Our daughter’s head is dropped because our doctor,

she felt the head and she was like, yeah, it’s…

Hey Chamath, whose head has gotten bigger?

Yours or your daughter’s?

What do you mean?

Don’t quit your day job, Sax.

Yeah, Sax.

That didn’t quite land.

That didn’t land.

He’s trying out material, total flow.

We are not in rhythm.

You know why?

It’s mercury retrograde.

Our 50th episode is gonna suck because of this.

Here we go.

Three, two.

♪ I’m going all in to let your winners ride ♪

Rain Man David Saxon.

♪ I’m going all in and I said we open sources to the fans ♪

♪ And they’ve just gone crazy with it, love you guys. ♪

♪ I’m the queen of Quinoa, I’m going all in. ♪

All right, the Facebook whistleblower hearings occurred

and Facebook gave our-

No, but wait, where’s your, hey, everybody.

Hey, everybody.

Hey, everybody.

Hey, everybody.

Welcome to another episode of the All In Podcast.

Episode 50.

We made it to 50.

Cinquanta.

Cinquanta.

Nobody expected us to make it.

Here we are.

We’ve made it.

And everybody is thrilled to be here with you.

And thank you for the support over the first 50 episodes.

One episode closer to getting canceled.

One episode closer.

Man, how great would it be to be canceled

and never have to work again?

Oh, that’d be wonderful.

Okay, so Frances Haugen revealed herself

on Sunday night on 60 Minutes

and then appeared before the Senate on Tuesday.

Wait, don’t we get our own personal intros,

or no, we’re done with that?

Oh.

I mean, you’re unbelievable.

Doesn’t the audience know us?

Mercury retrograde, Mercury retrograde.

It’s Mercury retrograde, I’m all fucked up.

Doesn’t the audience know us by now after 50 episodes?

Do we really have to put them?

Everybody loves the intro.

Three, two, all right, with us again this week

is the Rain Man himself, David Sacks,

and the Queen of Quinoa, David Friedberg.

I love the intro.

Of course, the dictator, Chamath Palihapitiya,

and I’m your boy, J. Cal.

Sacks, I gotta say, I think your AUM

is positively correlated with the bags under your eyes.

If you mean it’s getting bigger, you’re correct.

I mean, they’re heavy.

Good Lord.

They’re heavy, dragging you down.

That’s where you’re hiding all that Solana

in your fucking, under your eyes.

You better clear that Solana position.

What’s your lockup, 24 months?

Fuck, no, he’s trying to sell it to me on text message.

Yeah, of course he is.

We’re negotiating discounts.

I just had the fact of the fact.

Hey, you’re fucking the whole thing up.

Bro, you don’t think just-

I’m hodling, I’m hodling.

You think I buy hundreds of millions of dollars

of anything without a discount?

Everything is a discount.

Everything’s discounted.

You want to clear that position in an LLC?

Are you saying I got a billion dollars of Solana?

No, bro, I’m saying I have one,

but you know, I brought it at a discount.

But you’re holding, correct?

Ish.

Yeah, me too.

Well, I mean, if something appreciates,

at what point is the appreciation in an asset

that you’ve invested in early,

something you need to, you know,

at least clear a position of and lock in a win?

I mean, what’s enough, 100X, 500X?

You got to, at some point, bank a win, right?

Well, I think you have to put things in a bucket of like,

is it an investment or is it something

that represents an idea that you love so much?

If it’s the latter, you should never sell.

If it’s the former, yeah, you got to manage risk.

Or rather, you know, is it a trade

or is it something you want to own?

By the way, let me just clean this up

because Solana was not a direct investment for us.

What we did is we invested in a crypto venture firm

called MultiCoin Capital.

This is back in 2017.

We realized like crypto was becoming

like a full-time job for us.

It was a total rabbit hole.

And we were like, we don’t have time

to figure out this like 24-7 trading stuff.

But we met Kyle and Tushar who were these two young guys.

We met them through Vinny Lingham, actually.

And they were creating MultiCoin Capital.

And we actually invested, we gave them a million bucks

at a 20 cap to help set up their firm.

And then we invested in their,

they had both a venture fund and a hedge fund.

And they were like the first money into Solana.

So that fund, I mean, it’s like a 100X fund.

It’s just like bonkers.

Crazy.

And so as a result of that,

we are indirect beneficiaries

of this huge increase in Solana.

It will end up being about a billion dollars of,

I think, Solana for us in terms of returns.

But the MultiCoin guys

determined the trading decisions on that.

Yeah, and so people who don’t know,

Solana is a programmable Ethereum competitor, I guess.

And it’s at $50 billion or so market cap.

It was trading at a dollar not long ago,

and now it’s at 164.

It’s an Ethereum competitor, basically,

for a smart contract platform.

And there’s a lot of people,

I’d say smart money in Silicon Valley,

who are betting on a flippening

where Solana could ultimately overtake Ethereum

as the preferred platform.

But even if it doesn’t overtake Ethereum,

it’s the number eight cryptocurrency right now.

It could go, there’s a lot of people betting

it’ll go to number three or what have you.

Additionally, it is a fraction of a penny

for a transaction,

and it can do many more transactions than Ethereum.

So it’s technically should be much cheaper.

If you’re buying NFTs right now,

you’re probably spending tens of dollars

in fees on Ethereum.

Whereas if you did those same NFTs,

which some people are starting to do on Solana,

they would cost a fraction of a penny.

Correct, David or Chamath?

Yeah, I think the platform is known

for being a faster, cheaper blockchain.

Really, really congratulations.

And if Vinny Lingam’s Instagram is any indication,

he did pretty well because his Instagram

suddenly turned into a world tour on private jets.

He’s like, which island should I buy?

Well, Vinny was sort of like a,

I don’t think he’s full-time in multi-coin,

but he was sort of a venture partner to Kyle and Tushar.

And he helped set them up.

This is back in 2017.

He helped bring us in as the first investors.

And I mean, for us, it was sort of a founder bet

combined with a team, like sort of a space bet.

Like we knew the cryptocurrencies

were starting to be traded 24-7.

We knew it required more of like a hedge fund skillset

than what we had.

And so we made a bet on those guys

and man, has that ever paid off.

It’s one of the nice strategies, right, Sax,

is if you are LPing in new fund managers,

which I’ve done a couple of times now,

you get to learn from them

and basically dive into a data set of a new market, right?

I mean, it’s like one of the nice things

about being an LP in a fund is you can place a small bet,

whether it’s 50K or 500K or 5 million, whatever it is,

you get like this meta-education of an entire sector,

correct?

Yeah, but I think we didn’t do it to learn from them,

although we have, it’s more that we realized

that crypto was, like I said, becoming such a rabbit hole.

Like we realized we would either need

to do crypto full-time as a fund

or we would need to like partner

with people who actually did.

And you see that with like a lot of VC firms now,

is they’re creating like specialized crypto funds

or at least they have specialized crypto partners.

There’s so much to know about the crypto world.

It’s a hard thing to invest in

unless you’re like totally focused on it.

I’ve struggled with that.

Like I’ve tried to go deep on a couple topics

and like I realized, holy shit,

I’ve been in this for like four to six hours

just trying to learn this stuff and I’m not like there.

And then I feel uncertain about making any decisions.

I totally get it.

I mean, you gotta have folks like working on this.

And the pace is changing so rapidly.

You really need to kind of be up to date on what’s next.

It’s really challenging.

When you look at crypto, people use the word crypto

as if it’s like, that’s all there is.

Totally.

Crypto is like distributed computing,

e-cash, cryptography, financial modeling

or building new economic systems, Chamath.

There’s business model innovation.

There’s technology innovation.

There’s economic innovation.

It’s-

Distributed computing innovation.

Yeah.

Infrastructure, hardware.

I mean, there’s quite a lot of layers of activity.

Chamath, are you spending time in crypto yourself

or do you have people doing it for you

or how are you kind of-

Look, we have a lot of it.

A lot of a lot of everything.

So yeah, we have things-

But do you go deep yourself, Chamath?

Like how do you spend enough time

to really get up to speed on all the goings on?

I cherry pick and I snipe

and opportunities where I get intellectually curious

and jump in.

But a lot of the credit goes to my team.

There’s a couple of folks

that spend a lot of their time in it.

And we’ve had a couple people do extremely well for us.

Similar to David’s story, back in the day,

I invested in Barry Silbert and DCG-

Second market, Barry Silbert.

Yeah.

And DCG is now, I don’t know,

I’m guessing a $20 billion company, maybe more.

I don’t know.

So how does it mechanically work with your team?

They are investigating opportunities

and then they come to you and bring you,

hey, we’ll do a meeting

and I’m gonna share four with you.

And then you say,

hey, let me get on the phone with that guy.

Do you basically go deep when something shows up, Chamath?

No, so basically what happens is

they have carte blanche to do whatever they want.

And what they’re typically doing

is they’re working with entrepreneurs to seed projects

and to get projects off the ground.

And then at some point

when those projects become large enough,

then they’ll issue tokens

and we’ll get a certain allocation of those tokens.

And so we’ve done that for, call it, I don’t know,

some number of projects that we think are valuable.

Then along the way,

they’ll have certain views on Bitcoin,

they’ll have certain views on Ethereum,

they’ll have certain views on Solana

and we’ll make capital allocation decisions.

They tend to have the ability to do whatever they want.

And then what I tend to do is just think about

when it gets above,

to me, I need to see the chance to make at least

in the rough justice around 500 to a billion dollars

and then I’ll get involved.

But otherwise they just kind of run the whole thing.

Let me ask you guys a question here.

When you look at the market caps of these projects,

it seems like things are changing.

Cardona or Cardona is number three now

and Tether still remains number five,

XRP still number six, but Solana-

I would encourage people to not look at it like that.

I think looking at it as a rank list betrays what it is.

So, you know, I’ll give you a simple example.

Let’s like compare the fate of two projects

or actually right now there’s a distributed form

of Discord that’s being built.

Discord the chat app, very popular amongst gamers.

In a completely distributed way

with an integrated crypto wallet.

Because if you look at Discord,

it’s really two cohorts of people.

There’s gaming and there’s crypto, right?

So-

Those are the two big ones, yeah.

That’s an example of a really interesting product

that has some real potential.

Then if you look at something like Deeso,

Deeso is a decentralized social programming framework.

Then if you look at something like Helium,

that’s completely about building a large distributed,

you know, connection of on-ramps to the internet.

So internet connectivity.

So those are three completely different ideas

with three completely different paths to success.

If to invest in those tokens,

you have to believe in three totally different

sets of things.

Yeah.

So to look at it on a rank list and just buy something

because it’s cheap is-

Yeah, no, no.

No, no, no.

I’m just going to be blunt, it’s stupid.

Don’t do that.

Well, no, no.

That wasn’t really my question.

My question was, you know,

we have an extraordinary number of the public

who’ve invested in Bitcoin and Ethereum

as number one and number two.

And those projects feel maybe stagnant

when compared to the dynamism of what I’ll call,

you know, the projects launched

in the last three or four years.

Because they’re the different, no, no.

But you’re talking about confusing.

Again, that’s what I mean.

Those are layer one protocols, right?

Meaning they are at the core substrate

of how all of crypto is going to work.

Then you have these other projects

that build on top of these things in different ways

or build around them.

So my point is, if you don’t have,

if you don’t want to take the time to understand

which layer twos you want to own

and which layer ones you want to own and why,

I think you’re much better off.

I understand your point.

My point is-

Buying an ETF or something else

because there are ways to own these things.

So for example-

David, Solana does not need Ethereum to exist.

So my point is, do we see a day when this, you know,

the past decade has been about Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Do we see a day when maybe people stop buying those

and start buying these new ones?

Anything’s possible,

but here’s the evolution in our thinking.

I mean, the first step was realizing,

okay, we need to own Bitcoin.

Why?

Because, you know, there’s now enough evidence

where what, like a decade,

we’re more than a decade into this,

nobody has been able to essentially counterfeit a Bitcoin.

It is, you know, new money.

It is better money.

So if you, so I’m not gonna convince people right now

of the argument for Bitcoin,

but if you believe in it,

that’s sort of the first step

is you realize you really need to have

one to 2% of your portfolio in Bitcoin

in the event that fiat money sort of becomes debased

and eventually you move to crypto.

Then you realize, well, wait a second,

Bitcoin is just one application of blockchains.

There’s a bunch of applications of blockchains.

So maybe we need to own not just sort of, you know,

digital money,

but we also need to own the underlying blockchain platform

and that leads you to Ethereum.

Then you realize that there’s a bunch of competitors

to Ethereum and it’s still very early days.

And one of those guys might ultimately

displace Ethereum as a blockchain platform.

Then you realize that there’s all these applications

on top of all these blockchains.

And so, you know,

the conclusion I come to after all of that

is I can’t figure all this out.

And well, maybe I could,

if I was willing to go back to school

and like make this a full-time job,

which I just don’t want to do.

I mean, I’m lazy and that’s why I focus on SaaS.

Like that’s what I know as an investor.

Yeah, like I’m not gonna reinvent myself.

It’s like you playing Hold’em versus PLO.

Right, right, right, exactly.

So, but this is why we partner with MultiCoin Capital.

So what I would just say is like

the idea that you as an individual investor

are gonna like, you know,

pick off the one cryptocurrency here or there to invest in.

I mean, that’s gonna be a lottery.

I would find a manager basically who is really good,

who has a track record, who understands this stuff.

Our approach is to hire very young,

extremely technical computer scientists and mathematicians

to basically do the work.

That’s working.

Yeah, and you know,

one of the things that I think these guys do

and the reason why it is very helpful

for them to be computer scientists

is these are all open-source projects.

So they go look at the repos.

Just go look at what-

You can actually see the changes being made.

And this is like,

do you realize there’s only 12 people

who are actively working on Solana in the-

But you need to look at all the code check-ins.

Seven of them work for Solana.

You need to look at all the code check-ins.

You need to look at the velocity of the code check-ins

so you can see like how many projects

are being created on these platforms.

The white papers are also really exceptional.

Like if you read these white papers,

they’re really incredibly thoughtful and well-written

and you can really understand what their goals are

and you can make some informed decisions there.

But again, if you’re not gonna be in the business

of being in this ecosystem,

because I think David’s right,

everything is moving so fast.

What’s successful today could be just a dog tomorrow

and vice versa.

That I think speculating in this market will,

not only will it be super volatile,

but more than likely you’re gonna lose all your money.

So I would encourage people to not speculate in crypto.

I would encourage you to figure out an elegant way

of having an abstracted bet

if to the extent you care about it.

And by the way, in the UK, for example,

there are ways where you can own

publicly traded mutual funds

that give you exposure to this.

It’s just simpler. Like ETFs.

Yes.

Yeah, but there are mutual funds of crypto.

Do the work, find these mutual funds,

just own those things and let somebody else do the hard work

because it’s too hard.

Some of the other investments we made

back in 2017, 2018 timeframe,

one was a company called Bitwise,

which was creating an ETF for crypto.

So it’s a monthly rebalanced portfolio

of I think the top 10 cryptocurrencies.

And you could buy it.

They finally got approved by the SEC

and you can buy it like with a ticker symbol

from your E-Trade account.

You can buy it in Robinhood or E-Trade.

Exactly.

So that was pretty incredible

to see the progress they’ve made.

And then the other big bet we made

was just institutional custody.

Back in 2017, we invested in BitGo.

Actually, Bill Lee helped found that company many years ago.

And then that became last year,

Galaxy announced a deal to acquire them

for I think 1.2 billion largest crypto acquisition to date.

The thesis there was just that

crypto would go more institutional.

And I think we’re starting to see that now

where endowments and so on are realizing

they need to have some portion,

maybe 1% or 2% of their portfolio in crypto.

And so-

It’s unrealistic.

Look, we have almost $3 trillion of market cap in crypto.

It’s unrealistic for folks to expect people

to be able to be living in Discord channels

and doing all of this work.

I think what that means is that the SEC

is going to be asked increasingly more often

to approve simpler on-ramps for this stuff.

And now in the last week, by the way,

we had a pretty important two things happen.

Both Jerome Powell and Gary Gensler basically said,

crypto is here to stay

and we’re not going to ban this stuff.

And so hopefully what it means

is that you get some ETFs passed in the United States.

Grayscale is one, there could be more.

And I think that stuff makes it much easier

for folks to own this stuff.

Well, clear regulation would be a great thing

for the industry, for people to buy into it

and removing some of the, let’s call them,

I don’t want to say bad actors,

but people who are maybe questionable like Tether.

I don’t know if you saw the Bloomberg story yesterday,

but a Bloomberg reporter basically found out that Tether,

he got the list of what Tether owns with their stable coin.

And it looks like they’re giving a lot of loans

to other crypto projects and own a lot of Chinese paper

in that they are basically making the float

on $69 billion sweeping it,

which then incentivizes them to take risky bets

because they get paid on them.

And it’s anything but a stable coin

if you think about it from that regard.

It’s, I don’t know the details on Tether.

I won’t speak to that, but I’ll say that any stable coin,

if it’s not 100% backed by dollars,

if that’s a currency that’s going in and out

or other hard currency, that’s not a stable coin.

A stable coin is supposed to be a service.

It’s not supposed to be a speculator’s currency.

It’s basically just supposed to be a mechanism

at the on-ramps and off-ramps of the crypto ecosystem,

you can convert your dollars into a temporary,

like a stable coin that will hold its value.

A poker chip.

A poker chip that you can use

to then buy Bitcoin or Ethereum or whatever.

Yeah, USDC, Jeremy Allaire’s-

Circle.

Competitor from Circle just said

that he would switch to 100%

to what you’re saying, cash, cash equivalents.

Guys, this has always been a money market fund.

It should be treated like a money market fund

and it should be regulated and managed like a money market.

Which was Tether’s original vision

and then they flipped the script

because I think they got greedy

and now they own, I think, 3% or 4% cash.

And because they want regulated.

By the way, it speaks to the role of regulation.

Like, you know, a lot of people have trust and faith

because they make some claim,

but there’s no regulator actually checking on their claims.

The only people that want regulation

are two ends of the spectrum.

So young and so disruptive

where they want Rails to operate legally

and so big and so over the top

that they want to basically entrench themselves

for the rest of their lives.

That’s it.

Everybody in the middle doesn’t really want regulation.

Well, what’s a way to create-

But if you’re a crypto company

or if you’re a big tech, you both want regulation.

Well, but there are some narrow cases.

Like again, you know, if a stable coin is going to say

that we are just a money market fund,

we’re 100% dollar reserve,

it is really nice to have a regulator,

somebody we trust to go in there

and put the stamp of approval on it

so we can trust it.

Or an SRO.

That is a valid role, I think, for a regulator.

In traditional financial markets,

you have these self-regulating bodies.

I think FINRA is a self-regulating body, right?

And so some of these self-regulating bodies

should be formed in the crypto community.

I don’t know if they’re doing this.

I’m so naive in this space,

but certainly would make sense to have an SRO form

that does self-policing effectively within the community

rather than try and bring in a government regulator.

Well, here’s the thing.

If you police yourself,

you can really define the execution

and the ramifications of that policing.

If you have 30, call it, competitors and cooperators

in the market space doing this together,

it can be a highly effective model

for creating a system of trust and reliability

and not having to, you know, bring in,

you know, call it outside incompetence

to overseeing the rules and rights.

Yeah, another area we need standards

is around the token cap tables for these projects, right?

So how much of the token cap table goes to the founders?

What are the rules around them selling?

What are those investing periods?

And what are the disclosures around them selling?

In public markets, we have 10b5.

So if you’re an insider who runs these companies,

you have to disclose when you’re selling.

There’s no similar rule for crypto.

I think there probably should be, right?

Like if you own the token and you run this project

as publicly traded and the public can buy it,

you should really probably have to disclose your sales.

And maybe, you know, it’s very strange

because they’re running foundations

and I had a crypto person on from a music crypto project.

And he said they had like three or 400 million

in this project in Panama.

I was like, who’s on the board of that?

And he’s like, I can’t say, why can’t you say?

And he said, security reasons.

I was like, well, anybody who’s on a public board

has to be public.

And of course they have, you know,

people who are on the board of GE or IBM or Amazon,

they have security issues.

Like they deal with their security issues.

That doesn’t mean they don’t disclose who they are.

He’s like, yeah, I’m not comfortable saying who they are.

And it’s like, okay, well they sold three or 400 million.

I was like, how do they give that money out?

I’m like, he’s like, I’m not sure I’m not on it.

I’m like, what?

Like there’s some organization in Panama that’s,

it was really weird.

And I think you’re right.

The one thing that I’ll say positively

about these crypto founders is that they will never allow

a single venture investor to clog up their cap table,

number one.

They do a great job of creating these large broad syndicates

of participation when they seed their projects.

And then, you know, a lot of it goes into treasury

where then they issue coins as needed.

And I think that that strategy actually

is very pro-employee and pro-ecosystem.

So, you know, when we see these projects,

all these companies tend to raise, you know,

three, four, 5 million bucks.

It all tends to be at like 30 million pre

and it all tends to be distributed.

So like, you know, it’s us Andreessen Sequoia

and it’s like, you know, we put in 200 grand each

or 400 grand each.

You know, that’s why you’re forced to then go

into the market if you believe in a project

and then spend hundreds of millions of dollars

to buy into it after the fact.

And I think that that’s very, very powerful.

It’s a really important dynamic that if it comes back

to a traditional venture, it could be really disruptive.

Why?

Well, could you imagine a SaaS founder that basically

all of a sudden says, all right, you know what?

I’m raising a $6 million Series A, you know,

Kraft can take 500K, Sequoia, you can have 500K,

you know, blah, blah, blah folks.

And then you raise 6 million bucks that way

and you never allow anybody to have more than call it,

you know, a few percent of a company.

So the fact that it’s like a mini IPO,

it’s like a private IPO on Sand Hill Road.

Yeah, and then your board construction looks

entirely different.

And then as a result, you know, founder protections

probably go way up.

Employee protections probably go way up.

It’s actually-

And governance goes way down.

No.

I actually think what will happen is you’re less likely

in a round like that to be okay with some dork,

Dingleberry joining your fucking board.

You’re going to actually point to some industry expert

and say, this person is joining my board.

She does XYZ job at such and such a startup.

And then the investors say, wow,

well, that’s a pretty great advocate for the business.

Go ahead and do that.

Another thing I learned about this whole token space

was when I talked to Anatoly from Solana,

when they sold their three or 400 million tokens

to fund the company,

because they consider them utility tokens, not shares,

they paid taxes on it.

So the IRS is getting massive amounts of tax revenue.

Well, think about it.

They’re selling the token.

It’s supposed to be for utility.

Well, therefore it’s a taxable event.

That actually was really smart.

That is showing, I think, some wisdom

because there’s a lot of founders

who want to have their cake and eat it too,

which is to say, they want to say

that these are utility tokens and they don’t pay tax.

And then when they later get traded,

they want to say that they’re not, you know,

they’re not securities.

But so when does the tax get paid?

I think it’s really smart to pay the tax up front

to establish that this is a corporate sale.

They’re basically paying the corporate tax, right?

Yes.

That is what is, because this is the problem is

if you wait until they’re traded publicly

and then say, no, no, no, no,

they’re utility tokens, not security tokens,

the government’s going to ask you,

well, why didn’t you pay corporate income tax

when you sold them, right?

So that is actually showing some perspicacity, I think.

Uh, could somebody look that word up for me?

Do you know that word?

Foresightedness, J Cal.

Okay, great.

Awesome.

It’s so great that you have the two producers

on either side of you right now

feeding you vocabulary words.

Well done.

So here’s, here’s, you know, another question with this.

If the majority of people sacks,

just put your legal hat on for a second.

If the majority of people who bought a token in a project,

we’ll call it the, you know, Acme crypto project,

they buy Acme coins.

If they’re buying them and they have absolutely no interest

in using them for the utility,

and they say, I bought these as a speculative device

and the founder says they’re utility tokens,

but let’s say 70% of the people who bought them

said, I didn’t buy them for that reason.

They just came out, right?

And said, I bought this to speculate on the price.

What should the government do?

Should they deem them a security

or should they deem them a utility token?

I think that’s a complicated question,

but I think that there should be an opportunity

for these cryptocurrencies to establish themselves

as utility tokens, because they are,

they do serve a purpose.

They are designed to be part of a system, right?

They’re not just objects of speculation.

And by the way, even if they were,

we don’t treat baseball cards as, you know,

as sort of a security.

So it wouldn’t necessarily make them a security

just because they’re speculated on.

They actually do serve a function

in a designed computer system.

So I think what’s important here

is that there’s a safe harbor

where these crypto companies know what the rules are.

And if they can basically meet the criteria,

such as by paying corporate income tax

when they sell the tokens and other things like that,

that they won’t later be deemed to be engaged

in an unlawful sale of securities.

I think the important thing is just that

entrepreneurs, founders know what the rules are

so they can abide by them and not be surprised.

And they don’t right now.

Well, so they don’t get surprised later.

They don’t get whammied, but with basically, you know,

because they are building something legitimate here.

You know?

Right.

But it would seem to the sniff test

if the people buying the tokens have no idea,

have never written a line of code, have no use for them.

I don’t see why that’s relevant.

I don’t see why that’s relevant.

Well, because they’re profiting off of them

as if they’re shares and unlike baseball cards,

which you can’t sell a thousand baseball cards for

and increasingly, you know, in a very instantaneous way,

you would have to put them in an auction.

You kind of can.

There’d be a lot of friction.

There’d be a lot of friction.

You can’t trade it. You could sell physical coins.

It’s certainly like, yeah.

Freeberg, what do you think?

If the majority of people buying a token

are doing it to speculate,

can the founder say it’s a utility token?

And then those people who are trading it

like either baseball cards, minted coins,

whatever analogy shares you want to use

are in it for the increase in the value,

should it be a security

and should they have to play by the rules we play at

in the traditional venture startup game?

I mean, the question is, what’s the utility?

So, I mean, if you can demonstrate some utility,

then maybe that’s the,

and this will probably be litigated at some point, right?

I’m sure there’ll be enough capital sloshing around here

that someone will say, you know what, we believe strong.

I mean, we’re seeing this happen with Ripple already,

but someone will litigate this

and we’ll get some clear definition

on what statutes are going to be referenced

and what those statutes might say

with respect to how this ties to the definition of utility.

And then that’ll become hopefully a standard

that people can kind of look to to guide them in the future.

But it’s definitely the Wild West right now.

And everyone’s going to try it.

The reason I bring it up

is because Gensler was sort of floating this argument.

Chamath, what do you think?

I think that you can’t wipe $3 trillion of value

out of the world.

And so-

So pragmatically hard to do, got it.

So it’s here to stay.

And it’s too institutionalized now.

So, you know, there’s just way too many

organized pools of capital that are now speculating

inside of this entire ecosystem.

You know, I saw a tweet today,

there’s a firm I think like called Jump Trading

or something.

High-speed frequency trading organization.

And they tweeted out some pictures where, you know,

they hired a bunch of folks to start at Jump

and they did a coding bootcamp on Solana.

That was their onboarding as an example.

So when you have people in high finance, you know,

really vested in this thing

and you have $3 trillion of value

that’ll go to 6 trillion and then go to 10 trillion,

this can’t go away.

So that’s why I think Powell and Gensler

had to say some version of that on the record,

which is, you know, we’re not gonna ban this stuff

because they know it’s not possible.

So I think David’s right.

You have to create some rules,

make folks and let folks pay their taxes.

You know, I remember, for example,

like I did this Bitcoin transaction in 2014 or something.

I bought some land, I used BitPay,

I transferred some Bitcoin, bought the land, blah, blah, blah.

I was like, you know, whatever.

But then-

Whatever?

I mean, I left, I mean,

I owned a lot at the time, so it wasn’t that big of a deal.

But my point is, finding a way for me to pay my taxes

was a huge deal, I remember.

And, you know, we filed the tax return

and we tried to make sure that we paid our taxes.

These are very complicated.

Even if you wanna be conformant to the government,

it’s impossible right now.

So they just need to create some rules

where folks can say, here’s what I own,

here’s what it’s worth, tell me how much I owe you,

and we’re all willing to pay,

or not, maybe we’re all not, I am.

Because I just think it’s like,

make sure that we can trade around it,

hedge it, structure it,

do the things that we would normally do

with any other risk assets.

Right now, that’s very hard.

And when you own lots of this stuff,

it sits in your balance sheet

and you just take these enormous swings

and you’re just like, God,

you can’t do anything around this stuff.

And that’s not a viable financial market.

That doesn’t-

Yeah.

To be specific about what Gensler said,

I just looked it up here.

You know, he compared utility tokens

with, you know, laundromat tokens

or tickets to the opera.

And he said, entrepreneurs are choosing

to perceive their tokens as utility

to sidestep regulation.

And that, here’s the quote,

they are highly speculative investment tokens

for people who are trying to save

or speculate for their future.

And that’s why I think it’s appropriate

to bring them inside the investor protection perimeter.

I agree with him.

I also agree with you, Chamath,

that this is a can of worms

that I don’t know how you put the genie back in the bottle.

No, but he’s partially right.

I mean, he is partially right on some tokens,

but he’s not completely accurate on some other tokens.

I think it’s on a case-by-case basis and it depends.

Listen, I think anybody who is buying these tokens right now

knows that they’re engaged in financial speculation.

This idea that people in middle America

are gonna blow their retirement savings on crypto,

I just don’t really buy it.

No, but if they know, if they’re doing speculation,

then it should be a security.

No, no, no, David, I think you’re totally wrong.

I totally buy it.

Look at the quarterly returns,

the filings of earnings from companies like Robinhood

and how much, and Square,

and how much money they make from crypto

and look at their audience.

That’s totally not true.

But don’t you think that audience skews really young

and they’re getting their COVID stimulus check

and they’re yellowing it into meme stocks or crypto?

What does that have to do with-

Well, because you’re making it sound

like they’re gonna blow their retirement savings.

Okay, well, if you’re talking about a 25-year-old

who’s got $5,000 of retirement savings, maybe,

but they still got 40 years of work ahead of them.

Hold on a second.

Wait, no, they don’t.

This is gonna be the least hardworking generation

of our lifetime.

Why?

No, no, no, not because they’re not hardworking.

Why?

There’s $70 trillion that boomers have

that they are about to pass down to these folks

on average between two and three trillion a year

for the next 30 years.

Also, they know how to do gig work.

Like, they’re so smart, this generation.

They know how to do projects for five grand

and float themselves.

You’re gonna take one entire turn of the world’s GDP

and give it to 100 million people in America

over the next 20 to 30 years.

That is what is actually going to happen.

So-

Yeah.

Look, I think-

Of course they’re gonna keep YOLOing this stuff.

Yeah, look, I think we’re getting off

on like a little bit of a tangent here.

A good one.

My point is not that there shouldn’t be

investor protections, but rather that I think we also

need to balance another important objective,

which is to create a hospitable environment for innovation.

And the fact of the matter is that you’ve got

a lot of brilliant young entrepreneurs,

computer scientists building this financial infrastructure

of the future with crypto.

It’s not just speculation.

There is a lot of code being written.

It has functionality.

There’s a purpose to it.

We don’t necessarily want to interfere with that

to the point where we break it.

Well, every startup has to do their securities though,

David.

All the other startups that are not in crypto

are playing by the rules.

So it’s crypto, people get a pass.

It’s unfair.

I agree with J-Kel.

People make this claim and I just think it’s so specious.

Do you think that you would have made

a single professional decision in your life

based on tax rate?

Have you ever made a single like,

I’m going to start this company.

I’m going to make this product.

You know, I’m going to change this job.

I just think that most people-

No, I’m not talking about paying taxes.

I think it was smart for, for example,

Solana to pay corporate taxes on their token sale.

I think everyone should pay their taxes.

That’s not what we’re talking about here.

And I’m not saying that Gensler

shouldn’t prescribe regulations.

I think that part of the purpose of those regulations

should be to give entrepreneurs predictability

to be able to give them a safe harbor

so they can build what they want to build.

Let me make one final point.

I’m just saying from my perspective,

I just think that if you have clear, sensible taxation,

that’s 90% of what this industry needs.

And I don’t think it will change anybody’s real motivation

to work inside this ecosystem.

I agree with that.

Just like entrepreneurship doesn’t change

when capital rates, capital gains rates-

Look, I’ve paid taxes at, you know,

on all my crypto sales,

like it was any other investments since the beginning.

That’s not the issue.

The issue is when you’re a company and you’re raising money,

should you be allowed to not follow securities law

because you say it’s a token?

Friedberg, when you look at this,

an NFT company came out this past week

that was selling shadow shares in startups.

And anyone in the world could buy a shadow share

in a private company like Stripe, et cetera,

in this fantasy football league.

They wound up shutting it down or changing it

because they didn’t want to trade

on other people’s intellectual property.

They were concerned about that.

But just looking at it, the public in America,

96% of them who are not accredited

cannot buy shares of Stripe in the secondary market,

but you can buy NFTs in it and speculate on the NFTs,

which are accelerating from, you know,

$1,000 to $500,000 in these different clubs.

How is it fair that crypto companies

get to not obey basic securities laws?

Friedberg?

Well, it’s not a security, there’s no underlying asset.

It’s a collectible.

An NFT is clearly a collectible, J.Cow.

Okay, and when you produce 10,000 of them

and have a marketplace for people to sell them

and they’re appreciating,

I mean, I do agree it’s something different.

Sounds like art to me.

Yeah, you could go draw a picture of Stripe

and put it on a piece of paper and go down to downtown

wherever and stand in front of the burrito shop

and try and sell it to people.

It’s qualitatively different than a security,

but they’re acting as securities

in relation to the fundraising of these projects.

So I think that’s the challenge.

Not everything is a security.

Yeah, there’s no secured interest.

You don’t have any secured interest.

It’s literally just like an image, a figure.

I was just offered a Giacometti sculpture,

but I turned it down.

How much, 60 million?

I’m not gonna comment on the price.

I have to say no.

Was Stephen Cohen selling it?

Not commenting on the seller.

I bet Stephen Cohen was selling it.

That was the record deal.

Stephen Cohen bought that Giacometti sculpture

a few years ago.

It’s like the highest price ever paid at auction

for a piece of art in the US.

Can I just tell you my problem with it?

I took the price and I divided it

by the height in centimeters, and it just tilted me.

Is price per square inch a metric in art?

It is in my head.

In 2015, Stephen Cohen paid $141 million

for the Giacometti sculpture.

L’homme aux deux, pretty incredible.

And I think you’re right.

It’s about 12 inches tall or something.

I just wanna let you know that that sculpture

looks like it was done by a 12 year old.

Oh my God, stop.

Oh, J. Cal, J. Cal, you’re getting it.

God, stop.

Yeah, J. Cal.

This is the billionaire equivalent

of crypto and NFTs, right?

Totally, totally.

I don’t know what scam this guy’s running,

but that looks like-

I don’t know how anyone can raise their hand

and say, I have an independent objective assessment

of the value of anything in the world.

And you can look at it from high to low,

and this is all effectively a subjective business.

This sculpture looks like it was a beautiful sculpture

that was in a giant fire

and that somebody pulled out of the ashes.

It’s a beautiful piece.

If you wanna read a little bit of art history,

yeah, you can understand a little bit

about Giacometti’s work,

but it’s a 70 inch piece, not 12 inches, sorry.

And yeah, his work is all about kind of like,

how do you capture the essence of the form?

Anyway, this is a super ridiculous tangent.

It looks like somebody made something out of mud

and put it into a clay oven.

I have a very funny Stevie Cohen story.

So this was like 10 years ago at Art Basel in Miami.

And the day before the art fair opens,

it’s called the Furnissage.

And so, it’s like a day where you can go

and see the stuff the day in advance

and you can kind of buy stuff or whatever.

And it’s very funny.

It’s kind of like when Walmart does like a Black Friday

thing, like everybody lines up

and then they open the doors and we all run in.

And I was standing side by side.

We were right at the front of the line.

And I noticed that he had these,

and this was my first time there.

He had New Balance running shoes on.

And I thought, what is he doing?

But then when the doors went open,

they just took off and started running.

And I was walking wearing normal loafers.

And then I realized I should have been wearing running shoes.

You don’t own normal loafers.

You were wearing Italian loafers.

I miss that on everything.

I like the balloon dog guy.

It’s like the running of the bulls.

I miss that.

It was, it was the running of the bulls.

I miss that on everything.

Running of the billionaires.

I got to the things after, and I was like,

oh, sorry, I sold it to Stevie Cohen.

I sold it to Stevie Cohen.

Jesus Christ.

I had blisters on my feet.

It was brutal.

Do you guys know we haven’t even started our agenda?

No.

Episode 50 of our great show.

Episode 50’s a dream.

Who’s the moderator?

Fucking moderating this.

Three, two, all right,

put whistleblower earrings to Kurt, yada, yada.

Hey, everybody, everybody.

Welcome to the All In podcast.

Jesus Christ.

All right, listen.

Welcome to the All In podcast.

Let’s start our show.

I’m sure everybody by now has seen Frances Haugen

on 60 Minutes and testifying.

She seemed incredibly credible, well-spoken,

and had very common sense,

non-extreme views about what should be happen,

what should happen with the research

that Facebook has been funding.

That shows, like other media forms,

Instagram and Facebook have a really terrible effect

on young people, specifically young girls

and body dysmorphia, which seems to be the one thing

that is landing pretty well.

Her suggestions were not to break up Facebook.

Hers was to have a regulatory body

and to do soft interventions.

If you don’t know soft interventions.

Her suggestions were worse than breaking up Facebook.

Well, soft interventions, let’s get to that,

include things like, hey,

in order to retweet the story on Twitter,

you probably should read it first.

She thinks she wants to reform,

or she’s an advocate for reforming Section 230

in relation, I think, to the algorithms.

And the idea here would be that the algorithms

are making an actual editorial decision,

which is something that I remember

in the YouTube early days, they said,

we will not feature your videos that you’re making,

but we will have the algorithm pick them

because that keeps our safe harbor.

Zuckerberg came back and wrote a spirited defense,

basically saying, why would we do this research

if we didn’t care?

The people at this company care a ton.

Sachs and the entire Peter Thiel cobble

of, you know, acolytes and friends

are coming on strong as pro-Facebook.

I’ll have him talk about that.

He thinks it’s Facebook, it’s laughable

that people are addicted to Facebook, yada, yada.

So who wants to go first, you, Chamath or Sachs?

Well, look, let me say a couple of things.

I think that, I think Zuck’s,

the title of Zuck’s internal company post

could have been titled, nah-ah,

which basically is his way of saying,

this is ridiculous and I don’t believe it.

The thing that she asked for in substance

is a little different than what the DOJ

did with Microsoft in 2000,

but in form is actually quite similar,

which basically is like gumming up

how the internal product development

would work inside the company.

And, you know, the most damaging thing you already saw,

which is that they had a bunch of planned product releases

and then they put them on ice.

And I think this is really where unfortunately

the most damage gets done

because engineers won’t really tolerate that

for some amount of time, right?

They’ll put up with it initially,

but you know, you’ve had, I don’t know,

I think like a 20% reduction in stock price.

So you had, you know,

you lost $200 billion of market cap.

There’s probably going to be more turbulence in the company.

You can sustain and get through all of it

as long as the engineers hold the line.

But if you basically slow down

and put a pin in their ability to generate code

and to put out features, on the margins enough people

I think will get frustrated and leave.

And I think the way that she, you know,

what she is asking for was tantamount to that.

And I think that’s the really destructive part

of what could go on here.

So they need to get this pin down quickly,

get in front of regulators, get some laws passed,

whether it’s section 230 or whatever,

that’s the path to salvation for Facebook.

Saks, what do you think?

I see you’re basically saying this is like ridiculous

and silly on Twitter.

Mike Salon is saying that,

obviously Peter Thiel is on the board of Facebook

and a major influence.

You’re going to have to give me time to unpack this,

Jake, how I’m not getting hysterical

because there’s a lot to go over here.

No hysterical, I’m literally throwing it to you

in a non-hysterical way.

You think that this is, there’s nothing to this

and you think it’s ridiculous.

Let’s understand what this really was, okay?

You have this so-called whistleblower

who is working with the staff

of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

giving documents to the Wall Street Journal

and then appears on 60 Minutes in this great unveiling.

36 hours later, she’s testifying on Capitol Hill.

That does not happen.

The Senate committees do not operate that fast.

This was coordinated.

She’s got a well-known Democratic operative

named Bill Burton working for her.

She’s got a team of lawyers.

She’s got a PR team.

This whole thing- Coordinated by who?

This is a coordinated hit, okay, by anti-Facebook forces,

starting with the Senate Judiciary Committee

who want to regulate- Who?

She’s working with the staff, Jake.

Hold on, Jason, Jason, stop.

You’re already interrupting.

No, I’m asking you who.

You said she’s working with somebody.

I want to know who it is.

Just let him make this argument and then just stop.

I want to hear what he has to say.

Okay, what is the purpose of this testimony?

First of all, we can go over the details of what she said.

I don’t think there was anything new here.

This was all the same arguments we’ve been hearing

from these same sort of forces

who want to regulate Facebook,

whether it’s the senators on the committee

who’ve hauled up Zuckerberg no fewer than four times

to lecture him about the need for more censorship,

or it’s these forces of the media

who basically want Facebook.

It’s all about having more censorship.

But in any event, there was nothing really new there.

What this really was was corroboration

and of the same talking points

we’ve been hearing for years.

And what it’s all leading up to

is there’s a very important part of her testimony,

which is, this is really the crux of it,

is that she proposed, and what Blumenthal wants,

he’s the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

is a dedicated oversight body.

This is in this clip, okay?

With a power to oversee social media platforms.

So what we have here is the government

is now gonna have a new agency.

They’re saying, like the FTC.

Then she said, a regulatory home

where somebody like me could do a tour of duty

after working at a place like this.

And Haugen said, right now,

the only people in the world

who are trained to analyze these experiments

to understand what’s happening inside of Facebook

are people who grew up inside of Facebook

or Pinterest or another social media company.

Basically, people with her experience.

I mean, I have to admire the chutzpah.

I mean, she’s basically proposing

that she be made Zuckerberg’s boss, okay?

That a new oversight board be created by the government,

which she would be appointed to,

which she presumably would run.

And this board is now gonna prescribe regulations and rules

for social networks

in terms of how their newsfeed is gonna run.

That is what was proposed on Capitol Hill.

That is what this operation is all about.

So it’s about her getting a job

and being lording over Facebook is your claim?

No, I think the purpose of all of this

is to create new regulatory oversight of social networks.

I simply would note that she has proposed herself

as somebody who would be on this board,

which is pretty amazing.

But what this is really about is that new oversight power.

And is that a Republican or a Democrat?

Are you insinuating it’s Democrats

who want to regulate this

or all politicians want to regulate this

because they’re scared of Facebook having too much power,

which I think we all agree Facebook has too much power

in the public square.

You’ve had the leaders on the Senate Judiciary Committee

now for months calling up Zuckerberg and Dorsey

and other social media leaders

and basically lecturing them on the need to censor more,

to take down more material.

That is their objective.

This is not a conspiracy theory on my part.

This is expressly what they’ve said, okay?

Now, until now-

Is it left or right or both?

Let me come to that.

I know Republicans are a little bit confused on this issue,

but let me get to that.

So what you’ve heard until now

is attacks on the supply side of the platform.

So what they’ve advocated is de-platforming people

with heterodox views, dissenting voices,

and they have been de-platformed in large numbers.

Obviously it started even before Trump,

but certainly the sitting president

of the United States was de-platformed.

YouTube just took down a million COVID videos

because they disagree with the official position on COVID.

So until now,

the censorship has been on the supply side of the platform.

What they’re advocating for now

is censorship on the demand side of the platform,

which is we’re going to rewrite these newsfeed rules, okay?

We’re going to rewrite them

because we can’t give people what they want.

They’re making these algorithms sound

like they’re these incredibly evil, sinister things.

All the algorithms do at the end of the day

is give the user more of what they’re looking for, okay?

Well, hold on a second.

That is not good enough for these politicians.

They want to rewrite those rules.

That’s not actually what they said.

They want to rewrite these rules

to determine what people see.

No, no, what they said about the algorithms

was that the algorithm had a multiplier on it

and that this multiplier of people resharing it,

re-engaging the content would lead people,

and this was statistically proven in Facebook’s own research

that things that were either misinformation

or that were supercharged, you know, polarizing issues,

they would rise quicker,

which then gave people not what they wanted in their feed.

They gave people what would increase the length of a stay

on Facebook or on YouTube or on Twitter for that matter.

And they think the antidote for this

is to maybe not allow things in the algorithm to go viral

because what you’re doing is saying

things that are either misinformation or polarizing

or will make things go to the top of the list

and maybe we don’t want that as a society.

Let me intervene with a point of view on this

because I think you’re headed down a path that,

to me, I don’t think actually speaks

to what’s really going on.

It sounds like there’s some sinister architecture here

that’s driving this outcome.

If you ask someone-

I never said that, yeah.

Well, I mean, it’s implied because it’s like,

oh, well, they’re multiplying sinister stuff.

What makes it-

No, no, I’m saying they just care about

length of stay on the site.

My belief is they just want it to grow.

They care about revenue.

Yes, that’s my, exactly my point, Shamar.

They care about that.

They care about what consumers want to consume

and consumers demand what they want to consume.

Think about media in the old days, right?

We used to have books that an author

would put out every year.

And so the author would get feedback on the book

and so it would be one year on that feedback cycle.

Then magazines would come out.

Magazines would come out every month.

And so every month, the magazine would get feedback

on what sales were and they would make decisions,

editorial decisions, and they would iterate.

TV shows came out every week.

Newspapers came out every day.

Cable TV came out every hour

and they could adjust their content accordingly.

In the internet age,

the media is getting a much more kind of

instantaneous feedback cycle.

And the, call it publisher or editor or curator

of that media ultimately ends up putting

in front of the consumer more and more of what they want

as a function of what they’re choosing to watch.

And what we’re calling kind of these algorithms,

quote unquote, are really just the same thing

that editors and publishers and others have done

in the past, which is looking at what the consumer votes

by what they choose, making decisions to put more

of the things that they want in front of them.

The consumer consumes more of that.

And here’s what’s messed up.

We’re getting a very ugly look in the mirror

and what humanity and what citizens

and what individuals actually want to consume

and choose to consume and get turned on by.

And that is what’s making this all so ugly.

And when we see that, we don’t like to accept the fact

that maybe that is just what humans are attracted to

and what humans want to consume at scale.

And we end up wanting to blame someone.

And I could argue, and I think others could argue

that these algorithms that are effectively

just recursive optimization functions,

they’re recursively trying to figure out

what do people want to consume

and then giving them more of what they want.

You keep saying what?

Or simply solving for those very specific needs

and use cases.

And I don’t think that those algorithms are necessary.

Go ahead, Chamath.

Why is it not want?

I’m interested in that, unpacking it.

No, everything Freeberg says is absolutely right,

but it’s not the word want.

It’s not what they want.

It’s what they will react to the most.

And sometimes what they react to the most is-

Subconsciously want.

I don’t know, but my point is that there’s a,

I guess I don’t use Facebook,

but they went from thumbs up and thumbs down

when I was there to like this nuance,

like there’s likes, there’s tears,

there’s angry- Reshares.

But there’s also analytics data on engagement, right?

Like on how long someone’s watching a video or-

What I saw in there was that there was an amplification

of things that were more extreme emotional reactions.

Right.

Now, and the point is that

I think everything you said is absolutely right.

The algorithms are amplifying.

I think all I would say is I would restate

what you’re saying is these algorithms tend to amplify

the things that are the most extreme and elicit a reaction.

Yeah.

Those reactions aren’t necessarily

the things that you want.

Those are the things that you will react to the most.

And by the way- That’s what the algorithm

wants to serve you.

That’s why you see that the top 10 things

that are reshared the most often

tends to be very extreme, right?

Fundamental emotional responses are typically associated

with things that I think we call hedonism.

And the things that you can ignore your emotional responses

and take another course of action,

we typically call altruism or what have you.

This is a kind of a common reason

why people would want to watch a comedy

or watch a horror film

because there’s some emotional response.

It’s not a universal response.

And people aren’t rushing to the theater

to watch documentaries.

They’re not rushing to the movie theater to be like,

oh, I want to be informed and educated

on something that’s factual and interesting.

They want to go and have emotional experiences.

And that’s how humans are biologically wired.

And the same is happening in these short forms of media,

these little tweets or these posts on Facebook.

David, you do understand that they won’t show murders

and porn on Facebook.

So they’re making an editorial decision to say,

hey, we’re not going to-

They will every night on the local news.

If it bleeds, it leads.

How long has that been the motto in media?

So I’m listening- 100%.

I’m listening to Hagen on 60 Minutes.

I’m hearing her describe a corporate profit-making machine

that tries to get more reach, more ratings

by fueling polarization and division.

And I’m thinking, is she talking about cable news?

That’s what she’s talking about, isn’t she?

Is she talking about the New York Times?

Is she talking about the traditional media?

Because every single thing she said

about how social media fuels polarization and division

applies to the media.

And yet those same voices in the traditional media

are the first ones howling about Facebook

and calling for its regulation.

It is completely hypocritical

because the real purpose here

is not to reduce divisiveness or polarization

in our society.

The regulations on Facebook will not do that.

It is to seize control and influence

over the machinery of social networking.

Why?

Because the newsfeed now controls the flow

of information in our society.

Don’t you think the damage has been done though?

Meaning in the sense that if you cripple

Facebook’s product velocity

and you shrink the surface area

of the areas in which they can operate,

isn’t that more damaging than any regulation?

No, people will just stop using it

and then they will find another place

to get that same emotional behavior.

I’ve already stopped using Facebook, okay?

I don’t find it compelling at all

and I’m not really on Instagram either.

I do find Twitter rather compelling

and I’m probably more addicted to that than other things.

Yeah, exactly.

Addicted, off the rails.

Probably not very good for me, okay?

But here’s the thing.

I think all of us on this show right now,

none of us find Facebook particularly addictive

in our own behavior, okay?

I think we understand in our own behavior

that Facebook is sort of like a mildly diverting amusement

that occasionally yields information.

Sometimes it’s useful, okay?

We understand that it’s sort of like a newsfeed

with a lot of noise, okay?

In our own usage.

But somehow we’ve bought into this larger narrative

that in everybody else’s usage

that somehow this is a brainwashing machine

that is pumping people full of disinformation

and warping their thinking.

In other words, there’s a sharp dichotomy

between how we perceive our own usage

and other people’s usage.

And what I would submit is our own usage

is what we know and what we know to be true.

And what we believe about other people’s usage

is simply a narrative that’s been fed to us

over and over again by the traditional media

who hate Facebook because it’s disremediating them.

That is what’s really going on here.

You may be right.

I’m saying something different,

which is getting apart from all of that stuff,

what’s happening practically on the ground right now

that is a company who has to now slow way down.

And what I’m saying is that’s not dissimilar

to what Microsoft had to do,

which was there was this 10 year period at Microsoft

where they really couldn’t innovate.

And that’s really how the government

solved the Microsoft problem.

Yeah, they made them less aggressive, right?

They gummed up the internal machinery

so that Microsoft couldn’t really be there

for the next few major.

So for example, we just spent 40 minutes

talking about crypto.

What do you think the chances are

that Facebook now can land

a really compelling crypto project?

Right, they got totally shut down with Libra, right?

I mean, they went after it

and the regulators stepped in.

It’s too bold for them to launch that after what happened.

It’s zero.

With their behavior in other arenas.

I think that like Microsoft back in the late 90s,

I think there are real and legitimate concerns

about the power of these big tech companies

about how big and powerful they’ve become

about their ability to crush competitors.

I think those are all legitimate.

And in a weird way,

if this government scrutiny slows those companies down,

that’s not an altogether bad thing.

But I am concerned about that.

I’d say separately,

just because these companies do deserve

to be scrutinized more.

I do think that we have to see

that the people who are engaged

in this really coordinated hit campaign against Facebook,

they have another agenda.

And that is to control the flow of information online.

It is to control online discourse.

It’s already been happening over the past year

with censorship on the supply side of the newsfeed.

And now they’re trying to control the demand side.

I think we have to be extremely wary about this.

Well, David, you’ve been on the other side of this

because on previous podcasts,

you’ve talked about Facebook being too influential,

having too many users.

And now you’re saying,

well, these tiny little news networks

that get a couple of low millions.

He has an issue, Jason,

with the way in which they’re going after Facebook.

Okay, I get that.

He thinks it’s a coordinated hit, fine.

But you also have had an issue

with Facebook having too much power

to take somebody off the platform

or to promote certain ideas.

So which is it?

It seems like you’re a little bit-

Both can be true.

No, it’s perfectly consistent.

I’ve expressed concerns about the way

in which Facebook is deplatforming people.

It’s summarily silencing them and ghosting them.

It’s engaged in censorship.

I’ve expressed concern about that.

But we should understand

that the people on the Senate Judiciary Committee

who hauled up, who had this hearing,

who featured and spotlighted Hagen

and turned her into this great hero,

their agenda is even more censorship.

They are complaining about the fact

that Facebook is not censoring enough.

And that is what their real agenda is.

I do think it should have been disclosed

that Hagen does stand to gain financially

from whatever happens here.

I don’t know that that’s been confirmed

that there is a whistleblower reward here.

So we’ll have to wait and see about that.

I haven’t heard-

There’s no reward until there’s a fine.

But Chamath is right that she qualifies,

if she’s a whistleblower,

she qualifies for, what, a 30% portion

or some very large percentage of any fines?

What would the fine be here, though?

What would the fine be?

How would that be framed, Chamath?

This whole thing is just getting started.

There are gonna be government actions

and there will be settlements

from those government actions.

And Facebook, as you all know,

will pay any kind of fine to put this behind them.

Even billions of dollars.

You’re the one that said, Jason,

they spent $5 billion just so that

they wouldn’t subpoena Zuck and Sherrill, right?

That’s what you said last week?

We talked about that last week, yeah.

So, I mean, I think there’s a fine coming.

Let’s be honest.

I do not think Lena Khan or Gary Gensler

or any of these other folks

are going to be in the business

of making a quick decision,

nor the DOJ, nor any of these other folks.

They’re gonna wanna really take their time

to figure this out.

But what I’m saying is,

it’s not the ultimate result of it.

Because, again, I go back to like,

if you look at what happened in 2000 in Microsoft,

the substance of what Microsoft had to agree to

was ultimately not as bad

as the way in which it was implemented.

Which is that, my understanding was like,

Microsoft had to submit feature reviews

to lawyers at the DOJ,

who would then approve updates and upgrades

to their code base for things like Windows.

That’s what caused them to miss an entire wave of compute.

And so this is the point,

which is, I think, practically speaking,

the beginning of what Microsoft went through,

Facebook is gonna have to navigate.

And so the faster they can try

to say, all right, folks, you’re right, you caught us.

Let us tell us what to do.

Maybe actually the better path,

because it allows them to get past it.

Because the longer this period of like gray stretches out,

I think is actually the worst outcome.

Well, let’s go through what we each think

would be a possible solution here

to allowing free speech to occur on Facebook,

but maybe not having the things that,

fake news, misinformation,

maybe lowering down the rhetoric

and the charge nature of the algorithm.

Freeberg, do you have any common sense solution here

that might address both sides of the issue,

freedom of speech,

and maybe things being amplified

to 100 million people that are fake

and just simply not true?

We’ve talked a lot about this notion

of like decentralized social networks.

I mean, we haven’t talked a lot.

We’ve talked a little bit about it,

but if you end up putting a regulatory hammer down

on Facebook and Twitter and telling them what consumers,

and remember, these guys aren’t media creators.

They’re platforms effectively

for search discovery and access.

So you, as an individual,

can discover third-party content on their platform.

If they start putting the regulatory hammer down

on these quote-unquote platforms,

telling them what they can and cannot make available

to their users,

there will be another platform that will emerge.

And that platform may end up being

in this kind of decentralized model.

And in that decentralized model,

you’re not gonna have the same degree

of regulatory oversight.

And that system will end up solving the same use case.

Eventually, consumers will get what they want,

which is what Chamath calls kind of this emotional response,

eliciting this emotional reaction.

They will consume it until they achieve

one of their kind of seven deadly sins objective,

which is what’s driving the emotion,

underscoring their decisions on what to watch,

what to consume.

And there will be an alternative.

So go ahead and play whack-a-mole.

You’ll play whack-a-mole for a few years,

maybe a few decades.

But at the end of the day,

digital technology in a connected world

will drive consumers to exactly

where they will naturally find themselves,

which is consuming ever more of the things

that create this emotional response in them.

The consequences are unfortunate.

You know, I don’t know what the right solution is.

You know, we’ve, to some degree,

put a regulatory hammer down on things like smoking

and in some places, things like sugar,

things that have kind of an obvious effect

on our physical health.

These other things that we’re seeing now

are having an effect on our mental health.

And I think that there may be kind of an emerging

regulatory regime around mental health standards

and how much of things can be consumed.

And I think what we’re seeing is the leading indicator

of this is what’s gone on in China.

Because China is the nation that I would say

is probably at the forefront of research

and understanding of what the consequences are

of consuming more and more of media and content

that causes an emotional response to you

and what happens down the road,

isolation, loneliness, suicide rates go up,

unhappiness, et cetera.

It certainly is the consequence,

but it’s not a function of any individual company’s

misconveyance of content to consumers.

It’s just a function of where these systems end up going

because of the way humans are biologically wired.

And so I guess my first concern is maybe we end up

in a decentralized system that ends up replacing

all of these tools and this just doesn’t end,

or you end up having-

It could be worse.

And it could be worse,

or you end up having these kind of regulatory regimes

emerge-

No, that would be better.

A decentralized solution is actually better in one,

no, it’s better in one key way,

which is that it’s fundamentally harder

to create the exact same network effect and density

that you can have with one monolithic closed system.

So you’re much more likely to actually

have a very fragmented ecosystem

of hundreds of different solutions,

depending on what of the sins you want to feed

or what of the feelings you want to feel at any one time.

I think it’s a big assumption

that it would be a fragmented network.

If you did replicate Facebook on a decentralized platform

and then some piece of misinformation came out

and it trended all the way to number one,

like say the January 6th insurrection-

No, no, no.

People brought guns to that.

There’s not one network.

There’s not one network.

I understand that, but if one-

Hold on, hold on.

Let me finish my point.

If one network became so large

and there was nobody who could turn off something,

what if people said,

hey, there’s a riot going on at the Capitol

and more people showed up with more guns, right?

You have nobody to sit there and say,

hey, don’t go to the Capitol,

turn those trending posts off.

Go ahead, Sax.

Okay.

Let’s talk about this problem of misinformation.

Okay.

I think there’s an old Mark Twain quote saying

that a lie can travel around the world faster

than the truth can put on its shoes.

Okay. Correct.

There is a problem of falsehoods spreading online.

I agree with you there.

The question is what you do about it.

And the problem we have right now

is that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

There is no truth API.

And so at the end of the day,

it’s the people in power who get to decide

what is true and what is false

if you give them the power to censor misinformation.

Example, we just saw, we talked about in this program,

the Rolling Stone Ivermectin hoax,

provably false story.

And yet Rachel Maddow still had it up on her posts.

She was not sanctioned by MSNBC.

Twitter never told her to take it down

and she was not fact-checked.

However, the Hunter Biden laptop scandal or story,

which came out in the New York Post

a couple weeks before the election,

turned out to be a provably true story.

And yet it was taken down by Facebook and Twitter.

At the end of the day, this term of misinformation

is just another vector for partisan attack

and it will be used by whoever we give the power to

to decide what misinformation is.

So what is the answer then

to this point of falsehood spreading online?

Well, at the end of the day,

the answer to bad speech is more speech.

You try to create a free marketplace of ideas

to let the good speech

ultimately drive out the bad speech

or prove that it’s wrong.

That’s the best you can do.

That’s the best you can do in a free society.

Yes, but this is the first time a free society

has had social networks

that can reach a billion people instantly in an hour.

So I think there’s one differentiator there

that we must think of.

If somebody defames you on a social network,

they are absolutely liable.

I mean, you can sue them, okay?

But I think, and you should.

And I think we can-

We’ve talked about cancel culture.

People are destroyed

before they even get their day in court.

I think that’s being destroyed for something different.

I think if somebody-

But it’s because it trends.

If it couldn’t trend to so many people,

it wouldn’t lead to the cancellation

and destruction of somebody’s life.

You’ve talked about that many times yourself.

If somebody libels you, I think they should be,

you should be able to sue them.

And I think we could actually,

we could have a libel regime more like the UK,

where it’s easier to prove these cases in court

and people are much more careful

about defaming other people.

I would be very much in favor of that, okay?

Because defamation is not free speech.

But the question really is about,

really, we’re talking about non-defamatory statements

that somebody in a position of power

has decided is not true.

Many of these statements are subjective.

Dave Portnoy got labeled for his subjective opinion

about AOC’s dress.

Why did that happen?

And why is that kind of labeling only used

to protect one side of the political spectrum?

So, I mean, that’s what’s really going on here.

Let’s end with this.

Has anybody watched Chappelle’s The Closer?

I did.

Incredible.

I watched it.

Pretty incredible.

I mean, fearless.

Fearless is a word.

I was really,

I think that he slightly missed it

because I think he could have really actually called out

cancel culture and woke as a more,

I think he kind of left it a little bit to me

where I was like a little,

I don’t know.

I just didn’t think they were as good as his other ones.

And I felt like he didn’t really

make the point he wanted to make.

It was a little convoluted.

We need somebody who can actually stand up

and actually be more satirical

and tell the story of why all this cancel culture

and defamatory statements and judging people

doesn’t make sense.

But then he didn’t get the job done, I felt like.

Well, let me ask you this about the performance.

Did he seem qualitatively different than you in that

the other times he seemed very light on his feet,

having a good time, being a comedian,

and this time it felt like he was personally hurt

or he was-

It wasn’t comedy.

It felt less comedic, I agree.

It felt like he had an agenda.

He was hurt.

He wanted to get some stuff off his chest

and there were some jokes in between,

which is very different.

Like the percentage of jokes in this is like 20%

and the like heavy on-

Max.

Max, and then the other ones were 80% jokes,

20% social commentary.

This felt like he was actually really hurt

and like, I don’t wanna say bitter,

but just fed up maybe, frustrated.

He had a chip, which made it interesting to me.

You know, in the early 2000s,

Chappelle for me was really important

because he was an advocate for minorities

and I felt seen and protected by Chappelle.

And I thought that was really important.

And then his comedy was just so sharp.

Oh yeah.

And I said, I just think that it was a little bit

of an opportunity lost.

Yeah.

I think if he had really actually taken it to its conclusion

he would have actually,

there was just too many uncomfortable moments in that thing.

It was super uncomfortable at times.

And I really would like to see it again

because if you just think about his career,

him talking about police brutality,

him talking about race in a very fearless,

entertaining, but also informative way

and just being a truth teller.

Yeah.

This was so uncomfortable at times.

I agree with that.

I need to watch it again and I need to let it sit

because I was taking-

It’s on Netflix?

It’s on Netflix.

It’s the last in his contract.

Yeah, I mean, this could be,

I almost felt like he was trying to break Netflix

because he does seem to have a streak in him

where he’s like, okay, I’m walking away from Comedy Central

and he does seem to burn the boats.

This felt like he was burning the boats with Netflix to me.

I don’t know if you got that vibe where he was like,

this is the last one, I’m being canceled after this.

Fuck y’all, I’m out.

And he has that, I mean, he torched it, Sax.

I mean, you’re going to watch this thing-

Well, now I’m definitely watching it.

I have not seen it yet, but I’m definitely watching it.

I’ll watch it tonight.

I give it a 50% chance that Netflix takes it down.

Well, let’s watch it quickly then.

Well, there were, everybody was screaming

for him to be deplatformed.

Everybody was screaming.

Well, then I like it even more.

You know, one of the ironic things

about these warning labels,

I’ve noticed they’ve started to become a badge of honor

where, you know, if the hall monitors at Twitter

are trying to label your tweet as, you know,

being incendiary, maybe it’s just interesting, right?

Buy, it’s a buy signal.

Yeah, exactly.

So, you know, I was listening

to Antonio Garcia Martinez interview Camille on Call-In

and they labeled that, I mean, just the post

about they were going to have a conversation.

You’re saying the link to it was even flagged

as like, oh my Lord.

I think there needs to be a Netflix for a comedy

where it’s only subscription and it’s owned

by the comedians.

Like if Dave Chappelle were to create his own Netflix,

I think it gets 10 million paid subscribers

in the first two years.

Overnight, now overnight.

Overnight.

Okay, so wait a second.

How do we wet our beaks on this?

If we go to Chappelle and we say, hey, listen,

here’s $25 million.

We’ll set up the tech team.

I’ll set up the comedians.

I’ll ask K Hart.

I’ll ask him this weekend.

I think that, yeah, you get K Hart,

you get Chappelle, you get Seinfeld,

you get, now, do you get Louis CK in there?

Or CK, what’s his name?

I never found that guy funny.

That guy never did it for me.

Well, I mean, anyway.

You know who’s funny?

You know who’s funny?

Have you had this Asian guy, Ronnie Chang?

He’s on, there’s a great Netflix special on him.

He is fucking funny.

And then Joe Koi.

Joe Koi is very funny.

Yeah, I think Ronnie Chang taped his own special.

Hassan Minhaj, that guy’s very funny.

Yeah, he’s great.

He’s legit.

But I mean, this would be a great way

for them to just control their destiny

and not have to worry about cancel culture.

Because I think a lot of the folks who are on.

Well, they are probably the last line of people

that actually will be the defenders of free speech.

Yeah, it’s pretty scary.

As much as I think Facebook should be more thoughtful

about their algorithm, you know,

back to, you know, circling Netflix

and censorship back to the Facebook issues.

I just think Facebook should say,

hey, listen, we’ve throttled the algorithm

so that any one piece of content

can only reach this many people over this period of time.

And yeah, sure.

That’s gonna lower our time on site or whatever.

But we want things to have a little bit of time

to spread and get fact-checked.

Does anybody think that that’s a good idea to say,

just, you know, if you’re trying to cancel somebody

instead of it going to number one on trending topics

before the person has a trial,

that the algorithm would just take a little bit of time

to propagate content?

Here’s what I can tell you conclusively.

If Facebook wanted to solve these issues

in the ways that the government expects in their head

for these problems to be solved,

Facebook market cap would be $250 billion

and they’d have a million people

working there at the company.

So this is not an issue of whether it’s possible.

The question is, is it right?

And does it actually get at the solution

or does it just, as Friedberg said,

create whack-a-mole someplace else?

And so, you know, I don’t know what obliterating

three quarters of a trillion dollars of market cap will do,

but I suspect that the government is gonna want to find out.

Sachs, do you think that throttling

the velocity of the algorithm

so that news doesn’t spread as fast and violently,

which could be misinformation, could be valid information,

do you think that’s a possible solution?

Look, I think that at the end of the day,

with both-

Or disclosing the algorithm maybe?

With both Facebook and Twitter,

you only see stuff from people who you’re following

or you’re friends with.

Not true.

What do you mean?

If things, they will insert stuff

into your Twitter algorithm now that’s adjacent to you

and Facebook will do that as well.

Well, maybe if people respond

to someone who you’re following,

but I’ve never seen anything in my Twitter feed

other than an ad that’s not from somebody I follow, so-

You never went to trending topics?

No, I mean, not in my feed.

You don’t hit the Explorer feed?

Oh, okay, no, but the Explorer feed’s right there

and they are surfacing things in your feed now

that are not people you follow, but anyway, keep going.

What they’re really doing, okay,

is there’s a universe of people who you’re following

or you’re friends with,

and you could just see all of that content

in a reverse chronological feed,

but that would be too much.

It’d be overwhelming.

That’s how it originally worked, yeah.

Yeah, exactly, and I get it, and that was fine.

I didn’t, I liked it, okay,

but as you’re following thousands of people now,

there’s too much content,

and so they will simply surface the tweets

that you’re most likely to want to interact with.

I don’t believe, by the way,

that those tweets are necessarily the ones

that make you angry.

I think for some people it is, clearly,

but it’s not, certainly not the case in my case.

What I would say is it’s more refined than that.

It’s the tweets that you think are interesting.

It’s the tweets that perhaps express a sense of outrage

that agrees with your sense of outrage.

It’s a little different than anger,

but it’s basically the subset of content

that you, through your reveal preferences,

have shown Facebook or Twitter

that you care about the most,

and that’s basically what they’re doing.

They’re giving the consumer more of what they want,

and I think that we’ve blown this thing

so far out of proportion.

I mean, yeah, there’s an analogy that it’s addictive,

but I think that it’s been blown so far out of proportion,

we’ve exaggerated the fear beyond any reasonable recognition.

By the way, I think the reason that that tweet was flagged,

I’m guessing, is that in the tweet,

Kemele says he’s gonna talk about critical race theory,

and that may be why Twitter said,

well, Twitter just said that conversations like this

can be intense, that’s all it said.

I think because he says the gloves are coming off,

it looks like two people fighting or whatever.

I just think it’s sort of ridiculous.

Like, this is where the warning label stuff-

It’s a little patriarchal, yes.

It’s a little condescending.

Like, you can’t handle this content.

Patronizing, I think is the word you would use.

Patronizing, yeah.

I’m not circling that.

I got the thesaurus up here, I’m not dumb.

Hey, I got a thesaurus here.

I’m smart, I’m smart.

It’s very palindromic.

You should have looked out for me.

You was my brother, Sax.

I find it a little like, could have been a contender,

instead of what I am.

I’m smart, not like they say.

Not dumb, smart.

How’d you get your fucking sunshine, boss?

Oh, shit.

Boys, I love you.

Happy 50th episode.

And what’s going on with you, Friedberg and Sax,

that you won’t make the journey down to the poker game?

Is this like some sort of David protest here, you guys?

We’re playing No Limit.

The robots are protesting.

I will come back, I will start playing again,

if we get the game going on like a regular time.

What the fuck is on your schedule?

What are you talking about?

You have nothing going on.

Come the fuck on.

Yeah, you have nothing going on, Sax.

All right, I’ll start, you know, I’ll start making,

I’ll start coming down.

Stop evading your family, stay in the city, come the fuck on.

See your fucking friends, buy some cars,

lose some money.

We’re not playing PLL.

Yeah, no PLL.

I mean, we did at the end, just to get Skye’s money,

but just to keep Skye there for another 30 minutes,

since he was flushing cash.

Beat him up real good, Saxie Poo, we beat him up real good.

Ooh, it was Skyfall.

When you crumble.

Actually, the new, I’m really excited to see

the new Daniel Craig 007.

I can’t believe that.

Can you still rent a mid-tower movie theater

for like 50 bucks?

Yeah.

300 bucks, so yeah.

It used to be not, it was 99 during the pandemic.

It was awesome, I did it a few times.

It’s 300 now, and I haven’t done it the last two times

I went with the girls,

because it was first run movies

and the theaters were pretty empty.

But it’s like 300.

If you get like 10 of your friends to come,

it’s like basically the same price as a ticket.

If you get five of your friends to come, it’s worth it.

I mean, that’s 60 bucks each, and yeah, I mean, it’s.

Or we just go to Sax’s theater, he’s got.

The Sax’s theater is better because you have a chef there

who will make your food, but yeah.

And for those of you asking about the all-in summit,

Sax and I are leading the charge for a February or April.

We got a couple of locations.

Thank you to everybody who sent us location ideas.

Two days, 250 people, 200 paid tickets, 50 by scholarship.

And you can go to the all-in website.

When we have information, we will post it there,

but we’re just in the planning phase right now.

But we’re thinking two days, right boys?

Yeah.

Two days for all-in summit and then five hours of content,

something like that a day.

We each interview people.

Yeah.

And then we’re done.

Okay.

And Miami is the host city and we’ll draw a high card

for who picks the next city.

Chamath, you said you’re picking something in Italy.

I’m going to probably pick my.

Rome or Venice.

I’m going to probably pick New York for mine or Austin.

And then Freeburg, where would you pick?

Napa or something?

Marin County.

Oh, wow.

Where everybody wants to go.

Great.

Go to anti-vaxxer town.

Fuck you, Freeburg.

Marin County.

Wow.

What a destination.

Freeburg, where would you pick?

Where would you pick?

So we’re doing Miami first, is that right?

Miami’s first and we draw a high card for the next city.

Who gets to pick next city?

Each bestie picks for four years.

Each buddy picks one.

If we go twice a year, even better.

I mean, I’d probably split it between London and.

Ooh.

Ooh.

London and somewhere in Hawaii.

Ooh.

Wow.

Good choices.

Hawaii, yeah.

Hawaii’s an inspired choice.

Can you imagine 250 degenerate?

London’s great.

Iconic classic, but London would be,

we would take over.

We would take over.

Miami is freaking out.

Run over Annabelle’s boys.

I bring you all to Annabelle.

That’s incredible.

That members club is, I think,

the most over the top thing I’ve ever seen.

You’re referencing something

that no one knows what you’re talking about.

Nobody knows what you’re talking about.

Is that a nightclub?

Yeah, it’s a nightclub.

Private club?

No, it’s a private.

Annabelle’s.

It’s a lady I know.

She’s down in the West End.

No, you have to have members clubs in London

because you can’t drink alcohol after like 9 p.m.

unless it’s a private club.

Yeah.

All right, we’ll see you all next time

on the All In podcast.

Here’s to another 50, everybody.

First 50 done.

Love you guys.

Let’s get another 50 in the book.

All In.

We’ll let your winners ride.

Rain Man, David Saks.

I’m going All In.

And it said we open sourced it to the fans

and they’ve just gone crazy with it.

Love you, West End.

The queen of quinoa.

I’m going All In.

Let your winners ride.

Let your winners ride.

Let your winners ride.

Besties are gone.

I hope they’re dead.

That’s my dog taking a notice in your driveway.

Saks.

Winner.

Oh, man.

Oh, man.

My avatar will meet me at Wednesday.

We should all just get a room

and just have one big huge orgy

because they’re all just useless.

It’s like sexual tension

that they just need to release somehow.

Wet your feet.

Wet your feet.

Wet your feet.

Feet.

That’s gonna be good.

We need to get merch.

Besties are back.

I’m going All In.

I’m going All In.