly, when

you lose Joe Rogan, you know, and people

are looking at who Trump surrounded him

with, there's really just two groups.

You have these super highly qualified

people, Bessant, Lutnik, obviously,

David Saxs. You got you got really

highly qualified people, JD, you know,

who who I think the world of. I think

these people are great. But then he put

some people in positions that I think

weren't up to the task. Pam Bondi,

Christie, I'll put Steven Miller and

Cash in that as well. It's my personal

belief in that case. And those people

have not served him well. And they need

to get this presidency back on track

because what's going to happen is we're

going to have two more years of

impeachments and investigations and the

whole thing's going to be derided. And

and we really need to start thinking

about what who's making these decisions.

Who who made this decision to go into

Iran and why? who made these decisions

to have ICE go into Minnesota and why?

And I think a lot of it goes back to

Steven Miller. I got mocked a bit here

on the pod for like blaming him, but you

can correlate Steven Miller, Christy

Gnome, Cash Patel, and Pam Bondi with

all of the downside of this presidency

and the plummeting ratings. Trump's

going to need to clear house. He's

cleared out two or four. I predict he'll

clear out the other two and get great

leadership in there and turn this

presidency around because listen, this

is going to be socialism now and AOC is

going to win. This is going to cause

massive chaos if he doesn't get out of

Iran and do it soon. Just my

handicapping of the situation. Uh

Hegath, I'm not so sure. I'm not sure if

I uh you know what I think of him yet,

but you know, we don't have information

on why Trump did this. That's going to

be the next shoe to drop

>> on why why he did it. Freeberg, I think,

you know, this is the point I made the

second this war happened or military

operation. I mean, let's let's call it

what it is. This is a war. When you kill

the top hundred people, it's a war. I

said, I don't have the information of

why he did this. Like, he might have

information, Freeberg, that we don't

have that made this an absolute must for

us to do,

>> but we haven't revealed that

information. He hasn't explained it well

to the American people. I think that's

why the ratings are,

>> you know, and I don't want to make the

ratings like a TV ratings. his

popularity is getting crushed here. The

way this was explained to Americans, and

again, I'm not inserting my position

here. I'm just talking about the

disconnect right now, is that Operation

Midnight Hammer was supposed to uh have

just decimated this. So, why did we do

this again? And we don't have the

information. This is why I try to stay

humble in this and say like, what

information does Trump have of that we

don't have? Some people seem to think

Chamath this was overconfidence.

There's obviously this debate. Did we

get baited into this by Israel and get

pushed into it and is he a Manurion

candidate etc. I that's above my pay

grade too. I I don't have any

information on that. I'm not in the CIA.

It's hard to be a an armchair critic on

this stuff in both senses. Like I think

it's hard to say, hey, this guy got

talked into doing this. Israel

manipulated him into it. You know,

sorry. It's easy to say that. It's also

easy to say, "Hey, we should go get rid

of the country that's made all the

nuclear weapons." Both of those are easy

to say without all of the texture of the

relationships and the details and what

really went on. None of us know is the

truth.

>> That's literally the point, you know,

I've been trying to make how do the same

thing with Venezuela. Like, how do we

know? We don't have any intelligence to

we're not in the CIA. We don't have any

of these insights that MSAD or the

Israeli intelligence services have. How

do we know how this was going to go

down? And you know, that's all going to

come out, I think, when this all gets

investigated. Yeah.

>> I think Trump is and has been the most

consistent anti-war president of modern

history.

>> Yes.

>> And I think that it's fair to say that

he has and has had and has demonstrated

enormous restraint and has the highest

bar thus far of folks for actually

getting into conflict. So I do think

that what Freeberg says is very

important. There's just so much we don't

know and I think that he doesn't want to

stain his legacy

with a typical American,

you know, war.

>> Yeah.

>> He doesn't want that. I don't think he

doesn't need to be anywhere near that.

So there is obviously stuff that we

don't know. I still think that there's

a short-term problem which is not just

the threat that Iran poses to Israel,

but there's a threat that Iran poses to

the rest of the Middle Eastern

community.

>> That neighborhood is a complicated

place. There was an interview that NBS

did on Saudi television. Nick, maybe

maybe you can find it. It's in Arabic,

but there's a good version of it that I

saw with subtitles.

And if you hear the MBS's telling of

what the Iranian threat is, it's not

dissimilar to how the Israelis would

characterize the threat. And so I think

it's important to understand that

unpredictable actors

should not be given an opportunity to

have a cataclysmic weapon that can just

completely destroy the earth as we know

it. That just doesn't make sense. And I

think if you can intervene to prevent

that, we're now aware of the damages of

what this can do to enough of a degree

where there should be enough of nuclear

disarmament from here on out.

>> The six, seven, eight, nine countries

that have it. Okay, there's all kinds of

reasons why maybe we could have remade

those decisions over the intervening 70

years.

>> Maybe there's some that we never should

have let have it. The Pakistan India

thing is a good example of one. But we

are where we are and I think we can all

agree no more country should

incrementally get access to this thing.

>> Absolutely not. And this regime

specifically believes that anybody who

is not part of this specific religion

needs to die and the whole

>> Islam needs to be reunited in order to

take on anybody who's not part of a

version of radical Islam. like it's a

it's a if this is a religious lunacy in

that country. I think everybody else

should be murdered if they don't

convert.

>> I think it's important to say that the

overwhelming majority of Sunnis and the

overwhelming majority of Shia are

peaceful observant people. There are

fringes in every religion and in

specifically this I think the most

important thing is to not take your word

or anybody else's word. I do think it's

important to listen to somebody like NBS

because I think it's the lived

experience of you know having to run a

country in that neighborhood and what it

means and I think what you see is as you

as you're articulating many layers of

complexity that again I think that most

of us in the west have zero appreciation

for

all of this goes to in the short term

I think that they forced themselves into

a corner I think we can go back and

relitigate Why did Obama let him out?

That was a really, really stupid idea.

We probably should have kept our thumb

on the scale and had them close to

teetering on economic insolveny. That's

the only thing that has kept them in

check. They veered wildly away the

minute we let them out of the

disarmament agreements that we had.

But we are where we are. We got to put

the genie back in the bottle. And we

cannot look to other countries and

tolerate this idea that they also want

to build the kinds of weapons that can

literally destroy the face of the planet

as we know it. It's a non-starter. And

then the second order effect is how do

we make sure that folks that are

participating in all of this broader

seeds of sewing chaos, how do we hem

them in and how do we create a more

reasonable world order? And I think that

the second order effects, and I've said

this before, kind of bring this back to

China. And I think a world where it's

bipolar, where it's the United States

and China roughly as the two leading

statesmen of the world, is probably the

Nash equilibrium here.

>> And so I think getting China in a

position where they need to do a deal.

And remember I said this, the worst

thing that could happen for China was

the president delaying the summit. And

here we are. We're now it's delayed for

six weeks. It's going to go into midbay.

If you think the straight of hormuse

numbers as it relates to energy prices

in Europe or anywhere else are crazy,

look at what's happening inside of China

right now.

It is a no bueno situation. And so in

May, if we can reestablish a set of

operating criteria that keeps normaly in

check,

no more of this rapid random expansion

everywhere where the Chinese are trying

to build bases in near us and you know

now we have to have a point of view near

them. We don't need any of that.

So I think if we can use this as an

opportunity to deescalate, I think we

should.

>> Yeah, that's we we seem to have moved

from I mean I think this is the

question. There's a a doctrine, I don't

know if you guys heard this one before,

of mowing the lawn, which is the

Israelis view of Hezbollah, Hamas, and

even Iran, which is just, hey, we have

to take away their progress, the last 30

or 40% of their progress towards nuclear

bombs, and we just do that consistently

and we contain them. This has tipped

over into regime change. And so, I think

that's the wild card that none of us can

predict what happens from this point

forward. I I don't know how you leave

Iran in this state if they're going to

take over the the strait uh and charge

everybody a dollar a barrel. Is that

going to be tenable? Are they going to

keep blowing stuff up? This is uncharted

territory. Um and yeah, and very high

stakes. President Trump also reiterated

the US doesn't need Middle East oil and

that Europeans should go straight to the

strait and just take it. He said that

the straight will open naturally because

quote why do we want to be able why are

you always focusing on the straits of

Hormuz Jason?

>> Why am I I mean you're focus on the

straight because you're always

overlooking the gays of Hormuz as an

example.

>> That's true that and the non-binaries of

Hormuz they all count.

>> Well, why is it all about the straits of

Hormuz all the time? Listen, it's I

don't want to get cancelled here because

I'm talking I don't know the pronouns to

use for these straits hormuz. But yes,

the straits in Hormude. I don't think

you're allowed to be gay in Hormuz. I

think you have to keep that pretty quiet

there, don't you? That was the greatest

clip ever. If you don't know what we're

referring to, it's a viral clip of

>> It's incredible

>> of purple-haired people. No, not purple.

This was a young Indian lady.

>> Uh, and she we all thought the same

thing. Indians are so smart. How? What

happened to her? What happened? She's

the They found an Indian who didn't

understand

>> the one They found the one dumb Indian.

Yes, exactly.

>> Oh god. It's

>> They found her.

>> They found her. This is She's been

absolutely I mean,

>> isn't it a little bit homophobic that

was so focused on the straits of her

moose and not the gays of her moves?

>> I agree. Yes, for sure.

>> Why do you think are willing to leave

the gays of her moves behind?

I think it's just um history.

>> Which Ivy League do you think she went

to? Brown. 100%. Brown or Columbia?

>> Oh yeah, that's that's a good call. I

would say Colombia. She Yeah, she might

have gone to Vasser actually. I think

that would might have been her safety

school. That's the best

>> not Bora not Borat. Um Bruno

impersonation I've heard in a long time.

Saw Freebug. Why are you so gay? Do you

think the shreds of horm are you are you

making your potatoes non-binary?

It was like literally Zabuno.

You got 10 minutes. Jamath, you want to

do your uh Bitcoin thing or you want to

just break? The Bitcoin thing was

interesting because I think in the last

couple of

months, what we've started to see is an

increasing amount of research that says

that

the scheduled eventuality

of a quantum chip, a functional chip,

is probably not 25 or 30 years away.

It's probably now in the next five to

seven years if I had to guess.

>> And I think that because that event

horizon has moved in in these next 5 to

seven years for those that follow

Bitcoin and care about it. My only

advice on this topic is that the leaders

of the Bitcoin ecosystem

need to organize themselves and need to

make sure that they have an answer to

the question of is this stuff quantum

resistant? Because if the answer is no,

they are a very visible and obvious

honeypot.

Now there is the answer that then a lot

of the Bitcoin community gives which is

well everything is screwed.

And my only advice is possibly, but if a

non-state actor gets a hold of quantum

technology that can defeat crypto as we

know it today,

SHA 256, you know, ECDS, like the

elliptical curve stuff, the

run-of-the-mill stuff that we all rely

on,

a non-state actor's incentive will first

be to drain the obvious honeypotss and

then tell everybody that it's broken so

that then everything goes to sh, all the

prices go to zero, and then they have

all the money and then they can buy

stuff. That would be the sequence of

events if you were a non-state actor.

So, yes, you're right. The banks get

hacked. Yes, you're right. All this

other stuff goes kaput.

But I think you first go and you exploit

the obvious places. And I think crypto

is the most obvious honeypot in a world

where you can defeat encryption. Now, in

fairness, the crypto community, this was

much, much earlier, had to deal with

this. They had to migrate from different

encryption schemes in the early parts of

Bitcoin and they were able to

self-organize.

The difficulty here is you're talking

about a big technological lift. You're

talking about all the wallets being

rearchitected. You're talking about all

the transactional flows, all the

processing nodes. These are complicated

things that need to happen. And I would

just tell the crypto community, you have

5 to seven years to get your in

order.

>> That's it. Freeberg, quantum computing,

just generally speaking, you feel it's

going to have a major impact in the

short term. Do you think it's actually

going to become viable in the midterm?

Where do you think about it? Because

it's always been 10 years out, but it

feels like we're making some progress.

>> Yeah, there's a lot that's changed. I

mean, so the the primary mechanism of

modern encryption standards uh relates

to factoring primes of an integer.

discovering the prime factors of an

integer would give you the ability to

theoretically crack

encryption. There was an algorithm that

was theorized by a guy named Peter

Shore. I think I talked about this on a

prior episode back in 1994 called

Shore's algorithm today. It's kind of

the commonly well-known model for how

you could do this. And it's a you could

watch a YouTube video on it. There's

some YouTube videos that explain it

pretty clearly. Takes a bit of time to

understand it. And then a couple years

ago, I think in 2023, there was another

computer scientist named Oded Regv

from NYU who published another paper

that showed a faster different approach

to Shor's algorithm. It was an

improvement on Shor's algorithm that

basically reduced the number of quantum

operations required to factor a large

integer significantly. So there's kind

of

>> Yeah, we sorry, we went from 28 million

of those operations down to 500,000.

Yeah. And so there's this a lot of work

going on right now even before we have

industrial scale quantum computers. A

lot of work going on in quantum

computing theory and building models and

algorithms and a lot of this is rooted

in in pure mathematics and statistics

and whatnot. That work is making

progress and building better algorithms

even before the compute comes online.

And then there's this separate set of

things that you can track. But you know

the market if you want to trust the

market is betting that we are within

spitting distance of quantum computers

reaching an industrial scale at this

moment. So those two things intersect at

some moment in the near term where you

have algorithms that are low demand, low

latency that can crack modern encryption

standards and then the computing comes

online and someone is going to execute.

The the real thing is what do you do

about it? There's a whole bunch of

research that's been going on for 20

plus years on quantum algorithms,

quantum encryption standards. And so the

to Chimat's point, these things exist.

It's just a heavy lift and so there's

going to be this heavy lift probably,

you know, pretty good business to be

made in the next couple of years and uh

all of the changes are going to need to

happen across all encryption standards

across the whole internet across how we

do communications and so on. In a crazy

way, Freeberg, crypto is in the same

place as all these software socks.

Meaning, if AGI and ASI are real, these

software companies are not what we

thought they were.

>> Yeah.

>> If Quantum is real, a bunch of these

crypto projects are not what we thought

they were. And so you can't have both,

guys. You got to choose.

>> Pick one.

>> Yeah.

>> All right, everybody. This is Ben.

>> Oh, hey. We listen. Um, you know, I have

an incredible EA

>> executive assistant.

>> It's really been like, you know,

everybody talks about like agents,

agents, agents, agents, and this was the

pre- agent agent.

You know, my my EAS averaged around

188 to 200k a year and then

>> people right now their heads are

exploding in middle America.

>> Let's tell the truth. I was paying 188

to $200,000 a year. They were wonderful.

Okay.

>> Right.

>> And then I Jason was like, "Try this.

Try this thing called Athena." Athena.

Athena. I'm like, "What is it?" So, I

called the guys and they're like, "Yeah,

we have these really well-trained folks.

They're like geniuses that work in the

Philippines. It's 3,000 a month and

we're building all this tooling and so

as all these agents get better and all

these AIs get better, they'll get the

advantage of that. I said, "Okay, I'll

give it a try." This is the first time

I've had a male assistant. His name is

Lei. Lay's fabulous. He's a math grad,

math and computer science in the

Philippines.

>> Okay.

>> And he's excellent. I love Lei, too. Uh,

somebody just put it in the chat. I love

Le from Nick. Yeah, Nick. Nick, you love

>> Lay coming to NBC this fall.

>> These guys are incredible. They do

everything for me. It's like the most

incredible hack and arbitrage I've ever

seen. Then now then I can direct a bonus

delay at the end of the year, which is

great because then it allows me to feel

like I'm giving him really, you know,

good support. He works my hours from the

Philippines. Have not looked back. Go

Athena.

>> Yeah, that's great.

>> I I I use it as well. I was the first

investor.

>> You were the first You were the How many

Athenas? You have one or two? I have

one. two for a while.

>> I think I made a second one

>> and uh then that person moved on.

>> You split it between like work and

personal or no?

>> Yeah, it's work and personal. As an

example, like there's an incredible

bakery where I live uh like out in

Dripping Springs, uh called Abby Jane

Bakery. They don't take orders, but

every Thursday, uh my Athena assistant

calls at 8 a.m., asks them what's on the

menu, cuz they change the menu every

week.

And then they send me the menu. I order

the bakeries.