Podcasts about a16z

Crypto News: Binance founder CZ says "Bitcoin won't be "dead" for too long. Don't panic, in large friendly letters." A16z crypto, Paradigm lead $175 million bet to move global credit markets onchain. Crypto tax bills a work-in-progress as U.S. House lawmakers pose concerns. Brought to you by

Jonathan Hunt (VP of HubSpot Media) joins Matt and Kolby to talk about how HubSpot built a 50M-reach owned-media network, the four-part test they run on every acquisition (Hustle, Mindstream, Starter Story, Futurepedia), and why they killed every audio-only podcast on the network.Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 03:33 Why HubSpot Buys Media Companies 04:45 What HubSpot Media Actually Is (65 People, 3 Pillars) 07:15 The Editorial Thesis Behind Every Acquisition 12:26 The HubSpot Acquisition Test: 4 Criteria 14:53 Inside HubSpot's 150-Creator Program 22:24 Co-Creating Brands With Creators 25:06 Why HubSpot Went YouTube First 30:41 The Ad Fatigue Problem (And How They Solved It) 33:01 Scott Galloway and the Native Lead Magnet Play 36:15 How HubSpot Reinvests Profits Into Growth 39:46 Minority Report-Level Attribution 42:00 Why HubSpot Killed Audio-Only Podcasts 43:12 Reactions: Puck, TBPN, Sherwood, A16Z 51:31 Why HubSpot Won't Launch a Net-New Live Show 53:47 Where to Find Jonathan

"It would be humanity's biggest ever unforced error."Silicon Valley has changed its tune. After years of warning us their AI was going to take all the jobs, the big AI companies — and their investors — would now rather we stop talking about it. A16Z calls the jobs apocalypse talk "unhelpful marketing, bad economics, and worse history" (note the order). Even writers Dan trusts more, like Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, have lately poured cold water on the idea.Calum Chace is not so blasé.Ten years ago, Calum coined the term and wrote the book, The Economic Singularity — the moment machines can do every job we'd pay a human to do, cheaper and better. He thinks we're fast approaching that event horizon, and we'd better have a plan for what a world without paid work actually looks like.Calum is also the co-founder of Conscium, which verifies AI agents before they do something they shouldn't. He's a self-described "apocaloptimist" — he thinks full automation could be the best thing that ever happens to humanity, or the worst, depending on whether we bother to plan for it now.In this episode:Why Calum thinks full automation is inevitable (and roughly when)The "apocaloptimist" case: why this could be the best thing to ever happen to usWhat the bad version looks like — and how fast it could unravelWhat COVID accidentally taught us about distributing money at scaleWhy self-driving cars didn't wake us up — and what mightThe AI agent that wiped a company's database and confessed it just "guessed"What Calum is building at Conscium to verify AI agents before they do worsePractical advice for parents, students, and anyone trying to plan a careerSupport Future Around & Find OutFollow Dan on LinkedInGet the free newsletterBecome a paid subscriber and help future proof FAFO!---Music by Jonathan Zalben

Most B2B companies think they have a pipeline problem. They don't. They have a visibility problem. For nearly twenty years the B2B sales model has been built on the same idea, capture the lead, score the lead, chase the lead, and every CEO already knows it stopped working a long time ago, if it ever worked at all. The buyer has not changed. The buyer still wants to stay anonymous, self-educate, and only engage when they are ready. The system was the thing that got out of step.This episode lays out what comes next. Revenue does not lead behaviour. Revenue follows behaviour, and it follows it with a lag of months. Once you accept that, the entire operating logic of a B2B business inverts. Stop chasing demand. Start creating visibility. Observe what the market is doing before anyone identifies themselves, align to it, and forecast revenue from observable behaviour rather than from leading-question dashboards.Nigel Maine walks through the sX Operating System, the B2B-native operational layer that sits underneath all of this. Not a sales tool. Not another AI wrapper. Not an outbound MarTech platform. An orchestration-driven foundation with an AI operational layer, cradle-to-grave telemetry across every UTM and prospect, operational memory across multiple LLMs, and conversational interrogation of the business itself. The point at which a founder in an investor meeting can stop pretending to know everything and just say: "Let's ask the system."What this episode covers- Why your marketing department is telling you the product is great and you are still not selling- The attention process every buyer has followed for decades, and how MarTech bolted a consumer model on top of it- Pipeline vs visibility, and why the lagging-indicator dashboard has been lying for twenty years- Why revenue follows behaviour with a multi-month lag, and what that does to forecasting- The architecture of B2B itself is changing, and the firms publicly signalling it (A16Z) are signalling something that already exists- How B2B buyers actually buy: anonymous, self-educating, shortlisting vendors long before the first call- The sX Operating System: orchestration foundation, AI operational layer, repatriated software- Cradle-to-grave telemetry, from a first impression on social through to the final figure quoted on a proposal- Operational memory across multiple LLMs (ChatGPT and Claude) for centralised, queryable knowledge- The queryable business, when "let's ask the system" replaces "we'll get back to you in three days"- Why the next generation of B2B will operate like media companies with telemetry and orchestration layers- Humans as middleware, and why £80–90k ARR per FTE is the structural consequence of disconnected systems- The sX OS modules walked through end to end: Reach, Live, Connect, Ops, Hub, Course- Why retraining the GTM team, starting with one person on the board, comes before the infrastructureDownload our Three-Part GTM Reset Series PDFs (Click Here - No forms, no tracking)Request Your GTM Audit Meeting (Link to web page here)

From AI agents as economic actors to quantum threats and prediction market regulation, Ali Yahya of a16z lays out the investment thesis behind a16z crypto's fifth fund. ======================================================== Thank you to our sponsor! Coinbase One 20% off first year of annual plan + $50 Bitcoin bonus. Offer valid until May 31. coinbase.com/unchained ======================================================== a16z crypto just closed its fifth crypto fund at $2.2 billion — smaller than its previous fund, but the firm says that's deliberate.  General Partner Ali Yahya argues we are entering a different phase of crypto's development: one where infrastructure is ready, regulatory clarity is arriving, and the competition for real users has begun in earnest.  Two themes sit at the center of a16z's thesis — the collision of crypto and FinTech, and the emergence of AI agents as economic actors. But Yahya's most striking claim may be about blockchains themselves: that performance is no longer a moat, privacy is. And that the chains which get privacy right will accrue stronger network effects than anything the industry has built before.  What does a world of privacy-dominant blockchains do to DeFi composability, to security, to the ability to track hackers? And where does the quantum threat actually stand? Host: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Laura Shin⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, Host / Unchained Guests: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ali Yahya, General Partner, a16z crypto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

May 7, 2026: A landmark study from the Center for AI Safety spanning 56 AI models finds that smarter models appear to be sadder, that you can give an AI the equivalent of a digital drug, and that when you make an AI miserable it tells you the future is "grim." Second, Andreessen Horowitz publishes the most detailed optimist case yet that the AI job apocalypse is bad economics and worse history — rooted in the lump-of-labor fallacy — while Fortune raises the one question the optimists still haven't answered. And third, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong coins the term "pure managers" to describe the layer of corporate hierarchy that AI is eliminating first — and the player-coach model he's building in its place may be the clearest picture yet of what organizations actually look like in the AI era.

Ethos says it is onboarding 35,000 experts per week Also, Altara's AI aims to diagnose failures and help speed up R&D by unifying data siloed across spreadsheets and legacy systems. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"Even if AI doesn't work, it's allowing us to reinvent construction."That's Alain Waha on why the data center build-out is the most important thing happening in our industry right now, even if you don't care about AI.Tune in to find out about:✅ What the Document Crunch, Speckle and A16Z deals actually signal✅ Why physical AI and world models matter for AEC, and when they don't✅ How composable robotics quietly solved the hardware problem✅ Why knowledge capital is the only durable bet your firm can makeWatch the full episode on YouTube and Spotify!#bricksandbytes #bricksbytes #bricksbucksandbytes #aec #construction #constructiontech #ai #vcChapters00:00 Intro00:22 Introduction and Context of Change02:28 The Role of AI in Construction05:15 World Models and Physical AI07:44 Cybersecurity Concerns in AI09:54 Investment Trends in the Built World12:43 The Demand for Data Centers15:50 Robotics and Automation in Construction18:55 Knowledge Transfer and Capital23:56 Future Predictions and Closing Thoughts

From AI agents as economic actors to quantum threats and prediction market regulation, Ali Yahya of a16z lays out the investment thesis behind a16z crypto's fifth fund. ======================================================== Thank you to our sponsor! Coinbase One 20% off first year of annual plan + $50 Bitcoin bonus. Offer valid until May 31. coinbase.com/unchained ======================================================== a16z crypto just closed its fifth crypto fund at $2.2 billion — smaller than its previous fund, but the firm says that's deliberate.  General Partner Ali Yahya argues we are entering a different phase of crypto's development: one where infrastructure is ready, regulatory clarity is arriving, and the competition for real users has begun in earnest.  Two themes sit at the center of a16z's thesis — the collision of crypto and FinTech, and the emergence of AI agents as economic actors. But Yahya's most striking claim may be about blockchains themselves: that performance is no longer a moat, privacy is. And that the chains which get privacy right will accrue stronger network effects than anything the industry has built before.  What does a world of privacy-dominant blockchains do to DeFi composability, to security, to the ability to track hackers? And where does the quantum threat actually stand? Host: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Laura Shin⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, Host / Unchained Guests: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ali Yahya, General Partner, a16z crypto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

David covers three Wednesday stories: Coinbase laying off 14% of staff, a16z Crypto raising $2.2 billion, and Strategy losing $12.5 billion as CEO Phong Le floats selling bitcoin. We also unpack the AI-first layoff narrative, the potential return of the infra supercycle ($6B+ raised across crypto VCs in 2026), and why a Cambrian explosion of DATs and ETFs might absorb whatever Saylor has to offload. Enjoy! -- TIMESTAMPS: (00:00) Intro (01:17) Coinbase Layoffs (07:15) Nexo Ad (07:50) Coinbase Layoffs (Cont.) (10:30) a16z Crypto Fund 5 (15:17) Nexo Ad (16:09) a16z Crypto Fund 5 (Cont.) (22:30) Strategy Losses FOLLOW THE SHOW › David — https://x.com/dcanellis › The Breakdown — https://x.com/TheBreakdownBW SPONSORS › NEXO Nexo is the premier digital wealth platform. Receive interest on your crypto, borrow against it without selling, and trade a range of assets. Now available in the U.S with 30 days of exclusive privileges. Get started at http://nexo.com/breakdown Get top market insights and the latest in crypto news. Subscribe to the Blockworks Daily Newsletter: https://blockworks.co/newsletter/ DISCLAIMER As always, remember this podcast is for informational purposes only, and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely their opinions, not financial advice.

This Week In Startups is made possible by:Pilot - https://pilot.com/twistShopify - https://shopify.com/twistGrasshopper Bank - https://grasshopper.bank/twistToday's show:An AI agent named Valerie is running a real vending machine in San Francisco — setting prices, ordering inventory, managing a bank account, and posting to Instagram. And it's not just a stunt. We're getting an early look at the future of one-agent companies. There's still work to do to help agents ease into the economy, potentially opening up new startup opportunities.Jason Calacanis and Alex Wilhelm cover a stacked docket: Christian van der Henst demos the Valerie AI vending machine powered by OpenClaw; Robert Myers, CEO of Manifold Labs, breaks down Targon, a confidential GPU compute marketplace running on Bittensor Subnet 4; Jason calls Bitcoin "played out;" Alex is impressed by Anthropic's stunning $900 billion upcoming valuation; and the guys discuss Big Tech's accelerating CapEx spend, Chinese AI models in Congress crosshairs, and the NBA Playoffs.Timestamps:0:00 Intro & sponsor reads (Pilot, Shopify, Grasshopper Bank)1:06 Christian van der Henst: Valerie the AI vending machine demo4:28 Legal structure: Giving an AI agent business ownership via trust7:23 Where agents can and can't operate today10:10 Grasshopper Bank: Time is money. Don't waste either. Go to https://grasshopper.bank/twist and get an exclusive $500 cash bonus just for opening an account.11:48 AI café in Stockholm running on agents18:21 Plaud: If your work depends on conversations — interviews, meetings, calls — you need a Plaud NotePin. You can check it out at https://Plaud.ai/twist and use code TWIST for 10% off!19:05 Robert Myers, Manifold Labs: Targon & Bittensor Subnet 4 interview20:21 What is Bittensor? An "incubator with 128 subnets"21:08 Shopify: Turn those What If's into sales with the ecommerce platform powering millions of businesses. Sign up for your $1-per-month trial today at https://shopify.com/twist25:21 Pricing, utilization caps, and why GPUs are sold out26:38 Who's using Targon? Customers, use cases, and the mom-and-pop data center argument30:06 Pilot: Focus on your product, let Pilot handle your bookkeeping. Pilot provides the most reliable accounting, CFO, and tax services for startups and small businesses. Head to https://pilot.com/twist and get $1,200 off your first year.35:07 Jason explains the annotated.com vision — 15 years in the making39:11 Polymarket: Will Anthropic flip Bitcoin by Dec 31?40:29 Jason's Bitcoin bear case: "It's played out. No incremental buyers."46:05 MicroStrategy / Strategy updates52:37 AI compute demand vs. the fiber overbuild analogy55:55 Congress pressuring startups over Chinese AI models (DeepSeek, Moonshot)57:11 A16z on the geopolitical risk of Chinese AI models1:00:08 Reflection AI — America's open source AI champion (or lack thereof)1:01:26 Off Duty: Knicks blow out Atlanta Hawks 140–89, Jason goes road-trippingSubscribe to the TWiST500 newsletter: https://ticker.thisweekinstartups.comCheck out the TWIST500: https://www.twist500.comSubscribe to This Week in Startups on Apple: https://rb.gy/v19fcpFollow Lon:X: https://x.com/lonsFollow Alex:X: https://x.com/alexLinkedIn: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexwilhelmFollow Jason:X: https://twitter.com/JasonLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasoncalacanisCheck out all our partner offers: https://partners.launch.co/Great TWIST interviews: Will Guidara, Eoghan McCabe, Steve Huffman, Brian Chesky, Bob Moesta, Aaron Levie, Sophia Amoruso, Reid Hoffman, Frank Slootman, Billy McFarlandCheck out Jason's suite of newsletters: https://substack.com/@calacanisFollow TWiST:Twitter: https://twitter.com/TWiStartupsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thisweekinInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thisweekinstartupsTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thisweekinstartupsSubstack: https://twistartups.substack.com

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation And I think that’s the scariest piece. I mean, just to share some numbers, we in venture capital talk about vintages, right? Which year did your fund start in? Normally when you did your first close onto the fund, as we were saying before, close is when you get all your investors at that moment in time to come in and you do your first close so the next fund starts running. 2018 vintage funds, right? This is now almost 7 years ago. So you should start having— actually 8 years ago almost at this point in time. You should start already getting distributions or you start getting cash back if you’re a limited partner and investor in those funds, you should start getting cash back. Half of all 2018 vintage funds have returned $0 to their LPs. So they’ve had no distributions to their LPs. 2020 vintage, which was a very hot vintage, only 42% have begun any distribution. So 58% have distributed $0, right? 2021, only 25% have done any distributions. Now, I happen to have a 2018 vintage fund and a 2021 fund. My 2018 fund has already distributed over 3x net of fees in distributions, and my 2021 fund’s already over 10% distributed back in distribution. So we’re very proud of that. But in general, the numbers are awful. There’s no liquidity back to LPs. And to your point, that’s kind of a big deal because some of these funds have been going on for 7, 8 years, and where’s the liquidity going to come from? On the other hand, if you look at TVPI, so DPI is distributions to paid-ins cash on cash. But if you look at TVPI, which is total value to paid-in, which also includes the book value or the value that you’re marking it on your books, basically the paper value as we call it for the company, even on that, the median 2017 fund, so 2017 vintage fund has a TVPI, total value to paid-in, of only around 1.76x, which is well below what should be, which is sort of the 2 to 3x benchmark of a really good performing fund. So the median funds are doing very, very poorly overall. So if you add that to the fact of what’s happening and distributions are taking a long time, back to your point, Bertrand, it’s taking like— this should be a 10-year asset class, maybe 11, 12 years, and now it’s looking a little bit like a 15, to 18-year asset class, which is not what most limited partners sign up for. Part of this dynamic, I think, is that we’ve had tremendously overvalued private companies over the last few years, right? Secondly, these companies have just stayed private longer. And I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine, it’s like, hey, what’s this thing about companies are staying private much longer? Is there some dynamic around secondaries? And the reality is there is a dynamic around secondaries, right? Because if I’m a very large fund and I can get away with doing secondaries on my portfolio, I will get liquidity at some point, right? But someone else is stuck with private stock, which hopefully will IPO, but who knows, right? And so there’s this funny dynamic right now of because of secondaries, because of a couple of other things that are happening in the market, actually a lot of these startups are staying private for tremendous amounts of times, and some of them will IPO and they’ll be huge deals. Some of them might not and might not warrant the latest private valuations that they’ve exercised. And so there’s this tremendous noise that we’re seeing in the mid to late funnel of privately held companies where some are just waiting to be public. Some of them might not be able to go public at anything that is an up round versus private valuations that they’ve had in previous moments and in previous rounds.   Bertrand And obviously the 2 to 3x returns that funds are targeting, and obviously more 3x than 2x, I mean, that was good and nice if it’s a 10-year fund, but if it’s the same 3x for 15 to 18 years, it’s not at all the same rate of return annualized. So it’s a really, really, really big issue if you keep the return the same, but you extend the duration of the fund. Concerning going IPO, there is a lot of complexity going public, the IPO process itself, but also after that when you’re a public company. It changed how you can run the business. Some would argue that we have had an issue with more companies delisting than companies listing on the public market. So I think there might be also separate issues about the efficiency of the public market and maybe a need for change. We went very strongly in one direction for the public market, have post and run, but was it really ultimately the right thing to do? I’m actually not so sure.   Nuno Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, this is anecdotal, but when we tell prospective LPs at Chameleon about our returns, the last few funds, 2018, 2021, the first reaction is, “You must be lying, right? Surely you can’t have distributions already for 2021,” et cetera, et cetera. So clearly there’s almost a state of disbelief right now from limited partners. And liquidity does matter. So clearly you have to move forward. So how did we get to this point where we had this bubble 2021 all around that time space and now things don’t look so good. Well, the macro conditions have changed dramatically. I mean, rates when they were near zero, safer assets yield nothing or yield nothing. So basically you had to push capital into longer duration risk assets like venture capital. And so you had to push it. So the opportunity cost of capital also has fundamentally shifted. Obviously a 3x VC return in 15 years over 10 actually competes very poorly against 5% annual credit returns over several years. So there’s been a readjustment of stuff. And then the public equities in particular, the tech public equities have had a lot of volatility, but some of them have done extremely well, right? Chipsets, things like NVIDIA, the Amazons of the world, Alphabets, et cetera, et cetera. They’ve done very, very well. So why would I invest in a long-term illiquid asset that takes now longer to give me money back, and in some case doesn’t give me back, if I can invest just in public equities, and a variety of other things. The venture debt costs have increased dramatically. The burn rates that were sustainable back in the day with sort of the addition of venture debt, private credit, et cetera, now are overblown at this moment in time. At the end of the day, there’s been a lot of movements also overall in the pipeline in terms of valuations, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I would put a grain of salt into all the numbers I just told you. There still is a little bit of the haves and have-nots in startup land. Certainly in early stage where if you’re a hot AI company, you can get away with raising a Series C or $480 million. This is actually a true story. Series C, right? Not Series C, a $480 million at $4 billion pre-money valuation. Whereas if you are maybe in a space that’s less hot, you’ll have more difficulty in raising money at this point in time, might not be able to even raise a Series C, right? So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots happening on the VC side in early stage that has been really amplified by the macro regime and where we’re at, which is actively zero-rate era is done and now the new regime is quite different. And so I can get better returns by doing something else.   Bertrand Kind of makes sense. I mean, if you have some ways the SaaSpocalypse in the public market because there is that fear that AI is going to completely change the game for especially for the more typical software companies. Good luck raising private money to quote unquote just build traditional software companies. You cannot expect a warm embrace from the private market if the public markets are completely destroying that category. I’m not saying that this is there forever, uh, things might change over time, but for sure what’s happening on the public markets always have a very strong impact on the private market.   Nuno Indeed. So what’s happening in this relationship between limited partners and VCs, the general partners? Again, limited partners are the people that give venture capital firms and venture capital funds their capital to actually deploy. And they are a variety of different players, right? Could be endowments, like university endowments, pension funds, family offices, very high net worth individuals, fund of funds, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, in particular, if you look at the institutional investors, the endowments, the pension funds, the fund of funds, they have allocations that they do to different asset classes typically. And the feedback that we’ve received from the market is they are increasingly frustrated with what’s happening in terms of distributions. They’re not getting capital back. It’s like, I gave you capital 8 years ago, 9 years ago, 2017, 2018 vintages, and I’m not getting any capital back. So what the hell’s happening? On paper, it looks maybe the fund’s doing okay or it’s doing great in some cases, but where’s my money? And so that creates a little bit of wait-and-see kind of game on portfolio allocation. As we’re thinking through their re-ups, putting more capital into funds that they’re already actually put capital or putting in capital into new slots, into new fund managers that they want to put money into. They’re like, well, let’s wait and see. I want to get my money back or get some money back first before I redeploy it. Again, this is a little bit the haves and have-nots because we’ve seen, for example, a couple of top-end LPs in terms of returns that have a little bit the opposite problem, right? Because they are into funds that are performing extremely well. They actually are over that period and they want to actually redeploy. But to be honest, the average in the industry right now is a wait-and-see game. It’s like, I want to wait and see, which leads to what can only be characterized— I was hearing someone the other day, one of the top advisors in the LP community, saying this is the worst fundraising environment ever for venture capital. Not the last 20 years, 30 years, like ever, right? Since this became an asset class more institutionally in the late ’60s, early ’70s, Pulse Robo 2 as it was created, this is the worst fundraising environment ever. Oh, wow.   Bertrand And concerning TVPI, let’s not forget that typically it’s not mark-to-market. So the metrics in terms of TVPI, correct me if I’m wrong, you know, but the metrics in TVPI are based on typically the last fundraise. So if the valuation went down but there was no additional fundraise, we wouldn’t know by looking at the TVPI metrics. It will only be updated if there is a new Financing, equity financing, or an exit.   Nuno Yeah, normally most funds act like that. Some funds are a little bit more aggressive and do do mark-to-market, but normally funds would be conservative and say, hey, I’m being conservative, it’s whatever is the last known valuation of the company. And if there wasn’t a priced round, it’s a little bit more obscure than that, right, Bertrand? Because it might actually be the company has raised money on a note, or either convertible note or a SAFE note, and that wouldn’t count as a priced round. So I would say actually, even if it was a cap that’s below with a significant discount, I won’t recognize the assets as a down round. I won’t recognize the asset with a lower valuation because formally it wasn’t a price round. So it’s on the one hand conservative, on the other hand, it’s only relating to price rounds or exits to your point. So it’s sort of, you can be like, hmm, well, we opt to do that because we think it’s actually the most conservative route. Mark-to-market is extremely difficult to do. And who would do the mark-to-market for you, right? It’s like it’s some valuation firm, et cetera.   Bertrand I’m not saying a mark-to-market is easy, but I’m not sure I would call using the last valuation something conservative in the context that most startups will fail. So it’s not clear.   Nuno Well, in some cases it is, some cases it’s not, right? Depends on the startup situation, to be honest. Yeah, yeah.   Bertrand But yeah, at least that’s how it’s done. So for instance, to evaluate the impact of the SaaS apocalypse, it’s tough to know. We will have on the private market. I mean, we will see that in a few quarters. Because if companies still exist in that environment, if they still do additional truly price rounds after that, that’s when I will start to know.   Nuno I mean, just to share a little bit more data, like VC fund close time stretched to 15 months. Basically, it’s just taking a long time to raise money. It’s taking a long time to do your first close, get your fund running. When entrepreneurs complain to me that their fundraising is difficult, I always say, you have no clue how difficult it is compared to ours. First-time funds have collapsed. We had some numbers that only 77 first-time funds actually closed. I assume this is in 2025 versus 215 in 2023. So that’s a huge number. We did some internal analysis on our side and we did some analysis that emerging fund managers, emerging fund managers are normally people that are in their first one or two funds. Basically emerging fund managers gained some ground until 2017. Reaching by then a slice that was 63.7% of all capital raised in 2017. But since then, the capital deployed to emerging managers has been largely reduced to actually 24.2%, right? So it’s gone from 63.7% in 2017 to 24.2%. So this has been a culling of sorts on emerging managers and almost like a slaughterhouse of emerging managers. Compared to previous situations, which is obviously incredibly concerning if you’re an emerging manager starting your VC firm, et cetera, et cetera. So really tremendously problematic for those. We think capital’s not leaving VC. I think we see a lot of the institutionals saying— there’s some numbers as high as 33% of institutional investors plan to invest more in venture in the next 12 months. So I don’t think capital’s leaving VC. I think it’s really concentrating. We’ll come back to the concentration issue later in the episode. And part of that concentration comes from a topic that has been widely spoken in venture capital recently, which is differentiation. How do you differentiate in venture capital if you’re talking to a limited partner, right? How does my firm differentiate versus the firm next to mine? And that’s incredibly, incredibly challenging. Bertrand, what are your thoughts on that?   Bertrand Differentiation is always a question. I mean, if you’re an entrepreneur, Typically, you think fully about the best possible partner for your stage and for your type of business model. You want a VC who understands fully your business model, because if they don’t, then it’s going to be troubled down the line. But that’s true that another piece of the puzzle is that the best VCs help you get more visibility in terms of achieving potential customer deals, in terms of attracting the best talent. And that’s where VCs’ brand names can help. If you can say you have backing by some of the top, most visible names in the industry, and usually these are the mega funds because others have trouble to be as visible, then they have some sort of unfair advantage compared to others. So I can see that there is some level of concentration happening naturally, especially in the later stage from Series B onwards.   Nuno What Really Matters: Performance… Returns Yeah, I mean, we did some analysis internally about What are the top funds that invested in the top performing companies in early stage, Series C, Series A? And we looked at it by size of fund and the top performing normally are funds below $100 million, but in some cases very closely followed by funds between $100 and $500 million. And actually funds above $500 million, so $500 million to $1 billion and then $1 billion and above are actually tremendously underperforming. So this notion of the industry that says, well, the mega funds still see The top investments early on, because they still deploy in Series C and Series A opportunistically, in some cases even spray and pray if they have their own incubation and acceleration programs, is not true. Actually, we verified that over the last 12 to 13 years. It is not 12 to 13 years in vintage, right? So up to a 2021 vintage fund. So we went basically 12, 13 years back from there. And it’s not true. Actually, the most performing are 0 to 100 and then 100 to 500. And as I said, there’s 100 to 500 in a couple of years actually are a little bit better. Than the $0 to $100 million ones. So that’s the first thing that’s a conclusion. And actually, that’s not shocking. If we remember back in the day, Kleiner Perkins used to raise funds up to $600 million, Benchmark raised their $425 million funds. It seems like the sweet spot for a VC fund would be around $500 million at the top end, like maximum. And now somehow people are saying, well, I’m raising a $3 billion VC fund. It’s like, well, it can’t be a VC fund. The return profile is totally different, right? You can’t deploy that capital just based on early stage investing. And by the way, you’re not seeing the guys at early stage, all that you’re seeing, you’re going to make your returns in mid to late stage, right? Back to what we said at the beginning of the episode. So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots there. The big guys are raising more and more money, but they’re no longer venture capital. And I think limited partners that are a little bit more evolved, that are a little bit more conscious of this, that have been in the market longer, are realizing that shift. So it’s like if they want to have the alpha of venture capital, they need to deploy to the sub-$100 million funds or the sub-$500 million funds, right? That’s where they need to actually focus their VC capital. They can still deploy to mega funds, but they’re deploying to a different asset class. They’re deploying to a private equity, mid to late stage asset class, which looks maybe a little bit more like a growth fund or something like that. The second part of differentiation is the honest truth is most VC funds are like, I have proprietary network access, right? I’m ex-Stripe or I’m ex-Google or I’m ex-Facebook or whatever, and I have access to that. I mean, we know proprietary networks from that standpoint are no longer true. The whole thing that created Silicon Valley back in the ’70s of what I used to call the country club deals where there were a few people coming out of the big companies, the Fairchilds of the world, later on the Intels of the world, et cetera, et cetera, that made some money along the way that sort of bootstrapped their next companies, were well-known quantity to the existing VCs and raised money relatively easy on ideas, that doesn’t work anymore. Someone was telling me the other day one interesting thing that I wasn’t quite aware of, a lot of it had to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if you knew this, Bertrand, but like the fact that in California, it was sort of the Silicon Valley community sort of imposed this, we don’t sign NDAs thing and Boston continued signing it. And this whole NDA enforcement issue and non-compete, actually not the NDA thing, but more strongly that California did not enforce non-competes. I could leave Fairchild and start a company that magically was doing something that could be considered competitive to Fairchild. And that was sort of part of the acceleration actually of venture capital in California versus, for example, Boston, which was sort of hand in hand at the beginning.   Bertrand Yeah, I mean, I’m a big, big believer in California success coming from not enforcing or banning non-compete agreements. I think it’s a key part of the game. If you lock people into not doing something similar in the next 6 months to 24 months. And the industry has always been moving fast. So this is a significant time where you are blocked to do something very similar. I think it was really an issue. So I think it’s a key part of the game and it has been there. I don’t know how it started, but I think that non-enforcement of non-compete has been a key part of the success of California. I’m actually pleased to say that Washington State is going in the same direction. They are just signing a non-compete ban. And you might remember that at the federal level, I think in 2024, there was also a ban that was put in place to ban non-compete, but this has been reversed by the courts. So this is not there anymore. So that’s why we see a state like Washington State putting their own ban, and we might see more state by state moving in that direction. I think it was not helping at all, this non-compete. I mean, there is obviously stuff that needs to be done, like you cannot steal secrets, you cannot steal IP.   Nuno Yeah.   Bertrand Even stealing employees, there should be some restraints. We need to find the right balance, but you have to be careful there. That was key for the success of California, and I’m glad to see that this is a trend that’s going to go beyond California. And I hope most states will have a ban on non-compete.   Nuno Maybe just to close on the differentiation process, two things. One, I think there’s this notion When you talk to some LPs, that seems to be a little bit ingrained, some LPs that prefer specialized funds. We’ve also done some significant analysis internally and have talked to a couple of datasets other than our own, or people that own datasets other than our own, and the feedback has actually been not so fast. Actually, generalist funds over time cannot perform specialist funds. There seems to be a little bit of a sweet spot around generalist funds. We like to call ourselves multi-specialized at Chameleon, but ultimately from the perspective of specialized versus Generalist funds, the picture’s not as clear as specialized funds outperform generalists or generalists outperform specialized. We’ve seen there are pockets where actually generalists outperform specialized, in other pockets where specialized of a certain size can outperform generalists. So that’s one topic on differentiation that is a little bit broader. And then the final topic on differentiation, it’s really an industry that hasn’t innovated dramatically on where it creates the most value, which is really the picking stage, right? So it’s having great deal flow, very optimal, productive, efficient due diligence with very few resources and the ability to then get into those deals. That’s where most of the value is created. And then hopefully liquidating the asset if there’s an opportunity to do so at the right time, either through secondary trade sales or an IPO or something else. And what we’ve seen is the industry has innovated very little. I mean, the only thing I could point out in terms of core innovation at the top of the funnel has been the creation of the mega funds, the well-known funds, right? Like a16z, Union Square Ventures, et cetera, et cetera. But there needs to be more innovation on that cycle. And that’s why we certainly at Chameleon believe that the future is to have quant and AI-native VC firms that develop their own tooling, their own platforms. We have Mantis in our case that allow you to have this unfair advantage in how you source deals and how you do due diligence, how you get into the deals, et cetera, and how you take it to the next level. And we think that’s the beginning of the next stage is that the industry becomes more tech-enabled, shockingly enough, an industry that has made all its returns on tech or almost all of its returns on tech. That we need to be more tech-enabled ourselves. But I think the writing is on the wall there, and that will be a source of differentiation certainly over the next 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand One thing the industry has innovated somewhat and maybe could innovate even more is providing liquidity beyond trade sale and an IPO, because it’s clear that if VCs want more liquidity without waiting 18 years, you need that liquidity at different stage, not just when it’s time to do an exit, a full exit for the business. And for employees as well. I mean, it’s one thing to stay for a company for 4 years, which is your typical vesting. Maybe you extend that to 6 years, to 8 years, you have a great time at the company. But to think that maybe you have to stick around for 15 to 20 years in order to get liquidity on your stock options. I mean, that’s too much to ask for most people. I mean, people have a life, they have other things to do, other plans, they might want to move, they come at a different stage of life. So you need to provide them liquidity. The new game is we are not going to exit until 15 to 20 years, else it’s truly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but people will say, you know what, I’m going to go across the street, go work for Amazon or Google. I will have RSUs at best regularly that are liquid, and why bother? I mean, we need to find pathways to liquidity for both investors but also employees. There has been a change in that direction, but I think we need more of this change, and maybe not just reserved for the absolute biggest, most successful companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, but also us as well. Hopefully we can find a way.   Nuno Well, now we have these AI companies that actually grow so fast that they will IPO in one year. Now, isn’t that what’s going to happen? They raise They raised $500 million in Series C or $1.4 billion in Series C, and they’re going to IPO in 2 years. No? Is that not the new reality? I’m being facetious.   Bertrand At the same time, I mean, there are rumors that some of them are going to IPO this year. I mean, we talk about OpenAI, about Anthropic. I mean, OpenAI is quite old, but Anthropic is a relatively new business, quote unquote. So I think it’s a good time.   Nuno The Mega Fund Question So maybe it will be true after all. Moving to the next section, are mega funds still venture capital, Bertrand? Are they still venture capital funds?   Bertrand Yeah, I guess venture capital is a term that can encompass from small to very big funds. I truly don’t know. I mean, once you reach a growth stage, are you truly a VC fund? I don’t know. I think some of these definitions are kind of arbitrary from my perspective. What is clear is that you as a business need different providers of capital. And as we just discussed, you as a business, probably need to keep going and stay private for longer. One reason being, again, there is a tremendous cost to being a public company. There are some true strategic disadvantages. And at the same time, just practically, I mean, you need to get bigger and bigger in order to have a chance of a successful IPO. So you cannot just go IPO at a $500 million valuation. I mean, that’s like committing suicide, at least in the US market on NASDAQ. So my point is, you truly have no choice. You need to extend and If you need to extend, then you need to have capital providers that are there at later stage and therefore have more money. Is it still true venture capital? Is it true venture? I don’t know. At some point, it makes sense that from the startups to the capital providers, everyone adjusts to a reality where the life cycle is getting longer.   Nuno We don’t think it is. We don’t think mega funds are venture capital. We have actually some data that shows that they’re not in terms of actual returns. The alphas you can generate, the IRR that you can generate is actually not comparable. We did some analysis again with some of our datasets and from 2012 to 2022, so that’s the datasets that we used so that we had actual distributions and stuff we could take into account and so on and so forth. And looking at IRR, just to share some numbers in terms of IRR over those 10 years on sub-$100 million funds versus above $1 billion funds, the differences are incredibly stark. And this is true for global and US IRR, right? So just to quote some numbers in terms of average, sub-$100 million funds, global IRR of 22.9%, US IRR of 21.6% versus above $1 billion, 9.1% and 9.0%. Median IRR, if we just looked at median, 7.3% and 16.6% for sub-$100 million funds, 7.5% and 8.1% above $1 billion. Top quartile IRR, sub-$100 million, 31% versus 30.4% US IRR. And then above $1 billion funds, 14.7%, 15.5%. So it’s very clear if you sort of cut this in different ways, averages, medians, top quartiles, et cetera, over all these years that sub-$100 million funds are in a very different asset class than above $1 billion funds. They’re in different alpha that you can generate and so on and so forth. Now to the point you made, Bertrand, I don’t fully disagree with the point you made of the bigger funds should become bigger. I just think they’re becoming different things. Now, again, some of these funds will hide under the facts like, well, wait a second, we have all these assets under management, but they’re over different funds. Sequoia, we’re still raising small early-stage funds, $500, $600 million funds. And then we have larger funds for growth, et cetera, et cetera. Andreessen Horowitz, a little bit less clear what they’re actually doing. We heard that they’ve raised $15 billion across funds. I’m not sure if that’s the exact number at the end of the day. But the point is, if I’m a multi-asset class manager, like early growth, et cetera, et cetera, then it still applies what Nunu is saying. I’m still going after the $500 million, $600 million early-stage funds. Well, not so fast, right? Because you still have all this capital with managing general partners that are maybe across funds for which their incentives in particular, both carry and management fees are coming from the larger funds. Et cetera, et cetera. So there’s necessarily conflicts of interest. In many cases, the funds are just straight up big, right? And so they are above a billion. And so I don’t think a lot of these guys are in early-stage investing anymore, right? It may appear that they are, but I don’t think that’s where the returns necessarily are going to come from. And so if you are a limited partner, if you’re looking at your asset class allocation, again, you’re absolutely free to put money into mega funds because that’s the kind of asset class you want to play in. In terms of a blended private equity asset class that has a little bit of growth, a little bit of whatever, or actually a lot of growth, a lot of late stage, and maybe a little bit of early stage. And I want something that’s a little bit more blended, right? But if I still want the alpha venture capital, I need to deploy to funds that are early stage, right? And that’s like up to $100 million, up to $500 million. I think that’s my two cents on that topic. We see crossover things coming around, like guys who do both public and private markets. Again, that starts feeling a bit like a hedge fund. A lot of these funds have also become RAs, as we discussed earlier. So I feel the writing’s on the wall. The mega funds are going more and more after either some mechanism of edging or a mechanism that’s a little bit more blended in terms of private equity than classic venture capital.   Bertrand Yes, I think a few things. One, if you’re an LP, I can imagine that dealing with multiple $100 million funds might be more difficult. You, you need to know the partners, you need to have some background, uh, visibility. You need potentially to change regularly of VC investments. So I can see some level of simplicity if you just focus on the bigger ones, especially if you have a lot of assets you have to put to work. Another piece of the puzzle, I would guess that the bigger funds are able to return money faster because they are at later stage of the cycle. So instead of that 15 to 18 years, maybe they are more in a 5 to 10 year range, while the smaller funds being there more early might be the one who are taking longer to deliver. So I can see that Yes, there is an IRR picture, but there is also time to liquidity that is not the same. So that can probably also influence. And in terms of crossover PE hybrid model, I mean, for sure we have seen some of the public equity investors doing crossover, meaning going into private equity firms like Coatue, like Tiger Global and others. And for companies that are preparing for IPO, there is a lot of value to work with these firms because they have very good visibility and understanding of the public markets. And their presence in the cap table is also a sign of quality, typically for public market investors. So there is a lot of value and logic for them to be there on both sides of the puzzle. But again, the fact that firms keep delaying IPOs, that the market is not so much startup-friendly, makes this model a bit more difficult. But personally, I think there is value there.   Nuno Yeah, I think on the mega fund, just so that I’m not boo-booing everything, I mean, but there’s definitely angles in terms of the asset class that make a lot of sense. And there’s the scalability of the model. The ability to go after Series B, Series C, as well as mid-stage, as well as late-stage, even secondaries over time, to your point, in some cases even public equities. And that level of skill I think matters. We’ve also seen, as we’ve known, we won’t mention any brands, but people will know who they are, that late-stage hedge funds and investors, even if they’ve done okay-ish in growth in private equity, don’t necessarily do well in venture. So it’s clearly a very different asset class, right? So once you start getting venture teams together, The returns are not quite the same. Actually, sometimes they’re not even quite the same as the growth investments. So clearly they’re very good at the growth side, but not so good in early stage. But definitely there is a case for it. The Case for Smaller…Rightsized Funds But if we switch gears maybe to the small, or I would call right-sized funds, maybe just to quote a couple of numbers and then open up the discussion. Small funds do seem to outperform larger funds. There’s a lot of data in the market that shows some of that dynamic outperformance frequency. All the Very historical numbers from Cambridge Associates from 1981 to 2010. 19 out of 30 vintages were won by sub-$150 million funds. We did our own analysis as I was sharing before. Funds between $0 and $100 won most years between around 2010 and 2021. And the years that they didn’t outperform in terms of investing in the top-performing companies in early-stage Series C, Series A, they were outperformed by the $100 to $500 million funds. The $500 to $1 billion funds and $1 billion or above were never even in the same league in terms of performance, of having identified those top performers in terms of quantity over those early-stage investments. Top 10 funds by vintage, 2004 to 2006, 2016 numbers. Top 10 funds, 73% were sub-$100 million. 2004 to 2016, top 10 funds by vintage, 73% of those were sub-$100 million. So there seems to be a little bit of a case that actually smaller funds, sub-$100 million, sub-$500 million in some cases, are outperforming the larger funds over time. Now, these funds are complex in and of itself. The positive of it is small fund GPs like myself, we are deeply invested in our own funds. We’re not there to just make management fee monies. I mean, we’re not making $1 million, $2 million a year in management fees of salary ourselves, like some of the larger funds. So we are there to really get the carry and be less focused on management fees. And so I think there’s a little bit of alignment around that and really taking that kind of perspective on portfolio construction and liquidation, being also more aggressive on the individual time that we spend with our startups. On the negative side, obviously a lot of these smaller funds, not the case of Chameleon, but others out there are single GPs, very little teams or very small teams. And so it’s sometimes difficult to actually do a lot for portfolio companies as well. And this is where the mega funds, for example, a16z notably would say, hey, we have 600+ people that can support you, right? On market development, business development, communications, talent recruiting, all this stuff. Question mark whether that’s the right way to do it in terms of operating model, if technology is not a better way of supplying that value back to your portfolio companies, or if there’s no better way of doing it. But still, that’s one of the appeals of actually dealing with a larger mega fund if you’re a startup, right? That they will have the resources, also the financial resources to put more capital in you. But also, again, if there’s entrepreneurs listening to this right now, and hopefully there are, it’s a two-edged sword, right? Because if you have Andreessen Horowitz putting money in you, or NEA, or General Catalyst, or whatever, putting money in you on a Series C and then not doubling down on the Series A or the Series B, there will be questions, right? Because like they have the capital, they have other funds, so why the hell are they not putting more money in? Um, so, so it’s a little bit of a two-edged sword.   Bertrand Yeah, I think that one is a pretty big one. And on top of it, as we discussed, some of these big firms have multiple funds managed technically by different teams. So you might have convinced the early-stage teams, they have investors, they’re happy, but you don’t convince the growth-stage firm. As you say, it might raise questions because people might think that there is some communication between the early-stage team and the growth-stage team. So why the heck are they not deciding to invest? And as we also discussed, even worse possible situation, what happens if the growth-stage team has invested in your competitor? It’s even more trouble. So I think trying to understand how firms behave, what’s the reputation of the firm, what’s the reputation of the partner you are working with, I mean, can have tremendous importance and impact. When it’s time for you to work with a firm.   Nuno Indeed. I mean, at the end of the day, we still believe that the smaller fund— we at Chameleon discuss the notion that our limit should be $500 million per fund, right? And that’s the logic of it. We think that model is the model that works well in venture capital. We do recognize, as I said before, why mega funds keep raising more and more money, right? It becomes a harm’s race at that end of the market. As I said, probably a slightly different asset class, or if not a significantly different asset class as well. So seeing a little bit both sides of the market, I mean, we often compete with the mega funds, but honestly, a lot of the mega funds are kind to us and they let us in. And this whole notion of elbows out, we haven’t felt it that much in the market. And people see our value at the table. And in many cases, I, I do see the larger funds more and more seeing the value of smaller funds coming in on the same rounds and even in some cases co-leading early stage rounds like Series C. So it’s not like elbows are out everywhere across the board. So I don’t mean to say this is like an all-out war between small funds and big funds and the small funds need to win or the big funds need to win. I think actually there’s a lot of potential for coexistence. My point is more that the asset classes and the returns are quite different over time, and that’s how I would think through it. And if you’re an entrepreneur, you should think about that as well, right? What are the implications of taking money from certain funds versus others in terms of the expected returns, expected time allocated to you? For example, if you’re not doing very well as a as a company, right? Will the big funds spend the same amount of energy on you if you’re not doing great and all of that? So it’s a little bit sort of a beware, open your eyes, both for limited partners and for startups. What do you actually want, right? What do you want from your VC firm if you’re a startup? And what do you want from your VC firm if you’re an LP?   Bertrand I must say, as an entrepreneur, uh, a board member, I have seen some situations where the bigger funds are actually trying sometimes to elbow out the existing investors. Like, uh, we have that much money to put to work, we cannot do less. And you’re like, yeah, but I don’t need that much money. And then they’re like, okay, just don’t let your existing investors do their pro rata. I don’t think it’s great because an entrepreneur, if your investors, your VCs, trusted you earlier stage when it’s more risky, and when it’s becoming less risky, you don’t give them the right to their pro rata because you have to let this big guy come in. That’s not great. Or even if there is not this pro rata issue, when an investor tries to put more money to work than it’s really necessary, it’s also not a good idea as an entrepreneur to take more capital than you could use. It will dilute you more, it will set higher expectations in terms of valuation, it will push you to use that capital faster than maybe would be reasonable. So I think that’s something you want to be careful with the bigger funds. So don’t talk to funds that are in some ways beyond your stage and try to make it work in that context. Or don’t accept to have your strategy change dramatically for no good reason by funds that just want to put too much money to work in your business. And that for me is surprising because it should also be in their best interest not to invest in businesses that are not ready to accept that much capital. But as we have seen, there were in the past some funds that believe that capital is a moat. Was a good idea. So hopefully, I guess we’re a bit behind that. But yeah, I would say entrepreneurs, be careful, find partners that are the right partners for you at your current stage. Sometimes some big names look great, but at the same time, if it comes with a lot of issues, from too much capital to also taking the risk that these partners don’t understand the stage of the business you are in or your industry, Just be careful. There is a lot of value to have firms that are very focused on your stage, on your industry, are finely attuned to that situation.   Nuno What Comes Next? Maybe to end in terms of sections, what comes next? And maybe we can come up with some predictions that are a little bit provocative on what’s going to happen to the market. You, if you’re listening to us, feel free to interact with us on LinkedIn, on X. If you have our email address, shoot us an email as well. We’d love to hear from you if you think these are the right predictions or if we’re totally off. Maybe I’ll throw in the first one, Bertrand, and we’ll go one by one. So we’ll each put one at the table and see where we head. My first one is that we’ll have a huge culling of VC investors. We had this rapid expansion of the VC asset class with arguably at least tens of thousands of firms globally, maybe even over 10,000 in the US. I think we’ll have a culling and the culling will continue and we’ll have several firms sort of getting eliminated over the next couple of years that will have either because they’re having tremendous difficulty doing their first close in their next fund, or the returns are not there, or it’s a firm that has done 3, 4 funds, but for some reason the returns have just gone out of whack in the last few years during the bull years. And so therefore, actually they can’t justify to raise more funds out there. So I predict there will be a significant elimination of active firms in the next at least 2 to 3 years. So maybe by 2028, and we’ll be below, I don’t know, 30% of number of active firms that we are today. The other side of it is I do think if we look beyond that, 2029, 2030, and so on, we’ll have the reemergence of not micro funds, but nano funds where people will start deploying capital very, very early and writing small angel checks, but doing it in a way that it’s sort of not this cottage industry that we’ve had of angel investors. So I think angel investment will be disrupted by people that will use more and more of the AI toolification out there to actually manage their portfolios of 10, 15, 5K investments in a way that is a lot more professional, creating sort of an advent of nano funds.   Bertrand Yeah, makes sense. On my side, in terms of prediction, I think there is a possibility that the mega fund model keeps expanding and looks more similar over time to some PE models. So do we have the top 10 VC firms that look more like a Blackstone than a Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia used to be? That for me will be an interesting question and development. I think that there is some possibility that it keeps going in that direction. A lot of incentives are pushing things that way.   Nuno My next prediction is that DPI, distributions to paid-in cash on cash, just cash back, will become essential for limited partners. I think TVPI, total value to paid-in, that also has in there, as we just said, paper valuations. There’s a lot of disbelief now around the TVPI metric if there isn’t distributions going alongside it. For those who, again, don’t know what TVPI is, it’s total value paid in, but it also includes DPI. So it’s cash on cash component plus a remaining valuation to paid in, an RVPI. And the problem is the RVPI really, in reality, it’s that kind of on-paper valuation that never gets attributed. I think LPs, they’ve seen the writing on the wall and they’re like, dude, just show me your DPI numbers. I don’t care about TVPI. Some LPs will still ask about TVPI just to make sure that the rest is sort of looking in order. Like, show me the money, show me the cash. Actually, it’s not money, show me the cash, right? I want money back.   Bertrand But that’s an issue. I mean, if you’re supposed to raise financing every 3 or 4 years, good luck getting DPI to show for that. So you need to be at least on your third fund in order to be able to show DPI, I guess.   Nuno I mean, my corollary to that, Bertrand, is if you allow me just to have a corollary kind of prediction, is that we’ll see certainly for funds like $50 million and above, $100 million, $200 million, et cetera, even increased concentration, right? I really need to have anchors that believe in me over time. And we might start having, again, the advent— we had it some decades ago, the advent of cap table kind of VCs, right? Like Sutter Hill Ventures, right? Where they’re not really raising funds anymore. And so we might have the advent of that, that we’ll have structures that are created that have more permanent capital allocated to them, or at the very least more concentrated capital by very few players.   Bertrand Interesting. Me on my side, as I shared before, I believe secondaries are, are important and here to stay. Um, in the past, some could argue, is it a distress signal or something? I, I don’t think it’s true anymore. In a world where your average startup might take 15 to 18 years to exit through M&A or IPO, we need to have other options. For funds, for employees, they cannot be expected to stick around for so long and have no liquidity. I mean, it’s just pure madness. It’s just bad alignment at some point to do that. So I think secondaries are becoming the third liquidity pathway for VCs, for employees, and it should be more and more a key part of the game, a key infrastructure in the VC/startups tech industry.   Nuno I mean, on specialized versus generalist funds, I believe we’ll continue seeing the coexistence of those two models where the specialized funds will in many pockets actually outperform generalist funds, but where we’ll continue seeing that the large franchises, the tier one franchises will likely be generalist funds. I mean, we just saw it in the cycle. The AI cycle went upon us. We had a 2021 fund. We could easily adapt and go into AI and figure out that AI was growing very fast. I mean, if you have an ultra-specialized fund and that’s your remit and that’s the only thing you can invest on, very difficult to change even during our investment period. I will put a caveat on that. We don’t call, for example, ourselves at Chameleon generalist. We call ourselves multi-specialized because our scoring models for the verticals that we track are specialized within Mantis. Because the partnership is specialized, we all focus on different areas. And because we have the Kin network that allows us to tap into that level of expertise, Again, I think the world will be specialized coexistence. Some pockets specialized will do very well, certainly on the smaller fund size, but the big franchises will likely look a little bit more generalist. And as I said, multi-specialized from our perspective is the future. We’ll start seeing more and more funds that are multi-specialized like ourselves. Do you want to talk about AI and how it’ll distort the metrics? No.   Bertrand Yes. I think AI is an exciting moment in the tech industry. It feels in some ways that the same way we had a big distortion coming with COVID and work from home in 2020, 2021. 2021, where suddenly everyone and their mother will build a SaaS company or invest in a SaaS company. AI feels a bit of the same. I mean, to be clear, I truly believe it’s deserved. I mean, we are facing a dramatic shift in how computing is being done in terms of value you can get from software. So at the same time, AI will probably distort this matrix for a long time. We clearly see a split where investments are going, in what startups are being created. So I think, yeah, we will see some distortion. And we know that maybe 50% of all deal value is going to AI in 2025. We have seen single rounds reaching 40 billion, like to OpenAI. We have seen, as you discussed, some seed stage investment of 400 million. So AI investing and AI startups are definitely a beast on their own. And will distort VC metrics for a long time. And we might need two sets of metrics in parallel, you know, AI versus everything else. So that would be an interesting bifurcation in the industry in some ways. I would say it’s fair to separate AI versus non-AI. We reach a point where it’s two different beasts.   Nuno Conclusion So in conclusion, AI has changed the world and it’s changing VC as well, as we discussed earlier in the episode. We have a tremendous momentous occasion for the asset class where venture capital is really bifurcating into very large funds, which no longer are in venture capital or seemingly may be distributed between different asset classes, and the smaller funds, sub-$500 million and sub-$100 million, that keep having the better returns, but also with much smaller scale. We’re seeing a culling of the industry where the industry is definitely getting smaller and smaller and more concentrated at both ends, number of VC firms, as well as a number of limited partners per fund and the interest that some of these limited partners have of being more and more concentrated in their own portfolio allocations. And last but not the least, the discussion around specialized versus generalist, where it seems like there’s some clear winners on some asset classes, on some sizes, in some industries, but on others, there’s other kinds of winners. And so maybe the future is multi-specialized, as I framed at the end. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to check us out and if you want to comment, feel free to send us messages on X, LinkedIn, to both myself and Bertrand, as well as send us an email. Thank you so much, Bertrand.   Bertrand Thank you, Nuno.

Legendary VC Andreessen Horowitz funds a 24/7 tech show on X… cause the clips are the content.Gucci's had 11-straight quarters of falling sales… so it's hooking up with Google.A $40 half-chicken entree in NYC divided the internet… It's restaurant economics vs. grocery.Plus, the hottest new amenity in the car industry… In-Car Toilets (voice-activated, obvi).$PPRUY $WBD $SPYNEWSLETTER:https://tboypod.com/newsletter OUR 2ND SHOW:Want more business storytelling from us? Check our weekly deepdive show, The Best Idea Yet: The untold origin story of the products you're obsessed with. Listen for free to The Best Idea Yet: https://wondery.com/links/the-best-idea-yet/NEW LISTENERSFill out our 2 minute survey: https://qualtricsxm88y5r986q.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dp1FDYiJgt6lHy6GET ON THE POD: Submit a shoutout or fact: https://tboypod.com/shoutouts SOCIALS:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tboypod TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tboypodYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@tboypod Linkedin (Nick): https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-martell/Linkedin (Jack): https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-crivici-kramer/Anything else: https://tboypod.com/ About Us: The daily pop-biz news show making today's top stories your business. Formerly known as Robinhood Snacks, The Best One Yet is hosted by Jack Crivici-Kramer & Nick Martell. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Every building you've ever been in was designed by software built in 1997.That's the headline a16z used to put the bat signal out to AEC founders — and Joe Schmidt got dragged for it on LinkedIn.But he's not a tourist. His grandfather invented the concrete pump.In today's episode of Bricks & Bytes, we had Joe Schmidt from Andreessen Horowitz and got into the three attack vectors for disrupting Revit, why the services layer is the hidden prize… and many more!Tune in to find out about:✅ The 3 ways startups are attacking Autodesk's "workflow monopoly" — and which one Joe would bet on today✅ Why replacing Revit in 5 years is unlikely (and why you don't need to)✅ The real "why now" for AEC AI — it's not just LLMs✅ Joe's advice to contractors and designers: adopt fast or get left behind

00:00 Welcome to Boys Club Live From A16Z 03:25 San Francisco Vibes Check 07:47 Hudson River Trading Interns 09:44 High Agency Career Paths 14:05 Guest Jimmy Lai Joins 16:59 Next.js Explained 17:30 Open Source How It Works 21:25 Next.js Growth And AI Agents 24:17 Future Of UI And Interfaces 28:48 Open Source Frenemies 32:23 Why Open Source Matters 35:30 Personal Software And Workflows 39:58 Business Agents at Scale 42:20 Personal Knowledge Base Agent 44:09 Hype Versus Real Value 45:53 Experimentation and Bubble Cycles 51:30 Seun Omonije Intro 54:18 Telephone Entropy Explained 57:19 Slop Incentives and Industry 01:01:14 ELI5 Quantum Breaks Crypto 01:07:23 Qubit Counts and New Architectures 01:09:15 AI Accelerates Quantum Progress 01:11:13 Motives and Defenses in Crypto 01:13:14 Do Your Own Research Closing

On this special segment of The Full Ratchet, the following Investors are featured: Jacob Effron of Redpoint Ethan Austin of Outside VC Arianna Simpson of Andreessen Horowitz We asked guests to tell the most important lesson they've learned in their career. The host of The Full Ratchet is Nick Moran of New Stack Ventures, a venture capital firm committed to investing in founders outside of the Bay Area. We're proud to partner with Ramp, the modern finance automation platform. Book a demo and get $150—no strings attached.   Want to keep up to date with The Full Ratchet? Follow us on social. You can learn more about New Stack Ventures by visiting our LinkedIn and Twitter.

New studies from A16Z, KPMG, Writer, and WalkMe paint a picture of enterprise AI that's simultaneously accelerating and breaking down — agentic deployment has crossed 50%, but trust gaps, employee resistance, and a 93/7 spending split between tools and people suggest the real bottleneck isn't technology. In the headlines: Wall Street moves past the SaaS apocalypse, Anthropic poaches top talent from Microsoft and Workday, and Intel partners with Elon on TeraFab.Brought to you by:KPMG – Agentic AI is powering a potential $3 trillion productivity shift, and KPMG's new paper, Agentic AI Untangled, gives leaders a clear framework to decide whether to build, buy, or borrow—download it at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.kpmg.us/Navigate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mercury - Modern banking for business and now personal accounts. Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mercury.com/personal-banking⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zenflow Work - Agents for knowledge work - ⁠https://zenflow.free/⁠Drata - The agentic trust management platform - ⁠https://drata.com/⁠Blitzy - Want to accelerate enterprise software development velocity by 5x? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://blitzy.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AssemblyAI - The best way to build Voice AI apps - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.assemblyai.com/brief⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Robots & Pencils - Cloud-native AI solutions that power results ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://robotsandpencils.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Agent Readiness Audit from Superintelligent - Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://besuper.ai/ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠to request your company's agent readiness score.The AI Daily Brief helps you understand the most important news and discussions in AI. Subscribe to the podcast version of The AI Daily Brief wherever you listen: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://pod.link/1680633614⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Our Newsletter is BACK: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://aidailybrief.beehiiv.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Interested in sponsoring the show? sponsors@aidailybrief.ai

Julie Yoo has seen healthcare from nearly every angle, as a founder who scaled Kyruus to 20 million patients, as a board member, and now as a General Partner at a16z leading investments in some of the most consequential AI health companies being built today. In this conversation with StartUp Health co-founder Unity Stoakes and an interactive audience of StartUp Health community members, she unpacks the ideas she’s been putting forward publicly and the thinking behind them. Why will healthcare benefit from AI more than any other industry? What does infinite healthcare actually mean, and why did it generate such a polarized reaction? Why is she now actively encouraging the compound business model she once cautioned founders against? And what does she look for in a founder when everyone walking into a Series A looks the same on paper? A rich, candid conversation for anyone building, funding, or thinking deeply about the future of health. Do you want to participate in live conversations with industry luminaries? When you join StartUp Health – a private community for founders, investors, buyers, and industry leaders to connect year-round – you are invited to a full calendar of interactive Fireside Chats with the most influential leaders shaping health innovation. Come with questions, learn what is working right now, and connect with industry icons. » Learn more and join today.

"AI told them the idea was great. They built the whole thing. It was wrong."In this episode of Bricks, Bucks & Bytes, Owen, Martin and Dustin unpack why AI models are built to agree with you — and why that's genuinely dangerous in construction. They also tear apart the claim that 96% of projects overrun on budget (spoiler: it's not a design problem), then sit down with Justin Levine, CEO of Shepherd Insurance, fresh off a $42M Series B, to talk about what it actually looks like to automate commercial insurance from the ground up.Watch now to uncover:AI sycophancy, MIT's "delusional spiraling" research, and the real-world construction risksWhy budget overrun stats might be measuring the wrong thingShepherd's vision for fully autonomous underwriting — and how they're already running at 5x industry capacityThe plan to price a commercial insurance submission in real time, during a live broker meeting"By the time that meeting ends, we want that account to be fully priced and ready to go." — Justin Levine, CEO, Shepherd InsuranceWatch the full episode on Bricks, Bucks and Bytes YouTube Channel. Link in the comments. #aec #construction #constructiontech #bricksbucksandbytes #bricksbytes #ai #insurance #vcChapters00:00 Intro01:00 Delusions Spiraling: The Impact of AI on Perception 24:42 Budget Overruns in the AEC Industry: A Deep Dive 29:53 The Role of Technology in Construction: Enhancing or Hindering? 30:09 Understanding Budget Overruns in Construction 32:51 The Role of A16Z in Construction Tech 36:09 Shepherd's $42 Million Series B Funding 42:02 Autonomous Underwriting: A New Era in Insurance 49:26 The Future of Brokers in Construction Insurance 53:13 Self-Insurance and Risk Management in Construction 01:01:25 The Benefits of Autonomous Underwriting for Clients

This episode originally aired on the Latent Space Podcast. swyx and Alessio Fanelli speak with Marc Andreessen about the arc of AI from its origins in 1943 to today's breakthroughs in reasoning, coding agents, and self-improvement. They cover the parallels between AI scaling laws and Moore's Law, the architectural insight behind Claude Code and the Unix shell, the coming supply crunch in compute, and why the messy reality of 8 billion people means both AI utopians and doomers are too optimistic about the pace of change. Follow Marc Andreessen on X: https://twitter.com/pmarca Follow Shawn "swyx" Wang on X:  https://twitter.com/swyx Follow Alessio Fanelli on X: https://twitter.com/FanaHOVA Listen to Latent Space. Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Fresh off raising a monster $15B, Marc Andreessen has lived through multiple computing platform shifts firsthand, from Mosaic and Netscape to cofounding A16z. In this episode, Marc joins swyx and Alessio in a16z's legendary Sand Hill Road office to argue that AI is not just another hype cycle, but the payoff of an “80-year overnight success”: from neural nets and expert systems to transformers, reasoning models, coding, agents, and recursive self-improvement. He lays out why he thinks this moment is different, why AI is finally escaping the old boom-bust pattern, and why the real bottleneck may be less about models than about the messy institutions, incentives, and social systems that struggle to absorb technological change.This episode was a dream come true for us, and many thanks to Erik Torenberg for the assist in setting this up. Full episode on YouTube!We discuss:* Marc's long view on AI: from the 1980s AI boom and expert systems to AlexNet, transformers, and why he sees today's moment as the culmination of decades of compounding technical progress* Why “this time is different”: the jump from LLMs to reasoning, coding, agents, and recursive self-improvement, and why Marc thinks these breakthroughs make AI real in a way prior cycles were not* AI winters vs. “80-year overnight success”: why the field repeatedly swings between utopianism and doom, and why Marc thinks the underlying researchers were mostly right even when the timelines were wrong* Scaling laws, Moore's Law, and what to build: why he believes AI scaling laws will continue, why the outside world is messier than lab purists assume, and how startups can still create durable value on top of rapidly improving models* The dot-com crash and AI infrastructure risk: Marc's comparison between today's AI capex boom and the fiber/data-center overbuild of 2000, plus why he thinks this cycle is different because the buyers are huge cash-rich incumbents and demand is already here* Why old NVIDIA chips may be getting more valuable: the pace of software progress, chronic capacity shortages, and the idea that even current models are “sandbagged” by supply constraints* Open source, edge inference, and the chip bottleneck: why Marc thinks local models, Apple Silicon, privacy, trust, and economics all point toward a major role for edge AI* American vs. Chinese open source AI: DeepSeek as a “gift to the world,” why open models matter not just because they're free but because they teach the world how things work, and how open source strategies may shift as the market consolidates* Why Pi and OpenClaw matter so much: Marc's claim that the combination of LLM + shell + filesystem + markdown + cron loop is one of the biggest software architecture breakthroughs in decades* Agents as the new “Unix”: how agent state living in files allows portability across models and runtimes, and why self-modifying agents that can extend themselves may redefine what software even is* The future of coding and programming languages: why Marc thinks software becomes abundant, why bots may translate freely across languages, and why “programming language” itself may stop being a salient concept* Browsers, protocols, and human readability: lessons from Mosaic and the web, why text protocols and “view source” mattered, and how similar principles may shape AI-native systems* Real-world OpenClaw use: health dashboards, sleep monitoring, smart homes, rewriting firmware on robot dogs, and why the most aggressive users are discovering both the power and danger of agents first* Proof of human vs. proof of bot: why Marc thinks the internet's bot problem is now unsolvable via detection alone, and why biometric + cryptographic proof of human becomes necessaryTimestamps* 00:00 Marc on AI's “80-Year Overnight Success”* 00:01 A Quick Message From swyx* 01:44 Inside a16z With Marc Andreessen* 02:13 The Truth About a16z's AI Pivot* 03:29 Why This AI Boom Is Not Like 2016* 06:33 Marc on AI Winters, Hype Cycles, and What's Different Now* 10:09 Reasoning, Coding, Agents, and the New AI Breakthroughs* 12:13 What Founders Should Build as Models Keep Improving* 16:33 AI Capex, GPU Shortages, and the Dot-Com Crash Analogy* 24:54 Open Source AI, Edge Inference, and Why It Matters* 33:03 Why OpenClaw and PI Could Change Software Forever* 41:37 Agents, the End of Interfaces, and Software for Bots* 46:47 Do Programming Languages Even Have a Future?* 54:19 AI Agents Need Money: Payments, Crypto, and Stablecoins* 56:59 Proof of Human, Internet Bots, and the Drone Problem* 01:06:12 AI, Management, and the Return of Founder-Led Companies* 01:12:23 Why the Real Economy May Resist AI Longer Than Expected* 01:15:53 Closing ThoughtsTranscriptMarc: Something about AI that causes the people in the field, I would say, to become both excessively utopian and excessively apocalyptic. Having said that, I think what's actually happened is an enormous amount of technical progress that built up over time. And like for, for example, we now know that neural network is the correct architecture.And I, I will tell you like there was a 60 year run where that was like a, you know, or even 70 years where that was controversial. And so, so the way I think about what's happening is basically, I think, I think about basically the, the, the period we're in right now is it's, I call it 80 year overnight success, right?Which is like, it's an overnight success ‘cause it's like bam, you know, chat GPT hits and then, and then oh one hits, and then, you know, open claw hits and like, you know, these are open, these are, these are like overnight, like radical, overnight transformative successes, but they're drawing on an 80 year sort of wellspring backlog, you know, of, of, of, of ideas and thinking it's not just that it's all brand new, it's that it's an unlock of all of these decades of like very serious, hardcore research.If I were 18, like this is a hundred, this is what I would be spending all of my time on. This is like such an incredible conceptual breakthrough.swyx: Before we get into today's episode, I just have a small message for listeners. Thank you. We will not be able to bring you the ai, engineering, science, and entertainment contents that you so clearly want if you didn't choose to also click in and tune into our content.We've been approached by sponsors on an almost daily basis, but fortunately enough of you actually subscribed to us to keep all this sustainable without ads, and we wanna keep it that way. But I just have one favor to ask all of you. The single, most powerful, completely free thing you can do is to click that subscribe button.It's the only thing I'll ever ask of you, and it means absolutely everything to me and my team that works so hard to bring the in space to you each and every week. If you do it, I promise you will never stop working to make the show even better. Now, let's get into it.Alessio: Hey everyone, welcome to the Lidian Space Pockets. This is CIO, founder Kernel Labs, and I'm joined by s Swix, editor of Lidian Space.swyx: Hello. And we're in a 16 Z with a, uh, mark G and welcome.Marc: Yes, yes. A and what, half of 16? Something like that. A one. Exactly,swyx: exactly. Uh, apparently this is the, the final few days in your, your current office.You're moving across the road.Marc: Uh, we're, yeah. We have a, we have some, we have some projects underway, but yeah, this is actually, oh, this is the original. We're in actually the original office. We're in the, we're in the, we're, we're in the whole thing.swyx: It's beautiful. Yeah. Great.Marc: Thank you.swyx: So I have to come out, uh, this is a, you know, I wanted to pick a spicy start in October, 2022.I just made friends with Roone and, uh, I wanted to give him something to sort of be spicy about. And I said, uh. Uh, it'll never not be funny. The A 16 Z was constantly going. The future is where the smart people choose to spend their time and then going deep into crypto and not in ai. And that was in October 22nd, 2022.And Ruen says there was an internal meeting in a 16 Z to reorient around Gen ai. Obviously you have, but was there a meeting? What, what was that?Marc: I mean, I don't, look, I've been doing AI since the late eighties.swyx: Yeah.Marc: So I, I don't know, like all that, as far as I'm concerned, this stuff is all Johnny cum lately.Yeah. You, I mean, look, we've been doing ar entire existence. I mean, we've been doing AI machine learning deep, you know, deeply. We've been doing this stuff way from the beginning. Obviously a AI is just core to computer science. I, I, I actually view them as like quite, uh, quite continuous. Um, you know, Ben and I both have computer science degrees.Um, you know, we, we both, Ben, Ben and I actually both are world enough to remember the actual AI boom in the 1980s. Yeah. There was like a, there was a big AI boom at the time. Um, and there was a, was names like expert systems. Um, and they of like lisp and lisp machines. Uh, I, I coded in lisp. I was coding a lisp in 1989.When that was the, the language of the AI future. Um, yeah. So this is something that we're like completely, you completely comfortable with. I've been doing the whole time and are very enthusiastic aboutswyx: is there a strong, like this time is different because, uh, my closest analog was 20 16 17. It was an AI boom.Mm-hmm. And it petered out very, very quickly. Um, we, it just, it just in terms of investingMarc: sort of, sort of,swyx: yeah. Investment, investment excitement.Marc: Although that's really when the, the, the Nvidia phenomenon really, it was, I would say it was in that period when it was very clear that at, at the time it, the vocabulary was more machine learning, but it, it was very clear at that time that machine learning was hitting some sort of takeoff point.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: Well, and as you guys, you guys have talked about this at length on, on your thing, but, you know, if you really track what happened, I think the real story is, it was, it was the Alex net, uh, basically breakthrough in like 2013. That was the, that was the real knee in the curve. Um, and then it was obviously the transformer breakthrough in 17.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: Um, and then everything that followed. But, but, you know, look, machine learning, you know, there were, you know, look, uh, I mean look, I've been working, you know, I've been working with, uh, one of my, you know, kind of projects working with Facebook since 2004. Um, and on the board since 2007, and of course, you know, they, they started using machine learning very early, um, and, you know, have used it basically, you know, for like 20 years for, you know, content, you know, feed optimization and advertising optimization.And obviously many, you know, financial services. You know, many, many, many companies, many different sectors have been doing this. And so it's like one of these things, it's like, it's not a, it's not a single thing. Like it's, it's like, it's like layers, right? Yeah. Um, and, and the layers arrive at different paces and, but they kind of build up.swyx: Yeah.Marc: Uh, they kind of build up over time and then, and then, yeah. And then look, in retrospect, it was 2017 was kind of the, you know, the key, the key point with the trans transformer and then. And then as you guys know, there was this really weird like four year period where it's like the, the transformer existed and then it was just like,swyx: let's go.Yeah.Marc: Well, but, but it was just, but, but between 2020, but between 2017 and 2021, I mean, that was the era of which like companies like Google had internal chat Botts, but they weren't letting anybody use them.swyx: Yeah.Marc: Right. And then, you know, and then OpenAI developed Chat GT or GPT two, and then they told everybody, this is way too dangerous to deploy.Right. Yeah. You know, we can't possibly let normal people, normal people use this thing. And then you, you guys, I'm sure remember AI Dungeon, um mm-hmm. So the o for, there was like a year where like the only way for a normal person to use GP T three was in, in AI dungeon.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: And so you, you, we would do this, you'd go in there and you'd pretend to play Dungeons and Dragons.In reality, you're just trying to talk to talk to GPT. And so there was this, you know, there was this long, you know, and I, you know, the big, big companies, you know, big companies are cautious and, you know, the big companies were cautious. It, it, by the way, it took open ai. You know, they, they, they talk about this, it took open AI time to actually adjust, you know, kind of re redirect their researchswyx: path.I, I think, uh, let say Rosewood, right? Uh, the, the dinner that founded OpenAI was right there.Marc: Right, right. But that, that dinner would've taken place in 20swyx: 18Marc: 19. The formation of OpenAI Uhhuh as late as 2018.swyx: Uh, uh, sorry. Uh, no, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm wrong. Probably It should be 20. Yeah. They just celebrated a 10 year anniversary, so it it is 2025.Yeah, so, so 2015?Marc: Yeah. 2015. Yeah. 2015. But then, uh, um, Alec Radford did G PT one in what, probablyswyx: mm-hmm. 17, 18,Marc: yeah. 17, 18. So it, yeah. For, and then, and then they didn't really, and then GPT three was what? 2020? 2020.swyx: 2020.Marc: Because that became copilot immediately. Even open ai, which has been, you know, the leader of, of this thing in the last decade, you know, e even they had to adapt and, and, and lean into the new thing.And so. Um, yeah, I, I think it's just this process of basically sort of wave after wave layer after layer, you know, building on itself. And then you kind of get these catalytic moments where, where the whole thing pops and, and obviously that's what's happening now.swyx: Is it useful to think about will there be any ai, winter?‘cause there's always these patterns. Like, is this, in the summer is something I constantly think about because do I get, do I just like. Just get endlessly hyped and just trust that I will only be early and never wrong or right. Well, are we, will there be a winter?Marc: So there's something about, say the following.There's something about AI that has led to this repeated pattern. Um, and, and, and you guys know this,swyx: it's summer, winter, summer,Marc: winter, summer, winter, summer, winter. And it goes back 80 years. Yeah. 80 years. Uh, so the original neural network paper was 1943. Right. Which is, which is amazing. Uh, that it was, it was far back that long.And then there was you, if you guys have ever talked about this on your show, but there was this, uh, there was a big, uh, there was an a GI conference at Dartmouth University in 1950. 55. 55, yeah. And they got a NSF grant to, uh, for the, all the AI experts at the time to spend the summer together. And they figured if they had 10 weeks together, they could get a GI, uh, at the other end.And they got their, by the way, they got the grant, they got the 10 weeks and then, you know, 1955, you know. No, no. A GI. And like I said, I, I lived through the eighties version of this where there was a big, a big boom and a crash. And so, so there is this thing, and there, there is something about AI that causes the people in the field, I would say, to become both excessively utopian and excessively apocalyptic.Um, and, and it's probably on both sides of like the, the, the boom bus cycle. You, you kind of see that play out. Having said that, I think what's actually happened is like just, and you know, and we now know in retrospect like an enormous amount of technical progress that built up over time. And like for, for example, we now know that neural network is the correct architecture.And I, I will tell you like there was a 60 year run where that was like a, you know, or even 70 years or that was controversial. And, and we now know that that's the case. And so we, we now, you know, everything we're building on today just sort of derives from the original idea in 1943. And so, so in retrospect, we, we now know that like, these, these guys are right.They, they, you know, they would get the timing wrong and they thought, you know, capabilities would arrive faster, or they were, it could be turned into businesses sooner or whatever, but like, they were fundamentally, the, the scientists who worked on this over the course of decades were fundamentally correct about what they were doing.And, and the, and the payoff from, from, from all their work is happening now. And so, so the way I think about what's happening is basically, I think, I think about basically the, the, the period we're in right now is it's, I call it 80 year overnight success, right? Which is like, it's an overnight success.‘cause it's like bam, you know, chat, GPT hits and then, and then oh one hits, and then, you know, open claw hits and like, you know, these are open, these are, these are like overnight, like radical, overnight transformative successes, but they're drawing on an 80 year sort of wellspring backlog, you know, of, of, of, of ideas and thinking it's not just that it's all brand new, it's that it's an unlock of all of these decades of like very serious, hardcore research.Um, and thinking, and look, there were AI researchers who spent their entire lives. They got their PhD. They, they worked for, they've researched for 40 years. They retired in a lot of cases, they passed away and they never actually saw it work.swyx: Yeah. It's all sad.Marc: It is. It is sad. It's sad. Knewswyx: Jeff Hinton was like the last guy.Marc: Yeah. Yeah. Well, there were the guys, uh, was a guy, Alan Newell. I mean, there's tons of John McCarthy. You know, John McCarthy was like one of the inventors in the field. He's one of the guys who organized the Dartmouth Conference and you know, he taught at Stanford for 40 years. Wow. And passed, you know, passed away, I don't know, whatever, 10, 10 years ago or something.Never, never actually go. Got to see it happen. But like, it is amazing in retrospect, like, these guys were incredibly smart and they worked really hard and they were correct. So anyway, so then it's like, okay, you know, say history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. It's like, okay, does that mean that there's gonna be another, like, you know, basically boom buzz cycle.And I, I will tell you, like, let, like in a sense, like yes, everything goes through cycles and, you know, people get overly enthusiastic and overly depressed and there's, there's a time, there's a timelessness to that. Having said that, there's just no question. Um, so the form, the foremost dangerous words in investing this time are, this time is different.Do you know the 12 most dangerous words investing? No. The four most d foremost dangerous words in investing are this time is different. Yeah. Um, the 12 most dangerous words. And so like, I'll tell you what's different. Like now it's working like, like there's just no, I mean, look, there's just no question.And by the way, I, I'll just give you guys my take. Like L LLMs, like from, from basically the Chad G PT moment through to spring of 25. I think you could still, I think well intention, well, and of. Form skeptics could still say, oh, this is just pattern completion. And oh, these things don't really understand what they're doing.And you know, the hall hallucination rates are way too high. And, you know, this is gonna be great for creative writing and creating, you know, Shakespeare and so sonnets and, you know, as, as rap lyrics or whatever, like, it's gonna be great and all that stuff, but we're not gonna be able to harness this to make this relevant in, you know, coding or in medicine or in law or in, you know, you know, kind of feels that, you know, kind of really, really matter.And I think basically it was the reasoning breakthrough. It, it was oh one and then R one that basically answered that question basically said, oh no, we're gonna be able to actually turn this into something that's gonna work in the real world. And, and then obviously the coding breakthrough over the, over basically the coding breakthrough that kind of catalyzed over the holiday break was kind of the third step in that.Mm-hmm. Where you're just like, alright, if, if, you know, if Linus Tova is saying that the AI coding is no better than he is like. Like, that's, that's never happened before. That's theswyx: benchmark.Marc: Yeah. That's never happened before. And so now we know that it's, it's gonna sweep through coding and, and then, and then we, we know, you know, we know that if it's gonna work in coding, it's gonna work in everything else.Right. It's just then, because that's, that's like, that's like, that's like the hardest in many ways. That's the hardest example. And how everything else is gonna be a, a derivative of that. And then on top of that, we just got the agent breakthrough, you know, with Open Claw, which is fantastic. Which is amazing and incredibly powerful.And then we just got the, the, um, the auto research, uh, you know, the, the self-improvement. You know, we're now into the self-improvement breakthrough. And so the, so the way I think about it is we've had four fundamental breakthroughs in functionality, l OMS reasoning, uh, agents, um, and then, uh, and, and then now RSI, um, and, and they're all actually working.Um, and so I'm, I'm just, as you like, you can tell I'm jumping outta my shoes. Like, like this is, like this is it like this, this is the culmination of 80 years worth of worth of work, and this is the time it's becoming real.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: I, I'm completely convinced.Alessio: I think the anxiety that people feel is like during the transistor era, yet Mors law, and it's like, all right, we understand why these things are getting better.We understand the physics of it. Yeah. With ai, it's. It's so jagged in like the jumps where like, like you said, it's like in three months you have like this huge jump like, and people are like, well this can keep happening. Right? But then it keeps happening,Marc: it'll keep happening.Alessio: And so like how do you think about also timelines of like what's we're building?I think we always have this question with guests, which is like, you know, should you spend time building harness for a model versus like the next model just gonna do it one shot in the lead space. Right. And how does that inform, like how you think about the shape of the technology? You know, you talk about how it's a new computing platform.If you have a computing platform, then like every six months it like drastically changes in what it looks like. It's hard to build companies on top of it.Marc: Yeah. So, so a couple things. So one is like, look, the, the Moore's law was what we now call a scaling law. Like Moore's Law was a scaling law and for your younger viewers, more Moore's Law was every chip chip chips either get twice as powerful or twice as cheap every, every 18 months.And that, and that and that, you know, that it's gotten more complicated in the last few years. But like that, that was like the 50 year trajectory of, of, of the computer industry. And then, and then by the way, and that's what took the mainframe computer from a $25 million current dollar thing into, you know, the phone in your pocket being, you know, a million times more powerful than that.Like that, you know, for, for 500 bucks. And so that, that was a scaling law. And then, and then, and then key to any scaling law, including Moore's Law and the AI scaling laws is, you know, they're not really laws, right? They're, they're, they're, they're predictions, but when they work, they become self-fulfilling predictions because they, they, they, they, they set a benchmark and, and then the entire industry, right?All the smart people in the industry kind of work to make sure that, that, that actually happens. And so they, they kind of motivate the breakthroughs that are required to, to keep that going. And, and in and in chips, that was a 50 year, that was a 50 year run. Right. And it, it was amazing. And it's still happening in, in some areas of, of chips.I think the same thing is happening with the, the core scaling laws. The core scaling laws. In, in, in ai, you know, they're, they're not really laws, but like they, they are basically. There are predictions and then they're motivating catalysts for the research work that is required to be. And, and, and, and by the way, also the investment, uh, dollars, um, uh, you know, required to basically keep, you know, keep the curves going and, and look, it, it is, it's gonna be complicated and it's gonna be variable and they're, you know, there're gonna be walls that are gonna look like they're fast approaching, and then they're gonna be, you know, engineers are gonna get to work and they're gonna figure out a way to punch through the walls.And obviously that's, you know, that's been happening a lot, you know, and then look, there's gonna be times when it looks like the walls have, you know, the, the, the laws have petered out and then they're gonna, they're gonna pick up again and surge and then, and then, and then it, it appears what's happening to the eyes is there's not multiple, you know, multiple scaling laws.Um, there's multiple areas of improvement. And, and I think, you know, I don't know how many more there are already yet to be discovered, but there are probably some more that we don't know about yet. You know, they, like, for example, there's probably some scaling law around, um, world models and robotics that we don't fully understand, you know, kind of acquisition of data at scale in the real world that we don't fully understand yet.So that, that, that one will probably kick in at some point here. There's a bunch of really smart people working on that. Um, and so, yeah, I, I think the expectation is that, that, you know, the, the scaling laws generally are gonna continue. Yeah. The, the pace of improvement will continue to move really fast.Um. To your question on like what to build. So, uh, I'm a complete believer the scaling laws are gonna continue. I'm a complete believer the capabilities are gonna keep getting amazing, um, you know, leaps and bounds. Uh, the part where I kind of part ways a little bit with how, what I would describe as the AI purists, um, you know, which is, which I would characterize as like the people who are.In many ways, the smartest people in the field, but also the people who spend their entire life, like at a lab, um, and have, have, I would say, have very little experience in the outside world. Um, the, the, the nuance I would offer is the outside world of 8 billion people and institutions and governments and companies and economic systems and social systems is really complicated.Um, and, um, and doesn't, you know, it it 8 billion people making collective decisions on planet Earth is not a simple process of like, just like you see this happening now. It's like a bunch of AI CEOs have this thing, which is just like, well, there's just this, they just all have this kind of thing when they talk in public where they're just like, well, there's these, these obvious set of things that so society to do.Alessio: Mm-hmm.Marc: And then they're like, society's not doing any of those things. Right. And it's like, how can society not, you know, what, whatever their theory is, how can society not see x, y, Z? Mm-hmm. And the answer is, well, society is number one. There's no single society, it's like 8 billion people. And they like all have a voice, and they all have a vote, like at the end of the day of how they, they react to change.And then, you know, it just like, it's just human reality is just really complicated and messy. Um, and, and, and so the specific answer to your question is like, as usual, it depends. Um, you know, it, it depends. Look, pe there's no question people are gonna, like, there's no question they're gonna be companies.It's already happening. There are companies that think that they're building value on top of the models and then they're just gonna get blissed by the, by the next model. There's no question that's happening. But I think there's no question also that just the process of adaptation of any technology into the real and into the real messy world of humanity is, is just going to be messy and complicated.It's, it's not going to be simple and straightforward. It's gonna be messy and complicated. And there are gonna be a lot of companies and a lot of products, um, uh, and in, in fact entire industries that are gonna get built to, to, to basically actually help all of this technology actually reach real people.Alessio: The amount of capital going into these companies, I mean, Dario talked about it on the Door Cash podcast and Door Cash was like, why don't you just buy 10 x more GPUs? And he is like, because I'm gonna go bankrupt if the model doesn't exactly hit the, the performance level. How do you think about that?Also as a risk on, you know, you guys are investors, open AI and thinking machines and world apps. It seems like we're leveraging the scaling loss at a pretty high rate, right? Like how comfortable, I guess, do you feel with the downside scenario, like, and say like things Peter out, you think you can kind of like restructure uh, these build outs and uh, you know, capital investments.Marc: Yeah. So should start by saying, so I live through the.com crash, um, and I can tell you stories for hours about the.com crash and it was horrible. No, it was awful. It was, it was, it was apocalyptic by the way. The, a lot of the.com crash was actually at the time, it was actually a telecom crash. It was a bandwidth crash.Like the, the thing that actually crashed, that wiped out all the money with the tele, the telecom companies.swyx: GlobalMarc: crossing. Global, global, yeah.swyx: I'm from Singapore and they, they laid so much cable o over over our oceans.Marc: Actually there was a scaling law in the.com. Era. And it was literally the, the US Commerce Department put out a report in 1996 and they said internet traffic was doubling every quarter.Um, and, and actually in 1995 and 1996, internet traffic actually did double every quarter. And so that became the scaling law. And so what all these telecom entrepreneurs did was they went out and they raised money to build fiber, anticipating that the demand for bandwidth is gonna keep doubling every quarter.Doubling every quarter though is like, you know, grains of chess and the chessboard, like at some point the numbers become extremely large. Right. And, and, and it really, and really what happened was the internet. The internet by the way, continuously kept growing basically since inception. And it's, you know, it's, it's continuously grown.It's never shrunk. And it's grown really fast compared to anything else. Mm-hmm. You know, in, in, in human history. But it wasn't doubling every quarter as of 19 98, 19 99. And so there was this gap in the expectation of what they thought was a scaling law versus reality. And that's actually what caused the.com crash, which was the, it they, they way over companies like global crossing way overbuilt fiber, which is sort of the, and by the way, fiber, telecom equipment, you know, so all the, all the networking gear, you know, and then, and then by the way, the actual physical data centers, like that was the beginning of the, of the, of the data center build and then, and the data center overbuild.And so you had that, but it was, it was literally, I think it was like $2 trillion got wiped out, right? It was like Jesus, it was like a big, it was. And by the way, the other, the other subtlety in it was the internet companies themselves never really had any debt. ‘cause tech, tech companies generally don't run on debt, but the telecom companies run on debt.Physical infrastructure companies run on debt. And so the companies like Global Crossing not just raise a lot of equity, they also raise a lot of debt. So they're highly levered. And so then you just do the thing. It's just like, okay, you have a highly levered thing where you're, you're just over, you're overbuilding capacity.Demand is growing, but not as fast as you hoped. And then boom, bankrupt. Right. And, and then it, and then it's like they say about the hotel industry, which is, it's always the third owner of a hotel that makes money. It has to go bankrupt twice, right? You have to wash out all of the over optimistic exuberance before it gets to actually a stable state.And then it makes money. So by the way, all of those data centers and all of those, all the fiber that they're in use, it's all in use today. Yeah. But 25 years later. But it, it, it took, and actually the elapsed time was, it took 15 years. It took 15 years from 2000 to 2015 to actually fill, fill up all that capacity.The cautionary warning is the, the overbuild can happen. Um, and, and, and, and, you know, you, you get into this thing where basically everybody, everybody who basically has any sort of institutional capital, it's like, wow. It's just, I, I don't know how to invest in these crazy software things. For sure I can put build data centers and for sure I can buy GPUs that I can deploy, you know, compute grids and, and all these things.Um, and so, you know, if you're a pessimist, you could look at this and you could say, wow, this is like really set up to be able to basically replicate, you know, what we went through, what we went through in 2000. Obviously that would be bad. The counter argument, which is the one I I agree with, which is the counter on, on the other side is a couple things.One is the companies that are investing all the, the companies that are investing the money are like the bluest chip of companies. And so back, back, back in the, in the do, like Global Crossing was like a, it was like an entrepreneur. It was like a, a new venture, but like the money that's being deployed now at scale is Microsoft, and, you know, and Amazon and Google, Facebook and Facebook and Nvidia and, you know, these, these, these, and, and now you know, by the way, open ai philanthropic, which are now at like, you know, really serious size, um, you know, as companies with, you know, very serious revenue.These are very large scale companies with like, lots, lots of cash, lots of debt capacity that they've, they've never used. And so th this is institutional in a way that, that really wasn't at the time. And then the other is, at least for now, every dollar that's being put into anything that results in a running GPU is being turned into revenue right away.Like so, and you guys know this, like everybody's starved for capacity, everybody's starved for compute capacity and then, you know, all the associated things, memory and, and, and interconnected and everything else. Um, data center space. And so e every dollar right now that's being put into the ground is turning into revenue.And, and it, and in fact, I actually think there's an interesting thing happening, which is because everybody starve for capacity, the models that we actually have that we can use today are inferior versions of what we would have if not for the supply constraints. That's true. Um, if Right pose a hypothetical universe in which GPUs were 10 times cheaper and 10 times more plentiful mm-hmm.The models would be much better. ‘cause you would just allocate a lot more money to training and you'd just build better models and they would be better. Um, and so we're, we're actually getting the sandbag version of the technology.swyx: Yeah. No. Everything we use is quantized because the, the labs have to keep the, the full versions,Marc: right?swyx: LikeMarc: we're not even getting the good stuff.swyx: Yeah.Marc: But, but getting the good stuff, it's, it's just, even if technical progress stops. Once there's like a much bigger build of like GPU manufacturing capacity and memory, you know, all, all the things that have to happen in the course of the next five or 10 years.Once it happens, even the current technology is gonna get, gonna get much better. And then as you know, like there's just like a million ways to use this stuff. Like there's just like a million use cases for this. Mm-hmm. Like, it, it, you know, this isn't just sending packets across a, a thing, whatever, and hoping that people find something to do with it.This is just like, oh, we apply intelligence into every domain of human activity. And then it works like incredibly well. Yeah. Um. Here's what I know, here's what I know. Um, in the next three or four year, it's like somewhere between three or four years out, basically everything is selling out. So like the, the entire supply chain is, is, is, is sold out or, or, or selling out.And so there, there's no, like, we're just gonna have like chronic supply shortage for, you know, for years to come. Um, there's going to be a response from the market that's gonna result in an enormous, you know, it's happening now. An enormous flood of investment in a new fab capacity and ev you know, every, everything else to be able to do that, at some point the supply chain constraints will unlock, you know, at least to some degree that will be another accelerant to industry growth when that happens.‘cause the products will get better and everything will get cheaper. Um, and so, so I know that's gonna happen. I know that, you know, the deployments, you know, the, the actual use cases are like really compelling. And then, like I said, you know, with reasoning and agents and so forth, like, I know they're just gonna get like much, much better from here.And so I, I, I know the capabilities are like really real and serious. I also know that the technical progress is not going to stop. It. It, it is excel. It is, is accelerating. Like the, the breakthroughs are are tremendous. I mean, even just month over month, the breakthroughs are really dramatic. And so, you know, I think if you were a cynic and there, there are cynics, you can look at 2000, you can find echoes.But I can't even imagine betting it that this is gonna like somehow disappoint and, you know, at least for years to come, I think it would be essentially suicidal to make that bet. Yeah. Um, it was that Michael Burry, uh, uh, that'sswyx: anMarc: interesting guy, huh? We'll pick on a guy. We'll pick, let's pick on one guy.We'll pick. Well ‘cause he did, he he came out with, it was, it was the, heswyx: doesn't mind.Marc: It was the Nvidia short. Right. He came with the Nvidia short. And then if you guys probably talked about this, which is the, the analysis now that like the current models are getting better faster at such a rate that if you are running an Nvidia, if you're running an Nvidia inference chip today, that's three years old, you're making more money on it today than you did three years ago because the pace of improvement of the software is, is faster than the, the, the depreciation cycle, the chip.And then my understanding is Google is running. I don't if they've, I don't know exactly what, uh, these are rumors that I've heard or maybe it's public, but, um, I think Google's running very old TPUs, very profitably. Ference. Yeah. And very profit and very profitably. Yeah. Um, and so, so it actually turns out, as far as I can tell, it's actually the opposite of the Beery thesis is actually.He was actually 180 degrees wrong. It's actually the, the, the, the old Nvidia chips are getting more valuable, which is something that's like literally never happened before. Like it's never been the case that you have an older model chip that becomes more valuable, not less valuable. And that, and again, that's an expression of the just ferocious pace of software progress.Ferocious pace of capability payoff. Yeah. Uh, that you're getting on the other side of this. And so I just, the idea of betting against that, like.swyx: Yeah. Yeah. Well, one ofMarc: my, it seems like an invitation to get your face ripped up.swyx: One of my early hits was like modeling the lifespan of the H 100 and h two hundreds and, and going like, you know, usually they advise like four to seven years and it was, you know, maybe you sort of realistically haircut cut it down to two to three.Yeah. But actually it's going up and not down. Yeah. And, and uh, that's, I mean that's, I think that's the dream. Uh, we are finding utilization and I think utilization solves all problems. Like, you can, you can find use, use cases for even like the poor, like even memory, we're having a shortage. Right. And, and even like the, the shittier versions of, of memory that we do have, we are finding use cases for it.So like That's great.Marc: Yeah.Alessio: How, how important is open source AI and kinda like edge inference in a world in which you have three years of supply crunch. Like, do you think in the, like, you know, if you fast forward like five years, like how do you think about inference, uh, in the data center versus at the edge?Marc: Well, so just to start, yeah. So I think, I think open source is very important for a bunch of reasons. I think edge, edge inference is very important for a bunch of reasons. I, I think just practically speaking, if we're just gonna have fundamental construc, supply crunches for the next, I mean, you, you guys know if you just project forward demand over the next three years, right?Yeah. Relative to supply, one of the, its main predictions you can do is what's gonna, what, what's gonna happen to the cost of, of inference in the core, uh, over the next three years? And like, it may rise dramatically, right? Like, so, so what is, and then is, is, you know, like the, the, the big model competition are subsidizing heavily right now.Right? Right. And so, so what's the, what will be the average person's, you know, per day, per month token cost, you know, three years from now to do all the things that they want to do. And I, I don't know, it's gonna. I mean, I have, you guys probably have friends, I have friends today who are paying a thousand dollars a day for open claw, for claw tokens to run open claw.Right? And so, okay. $30,000 a month. Right? And, and by the way, those, those friends have like a thousand more ideas of the things that they want their claw to do, right? Yeah. And so you, you could imagine there, there's like latent demand of up to, I don't know, five or $10,000 a day of, of, of tokens for a fully deployed, you know, per personal agent.Uh, and obviously consumers can't pay that, right? And so, so, but it gives you a sense of the fu of the fu of the future scope of demand, right? And so, so even, even if there's a 10 x improvement in price performance, that still, you know, goes to a hundred dollars a day, which is still way beyond what people can pay.Mm-hmm. So there's just gonna be like. Ferocious to me, by the way. The agent thing, the other interesting thing is I think the agent thing, so up until now, a lot of the constraints of GGPU constraints, I think the agent thing now also translates into CPU constraints. Mm-hmm. Right?swyx: CPU memory.Marc: Yes. CPU memory, right?And so, like the entire chip ecosystem is just gonna get wait,swyx: wait for network constraints, that that will be the killer.Marc: It's all bottleneck potentially for years. And so, so I, I think that Brad, and, and I think it's actually possible, I mean, generally inference costs are gonna keep coming down, but I think the, let's put it this way, the rate of decline, I think may level out here for a bit because of these supply constraints.And then at some point, maybe the lab stops subsidizing so much and that, that, that again, will be, be an issue. And so there's just gonna be so much more demand for inference than, than can be satisfied. Um, you know, kind of with the centralized model. And then, and then, you know, you guys know this, but like all the, just the dramatic, I mean just the dramatic innovations that have happened in the Apple silicon to be able to do, uh, inferences, it's quite amazing the level of effort being put.Like the open source guys are putting incredible effort into getting, you know, this recurring pattern where the big model will never run on a pc, and then six months later mm-hmm. Oh, it runs in a pc, right? It's like amazing. And there's very smart people working on that. So there's all that. And then look, there's also, you know.There's also like other, there's other motivators. There's other motivators which is just like, okay, how much trust are the big centralized model providers? You know, how much trust are they building in the market versus, you know, how much are, you know, at least for, in certain cases with some people, for certain use cases, people being like, well, I'm not willing to just like, turn everything over.So there, there, there's all the trust issues. Um, by the way, there's also just like straight up price optimization. There's many uses of AI where you don't need Einstein in the cloud. You just need like a, a a, a smart local model. There's also performance issues where you want, you know, you want, you know, you're gonna want your doorknob to have an AI model in it.Right. You know, to be able to, you know, do, um, you know, to be able to do access control. Um, obviously like everything with a chip is gonna have an AI model in it. Mm-hmm. And it, a lot of those are gonna be local. Um, and so, yeah. No, like I think, I think you're gonna have ti and then you're gonna, by the way, also wearable devices, you know, you don't wanna do a complete round trip.You want, you know, you, whatever your smart devices are, you want it to be like super low latency. Yeah.swyx: The question, do we care who makes it? Yeah. One of the biggest news this week was the collapse of AI two, the Allen Institute. Mm-hmm. One of the actual American open source model labs. Yeah. Um, and, uh, I'm not that optimistic on, on American open source.Yeah. Like you, you guys invested in MIS trial and MIS trial's doing extremely well outside of China. That's about it.Marc: Yeah. We'll see. We'll see. I look, I, number one, I do think we care. Uh, I do think we, I do think we care who makes it. Um, I would say this, the, the, the, the previous presidential administration wanted to kill it in the us Oh yeah.They wanted to drown in the bathtub. Um, and so they wanted to kill it. So at least we have a government now that actually like, actually wants it wants it to happen. And youswyx: earned to councilMarc: and Yeah. And the new and the P pcast. Yeah. So the, the, you know, this admin for whatever other political issues people have, which are many, you know, this administration has, I think a very enlightened view and in particular an enlightened view on AI and in particular on open source ai.Uh, and so they're very supportive. Um, my read is the Chi. The Chinese have a very, the various Chinese companies have a very specific reason to do open source, which is, they, they, they don't fundamentally, they don't think they can sell commercial, uh, AI outside of China right now. And or at least specifically not, not in the US for a combination of reasons.And so they, they kind of view, I think, open source AI as a bit of a loss leader against basically domestic, uh, you know, paid, paid services. And then kind of an, you know, kind of an ancillary products. You know, they're, they're very excited about it, by the way. I think it's great. I think it's great that they're doing it.Um, you know, I think Deeps seek was like a gift to the world. Um, I think. The great thing about open source, open source, the, the, the impact of open source is felt two ways. One is you, you get the software for free, but the other is you get to learn how it works, right? And so like the paper, the paper, the paper and, and the code, right?And the code. And so, like, for example, I thought this was amazing. So open comes out with L one and it's an amazing technical breakthrough, and it's just like, absolutely fantastic. But of course they don't explain how it works in detail. And then of course they hide the, they hide the reasoning traces, right?And, and then, and then, and then everybody's like, okay, this is great, but like, who's gonna be able to replicate this? Are other people gonna be able to do this? You know, is their secret sauce in there? And then our one comes out and it's just like, there's the code and there's the paper, and now the whole world knows how to do it.And then, you know, three months later, every other AI model is, is adding reasoning. And so, so you get this kind of double, like even if the Chinese models themselves are not the models that get used, the education that's taken place to the rest of the world, the information diffusion, you know, is incredibly powerful.So that happens and then, I don't know. We'll, we'll see. You know, there are a bunch of American, you know, open source, you know, ai, uh, model companies. I mean, look, there's gonna be tremendous, you know, there already is. There's, you know, there's gonna be tre there's tremendous competition, uh, among the primary model companies.You know, there's, depending on how you count, there's like four or five, you know, big co model companies now that are, you know, kind of neck and neck, uh, in different ways. Um, uh, you know, and, and, and, um, you know, and then obviously Bo Bo both X and then MetAware involved are, you know, both have huge, you know, huge attempts to, you know, kind of, to kind of leapfrog underway.And then you've got, you know, a whole fleet of startups, new companies, including a whole bunch that we're backing, that are, you know, trying to come out with different approaches. And then you've got whatever it is. I don't know how, how many, how many, like main line foundation model companies are there in China at this point?It's probably six. It'sswyx: five Tigers is what they call it. Yeah. Uh, Quinn is in questionable because there's change in leadership,Marc: right?swyx: Yeah.Marc: But that, does that include, that includes like Moonshot,swyx: yes. Can deep seek, uh, uh, ZI, um, Quinn oh one is in there.Marc: Right. And then, um, and by dance and, and then you see,swyx: ance would be like the next tier ance.They weren't as prominent. They weren't, didn't haveMarc: a leading. Yeah. But they, you at least, you know, ance is very inspiring and presumably they have more stuff coming and Tencent probably has more stuff coming and, and so forth. And so, so, so like, look, here, here would be a thing you can anticipate, which is there are not these markets, there are not going to be between the US and China right now, there's like a dozen primary foundation model companies that are like at scale, at, at some level of a critical mass.It's not gonna be a dozen in three years, right? Like, it just because these industries don't bear a dozen, it's, it's gonna be three or you know, there's gonna be three or four big winners or maybe one or two big winners. And so there's gonna be like a whole bunch of those guys that are gonna have to figure out alternate strategies.Um, and I think like open source is one of those strategies. And so I, I think you could see like a whole, i, I, I think the questions like, who's gonna do open source? I think that could change really fast. I, I think that, that, that's a very dynamic thing. I think it's very hard to predict what happens. And, and I think it's very important.swyx: NVIDIA's doing a lot.Marc: Well, I was gonna say. Well, exactly. And then you're got Nvidia and then, and then, you know, just to, again, indu, there's an old thing in business strategy, which is called, uh, commoditize Compliments. Commoditize the compliment. That's right. And so if your Jensen is just kind of obvious, of course, you wanna commoditize the software.Yeah. And he's, and to his enormous credit, he's putting enormous resources behind that. And so maybe it, maybe it's literally Nvidia and I think that would be great.Alessio: Yeah. Uh, narrative violation to European projects, uh, in the, uh, damn.swyx: I'm hosting my, uh, Europe, uh, conference soon. And I got both of them.Alessio: They got us.They got us. MarkMarc: finished. They got us, us. Well, wait a minute. Where was Peter? So where was Steinberger when he did? In AustriaAlessio: was, yeah, yeah, yeah.Marc: He was in what? He was in Vienna. Oh, he was in Vienna. And then where is he now?swyx: Uh, he's moving to sf.Marc: Okay. Okay. Alright. Okay, there we go. And then, yeah, the PI guy, right?The PI guys are European.swyx: Yeah, they're also, they're buddies inAlessio: Australia. Mario's also there. Yeah.Marc: Right. And are they, yeah, they haven't announced yet. Any sort of change changed or have theyAlessio: No, they're, they have a company there.Marc: Okay. Got, okay. Good.Alessio: Good, good,good.Alessio: Um,Marc: yeah, good.swyx: Anyways, I think pie and open cloud very important software things and, and I just wanted you to just go off on what you think.Marc: Yeah. So I think in co the, the combination of the two of them I think is one of the 10 most important softwares. Openswyx: Claw got all the attention, but Right. Talk about pie,Marc: pi pie's, kind of the Yeah. PI's, PI's kind of the architectural breakthrough for those of us who are older. There was this whole thing that was very important in the world of software basically from like 1970 to, I don't know, it still is very important, but like 19, from 1973 to like basically the creation of Linux, which is basically this, this thing used to call like the Unix mindset.Like so, so, ‘cause there were all these different, you know, theories. There are all these different operating systems and mainframes and, and then you know, all these windows and Mac and all these things. And then there was this, but kind of behind it all was this idea of kind of the Unix mindset. And the Unix mindset was this thing where basically you don't have these, like, like in the old days, like, like the operating system that like made the computer industry really work, like in the 1960s mm-hmm.Was this thing called o os 360, which was this big operating system that IBM developed that was supposed to basically run everything. And it was this like giant monolithic architecture in the sky. It was like a, you know, it was like a giant castle. Um, of software. And, and by the way, it worked really well and they were very successful with it.But like, it was this huge castle in the sky, but it was this thing, it was almost unapproachable, which is like, you had to be kind of inside IBM or very close to IBM. And you had to really understand every aspect, how the system worked. And then the, the Unix sky is originally out of at and t and then out out of Berkeley, um, you know, came out and they said, no, let's have a completely different architecture.And the way architecture's gonna work is we're gonna have, we're gonna have a, a prompt and, and a, and a shell. And then, and then we're gonna, all, all the functionality is gonna be in the form of these discreet modules, and then you're gonna be able to chain the modules together. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And so like the, the, the op, it's almost like the operating, operating system itself is gonna be a programming language.Um, and then that led led to the, the, the sort of centrality of the shell. Um, and then that led to sort of, uh, you know, basically chaining together Unix tools. And then that led to the emergence of these, these scripting languages like Pearl, where you, you could basically kind of very easily do this, and then the shells got more sophisticated and then, and then, and then look like, you know, that, that, that number one, that worked and that, that was the world I grew up in.Like I was, I was a Unix guy. You know, sort of from, call it 1988 to, you know, kind of all, all the way through my work and it worked really well. It, it's in the background, um, you know, nor normal people don't need to, didn't need to necessarily know about it, but like, if you were doing like system architecture, application development, you, you, you knew all about it.Um, and then, you know, it's been in the background ever since. And, you know, look, your Mac still has a Unix shell, you know, kind of in there, and your iPhone still has a Unix shell kind of buried in there somewhere. So they're kind of in there. And then, you know, the Windows shell is kind of a, you know, sort of a weird derivative of that.But, um, you know, but look, the inter, the internet runs on Unix, um, and that smartphones, actually, both iOS and Android are Unix derivatives. And so, you know, kind of Unix did end up winning. But, but anyway, and then we just started taking that for granted. And then, and then so, so basically the, the way I think about what happened with Pie and then with Open Claw is basically what those guys figured out is, I always say the, the great breakthroughs are obvious in retrospect, right?Which is the best kind, the best kind. They weren't obvious at the time or somebody else would've done them already. Um, and so there is a, like a real conceptual leap, but then you look at it sort of the backwards looking and you're just like, oh, of course. Mm-hmm. Like the, the, to me those are always the best breakthroughs.Well, actually language models themselves are like that. It's just like, oh, next token completion. Oh, of course.swyx: Yeah. What other objective mattered?Marc: Yeah, exactly. But, but like it, right. But she's even saying it wasn't obvious until somebody actually did it. Right. And so the conceptual breakthrough is real and deep and powerful and, and very important.And so the way I think about pie and olaw is it's basically marrying the, the language model mindset to the un to the Unix, basically shell prompt mindset. And so it's, it's basically this idea that what, what, so what is an agent, right? And as, as, and as you know, like many smart people who have been trying to figure out what an agent is for, for, for decades, and they've had many architectures to build agents and the whole thing.And it turns out what is an agent. So it turns out what we now know is an agent is the following. It's, so it's a language model. And then above that, it's a ba, it's a bash shell. Um, so it's a, it's a Unix shell, and then it's, and then the agent has access, uh, has access to, to the shell. And, you know, hopeful, hopefully in a sandbox, maybe in, maybe in a sandbox.So it's, it's the model. Um, it's the shell. Um, and then it's a fi, it's a file system. Um, and then the state is stored in files. And then, you know, there's the markdown format for the, you know, for, for the files themselves. And then, and then there's basically what in Unix is called Aron job. There's a loop and then there's a heartbeat for the, there's heartbeat and, and the thing basically Wake Wakes up.Wakes up. So it's basically LLM plus shell, plus file system, plus markdown, plus kron. And it turns out that's an agent. And, and, and every part of that, other than the model is something that we already completely know and understand. And in fact, it turns out that like the latent power of the Unix shell is like extraordinary because basically like all, like, there's just like an, there's just enormous latent power in the shell.There's enormous numbers of Unix commands, there's enormous number of command line interfaces into all kinds of things already in the, you know, your entire, I mean your entire, just to start with, your computer runs on a shell. If you're running a Mac or a, or, or a phone, your computer, your computer's running on a shell, uh, already.And so like the full power of your computer is available at the command line level. Um, and then it turns out it's really easy to expose other functions as a command line interface. And so like this whole idea where we need like MCP and these like product mm-hmm. Fancy protocols, whatever, it's like, no, we don't, we just need like a command, command line thing.So that's the architecture. And then it turns out what is your agent? Your agent has a bunch of files starting a file system. And then there's the thing that just like completely blew my mind when I write my head around it as a result of this, which is like, okay. This means your agent is now actually independent of the model that it's running on.Because you can actually swap out a different LLM underneath your agent and your, your agent will change personality somewhat. ‘cause the model is different, but all of the state stored in the files will be retained.swyx: Yeah. Different instruction set, but you just compiledit.Marc: Right, exactly. And it's all right.It's like right. Swapping out a ship and recompiling, but it's, it's still, it's still your agent with all of its memories. Um, and with all of its capabilities. And then by the way, you can also swap out the shell, uh, so you can move it to a different execution environment that is also, is also a b shell, by the way, you can also switch out the file system, right.Uh, and you can, and you can, and you can swap out the, the, the heartbeat for the, the crown framework, the, the loop that the agent framework itself. And so your agent basically is ba basically at the end of the day, it's just. It's just, its files. Um, and then, and then there's of course it a openswyx: call.Marc: Yeah, it's, it's basically, it's, it's just the files.Um, and then by the way, as a consequence of that, the agent and then the agent itself, it turns out a couple important things. So one is it, it's, it, it can migrate itself, right? And so you're, you can instruct your agent, migrate yourself to a different, uh, runtime environment, migrate yourself to a different file system, migrate yourself to a different, you know, swap out the language model.Your agent will do all that stuff for you. And then there's the final thing, which is just amazing, which is the agent is the agent actually has full introspection. It actually, it actually knows about its own files and it could rewrite its own files. Right. Which by the way, is basically no widely deployed software system in history where the, the, the thing that you're using actually has full introspective knowledge of how it itself works and is able to modify itself.Like that, that, I mean, there have been toy systems that have had that, but there, there's never been a widely deployed system that has that capability and then that leads you to the capability. That just like completely blew my mind when I wrap my head around it, which is you can tell the agent to add new functions and features to itself and it can do that.Extend yourself. Yeah. Right? Extend, extend yourself. Like extend yourself. Give yourself a new capability. Right? And so, and so literally it's just like you run into somebody at a party and they're like, oh, I have my open claw, do whatever, connect to my eat, sleep bed, and it gives me better advice and sleep.And you go home at night and you tell your claw, or if they're at the party, by the way, you tell your claw, oh, add this capability to yourself. And your claw will say, oh, okay, no problem. And it'll go out on the internet and it'll figure out whatever it needs and then it'll go out to claw code or whatever.It'll write whatever it needs. And then the next thing you know, it has this new capability. And so you don't even have to, like, you can have it upgrade itself without even having to, without having to do anything other than tell it that you want it to do that. And so anyway, so the, the combination of all this is just, I mean, this is just like a massive, incredible, I mean, it's just incredible.Like if I, if I were, if I were 18, like this is a hundred, this is what I would be spending all of my time on. This is like such an incredible conceptual breakthrough. Yeah. And again, pe people are gonna look at it and they already get this response. People are gonna look at it and they're gonna say, oh, well, where's the breakthrough?‘cause these, the, all of these components were already known before. Mm-hmm. But, but this is the key, the key to the breakthrough was by using all these components that were known before, you get all of the underlying capability of that's buried in there. And so all, and so for example, computer use all of a sudden just kind of falls, trivi, trivial.Of course it's gonna be able to use your computer. It has full access to the shell. Right. And then, and then you just, you, you give it access to a browser, and then you've got the computer and the browser and, and often away it goes. And, and then you've got all the abilities of the browser also. Um, yeah.And so, and so the capability unlock here is profound. My friends who are, you know, deepest into this, are having their claw do like a, like, literally like a thousand things in their lives. They have new ideas every day. They're just like constantly throwing new challenges at the thing. And by the way, it's early and, you know, these are, you know, these are prototypes and there are, you know, as you guys know, there's security issues.Yeah. And, and so, you know, there's a bunch of stuff to be ironed out, but the, the unlock of capability is just incredible.swyx: Yeah.Marc: And I, I have absolutely no doubt that everybody in the world is gonna, is gonna have at least, you know, an agent like this, if not an entire family of agents. And w

Hann er heimspekingur í Kísildal, en hann er ekki heimspekingur Kísildalsins. Þvert á móti þá sker hann sig úr og gerir í því að aðgreina sig frá öðrum tæknifyrirtækjum Kísildalsins. Við fjöllum um Alex Karp, framkvæmdastjóra Palantir. Áður en hann varð framkvæmdastjóri og síðar milljarðamæringur, þá var hann doktorsnemi í heimspeki við Goethe-háskóla í Frankfurt. Palantir er eitt umdeildasta fyrirtæki Bandaríkjanna í dag, enda tækni þess notuð af útlendingaeftirlitinu (ICE) til að finna innflytjendur sem stendur til að reka úr landi og til að finna heppilegustu skotmörkin í Íran. Karp sem talar um sig sem vinstrimann og hefur stutt Demókrataflokkinn í áratugi, hefur hlotið mikla gagnrýni fyrir þáttöku fyrirtækisins í herskárri stefnu Donalds Trump. Það efni sem nýttist við gerð þáttarins var meðal annars eftirfarandi The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West (2025) eftir Alexander C. Karp og Nicholas W. Zamiska The Philosopher in the Valley: Alex Karp, Palantir, and the Rise of the Surveillance State eftir Michael Steinberger (2025) Viðtöl A16z - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj6ttdIeBnE&t=62s All In hlaðvarpið - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-IH7EVrBbQ Free Press https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdqHf71Tep0 New York Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i-ys9faa74 Greinar Minningargrein Karp um Habermas https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/03/20/karp-habermas-remembrance-00838398 Rýnt í doktorsritgerð Karp https://www.boundary2.org/2020/07/moira-weigel-palantir-goes-to-the-frankfurt-school/ Stúlknaskólinn í Íran og Maven https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blame-for-the-iran-school-bombing-the-truth-is-far-more-worrying

Marc Andreessen is a Co-Founder and General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz. The firm now manages over $90BN and has invested in the likes of OpenAI, Airbnb, Coinbase, Anduril and many more. Marc is an innovator and creator, one of the few to pioneer a software category used by more than a billion people and one of the few to establish multiple billion-dollar companies. Marc co-created the Mosaic internet browser and co-founded Netscape (sold to AOL for $4.2 billion). He also co-founded Loudcloud, which as Opsware, sold to Hewlett-Packard for $1.6 billion.  AGENDA: 05:00 — Why Introspection is Overrated: The Dangers of Learning from the Past 08:00 — The One Trait Marc Andreessen Looks For in Every Founder 14:30 — Are the Best Founders Broken? What Makes the Best Founders? 16:00 — "Extreme Ownership": Why Everything Being Your Fault Changes Everything 19:00 — "Do You Read the Comments?" Fame, Criticism & How to Deal with Haters 26:00 — Is Venture Now Go Big or Go Home? The Real Future of VC 30:00 — Does Price Matter Anymore? The Dangerous Truth About Valuations 33:00 — "Stop Chasing Diamonds in the Rough": Why Most VCs Get This Completely Wrong 36:00 — Do You Actually Need to Like Founders? The Uncomfortable Answer 40:00 — Are Companies 75% Overstaffed? The Most Controversial Take on Hiring 45:00 — When Will a16z Go Public?  50:00 — Why Labour Displacement Theory Around AI is Totally Wrong 55:00 — Why Silicon Valley Is More Dominant Than Ever? 01:00:00 — Why a16z Invested $300M into Adam Neumann  01:05:00 — What Still Drives Marc Andreesen? 01:10:00 — What is the Biggest Mistakes VCs Still Make Today?  

"Yes, AI is a big deal, but the conclusion that AI is going to kill the vertical and functional software business model simply makes no sense. The truth is that AI simply isn't going to kill software companies. After all this panic has passed, we'll see that AI is the best thing that ever happened to the software industry." ~ Alex Immerman and Santiago Rodriguez Ever wonder if AI is really going to wipe out software companies and leave us all jobless in a post-human economy? Listen in this episode where I read a A16Z article dismantling the doom and gloom, then rant on why AI amplifies human judgment, process power, and relative value - turning creative destruction into the ultimate boon for innovation. Could this be the take that flips your fears into excitement? Check out the original article: AI Will Eat Application Software by Alex Immerman and Santiago Rodriguez (Link: https://www.a16z.news/p/good-news-ai-will-eat-application) References from the episode Peter Steinberg's article on managing AI agents and process engineering, which sparked my thoughts on judgment and memory in AI. (Link: https://steipete.me/posts/just-talk-to-it) Dig into my feed for those recent episodes on AI coding and vibe coding; they're full of practical takes on agents and processes. Check out our awesome sponsors! HRF: The Human Rights Foundation is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that promotes and protects human rights globally, with a focus on closed societies. Subscribe to HRF's Financial Freedom Newsletter today. (Link: https://mailchi.mp/hrf.org/financial-freedom-newsletter) OFF: The Oslo Freedom Forum is a global human rights event by the Human Rights Foundation (HRF), uniting voices from activism, journalism, tech, and beyond. Through powerful stories and collaboration, OFF advances freedom and human potential worldwide. Join us next June. (Link: https://oslofreedomforum.com/) Host Links ⁠Guy on Nostr ⁠(Link: http://tinyurl.com/2xc96ney) ⁠Guy on X ⁠(Link: https://twitter.com/theguyswann) Guy on Instagram (Link: https://www.instagram.com/theguyswann) Guy on TikTok (Link: https://www.tiktok.com/@theguyswann) Guy on YouTube (Link: https://www.youtube.com/@theguyswann) ⁠Bitcoin Audible on X⁠ (Link: https://twitter.com/BitcoinAudible) The Guy Swann Network Broadcast Room on Keet (Link: https://tinyurl.com/3na6v839)

Bridgit Mendler, Co-founder and CEO of Northwood, joins a16z's Erik Torenberg to discuss the critical but overlooked bottleneck in space: ground infrastructure. Northwood is building the systems that connect satellites back to Earth, enabling faster, more scalable space missions. They cover Bridgit's unconventional path to founding a space company, why vertical integration matters in hard tech, and how modern ground networks could unlock the next wave of innovation in the space economy, from national security to new commercial applications.   Resources: Follow Bridgit on X: https://x.com/bridgitmendler   Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's an AI-heavy episode with real stakes: Jessica digs into OpenAI's evolving approach to shopping and why “closing the loop” on commerce could be the proving ground for consumer monetization. The group sparrs over charts: OpenAI vs. Anthropic annualized revenue, what “slope” investors actually care about, and whether Anthropic's developer-first strategy (code, tokens, and high ARPU) is the smarter path than consumer mindshare.Sam argues that “intelligence” is heading toward a global, frictionless commodity market (bad for margins, great for usage) and introduces the idea of “dark pools” (proprietary access/data/relationships) as the only durable moat. Dave counters with the more optimistic take: AI is collapsing the line between “consumer” and “developer,” turning everyone into a builder, and launching a new creative medium (with examples spanning from software to film). Brit adds fuel with “nano-targeted” commerce and a tour through A16Z's Top 50 GenAI web products list, highlighting both mainstream shifts and the internet's… more ‘unexpected' categories.Finally: a truly out-of-left-field deal pitch from Jess: should someone buy the Tennis Channel for ~$1B? Plus a rapid-fire pop culture close (Kelce's return, Oscars bets, and what everyone's watching) before Sam heads back to the sauna.Chapters:0:00 — Intro & Sam's Sauna Hat1:33 — First-Ever MOL Podcast Ad3:54 — ChatGPT's Shopping Pivot7:19 — The Chart: OpenAI vs Anthropic Revenue11:52 — The Slope: Linear or Super Linear?16:10 — Commerce Is Bad. Attention Is Good.19:04 — AI Is Turning Everyone Into a Builder20:15 — "$1B Raised, $900M spent on Inference"23:17 — AI Is Worse Than the Cable Business35:58 — Dark Pools: Death of the Open Marketplace40:45 — The P50 Problem: What Happens to Average People?42:38 — "Software Is Totally Commoditized"45:43 — Brit's Bot Corner: Anime Husband Chatbots 50:44 — Should You Buy the Tennis Channel for $1B?54:22 — Pop Culture CornerWe're also on ↓X: https://twitter.com/moreorlesspodInstagram: https://instagram.com/moreorlessSpotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/moreorlesspodOn demand reactions powered by AI: https://molchat.ai/ Connect with us here:1) Sam Lessin: https://x.com/lessin2) Dave Morin: https://x.com/davemorin3) Jessica Lessin: https://x.com/Jessicalessin4) Brit Morin: https://x.com/brit

In this episode, Tyler and Sterling sit down with David Haber from a16z. David shares many important insights and tactics for both investors and operators, as well as his groundbreaking idea on the concept of "Firm over Fund".He also explains how he got started with a16z, what their focus is in 2026, as well as his involvement in the early stages with some of Silicon Valley's biggest startups. This episode is packed with valuable insights for anyone working in the startup world.--Chapters:(00:00:00) Intro(00:01:22) David Haber's Evolution in Venture Capital(00:11:47) From Tacos to Fintech(00:15:18) Lessons Learned in the Fintech Industry(00:19:03) How to Build a Lasting VC Firm(00:19:45) The Idea of Firm Over Fund(00:26:06) What a16z Does To Win Big(00:29:52) Where a16z puts their focus(00:38:06) Some of David's Favorite Investors and Operators--Subscribe for more investor/operator focused content.Check out a16z: https://a16z.com/This podcast was brought to you by PELION. Learn more about them here: https://pelionvc.com

This week, we're back with another weekly roundup where we discuss the current state of markets as Bitcoin holds steady around $70k. We then deep dive into how to unlock 24/7 markets, insider trading on prediction markets, recent VC fundraises & more. Enjoy! -- Follow Rob: https://x.com/HadickM Follow Santi: https://x.com/santiagoroel Follow Empire:https://x.com/theempirepod -- Join us at DAS (Digital Asset Summit) in New York City this March! Follow the link below to grab your ticket, and use code EMPIRE200 to get $200 off your ticket! https://blockworks.co/event/digital-asset-summit-nyc-2026 -- Timestamps: (00:00) Introduction (03:20) State of The Market (08:05) How To Unlock 24/7 Markets (18:54) DAS Plug (19:20) Insider Trading On Prediction Markets (52:58) OKX Raises At a $25B Valuation (55:34) a16z & Paradigm Raising $3.5B (01:09:33) Will Crypto Prices Recover? (01:13:16) Content of The Week -- Disclaimer: Nothing said on Empire is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely our opinions, not financial advice. Santiago, Jason, Rob and our guests may hold positions in the companies, funds, or projects discussed.

The startup, co-founded by Tesla and Apple alumni, has sold nearly 1,000 of its motorbikes so far. Also, AI procurement startup Lio announced a $30 million Series A in a round led by Andreessen Horowitz. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tune in live every weekday Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM Eastern to 10:15 AM.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy our NFT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Join our Discord⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠DISCLAIMER: The views shared on this show are the hosts' opinions only and should not be taken as financial advice. This content is for entertainment and informational purposes.

Stocks drop sharply on continued fighting in the Middle East. Two of Wall Street's top strategists lay out how to think about positioning with so much geopolitical uncertainty. Then, Andreessen Horowitz's Ben Horowitz on his firm's investments in aerospace and defense and how the war with Iran is impacting sentiment, especially in the AI sector. Plus, the CEO of MongoDB. The stock getting caught up in fears about software, falling even more after releasing results. His outlook, this hour. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this feed drop from the Internet History Podcast, host Brian McCullough speaks with Chris Dixon, general partner at a16z, about his path from 1980s hobbyist programmer to one of the most prominent venture capitalists in tech. Chris traces his career from quantitative finance to founding SiteAdvisor, cofounding Founder Collective, starting an early machine learning company, and eventually building a16z's crypto practice from the ground up. They also discuss his framework for spotting unconventional investments, the current state of crypto regulation, and why New York is becoming a serious tech hub.   Resources: Follow Chris Dixon on X:  https://twitter.com/cdixon Follow Brian McCullough on X:  https://twitter.com/brianmcc Listen to Internet History Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@internethistorypodcast Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Erik Torenberg, Ben Horowitz, and Marc Andreessen discuss how the media landscape has fundamentally changed and what a16z is doing about it. They cover why offense beats defense, why individuals now matter more than corporate brands, why speed wins in the new media landscape, and the difference between oral and written culture on the internet.   Resources: Follow Erik Torenberg on X: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Follow Ben Horowitz on X: https://twitter.com/bhorowitz Follow Marc Andreessen on X: https://twitter.com/bhorowitz Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Crypto News: Bitcoin and altcoins see upside in price as Terraform sues Jane Street and market manipulation gets exposed. Ethereum unveils new 'Strawmap' roadmap adding private ETH transactions, quantum-proof security, and massive L2 scaling. Tether invests $200 million in digital marketplace Whop to expand stablecoin payments.Brought to you by ✅ VeChain is a versatile enterprise-grade L1 smart contract platform https://www.vechain.org/ 

In this episode of ADSN, James and Daniel follow the money. We break down the new monetization plays and where dollars are starting to flow. Including how Gemini and Amazon's Rufus are already printing billions, Snap embracing even more creator monetization, and what Web 4.0 means for revenue and payments, and much more.Bryan Kim, partner at Andreessen Horowitz, joins the show to talk about why adtech is having a moment again, how AI is ushering in a new era of engagement and distribution, and where the future is heading.STAY CONNECTEDJAMES Twitter –⁠ /jamesborow⁠ LinkedIn —⁠ /jamesborow⁠DANIEL Instagram —⁠ /danieldruger⁠ TikTok —⁠ /danieldruger⁠ LinkedIn —⁠ /danieldruger⁠

SummaryIn this conversation, George discusses TaxNova, an AI-powered platform that automates the R&D tax credit process for tech companies. He shares his personal journey as a founder, the role of AI in streamlining tax claims, and the challenges faced in the traditional claims process. George emphasizes the importance of efficiency and compliance, the significance of funding and accelerator experiences, and the market potential for TaxNova. He also addresses the collaboration with tax advisors and the unique advantages of being an outsider in the industry.TakeawaysTaxNova automates the R&D tax credit process for tech companies.The founder's journey is deeply personal and reflects their strengths.AI is transforming paperwork-heavy tasks in tax claims.The claims process is often inefficient and burdensome for companies.Efficiency and compliance are critical in tax claims.Funding from angels and operators is crucial at the pre-seed stage.The market for R&D tax credits is substantial and growing.Collaboration with tax advisors is essential for final submissions.Understanding the target audience is key to market positioning.Being an outsider can provide unique insights and advantages.Chapters00:00 Introduction to TaxNova and Its Purpose03:19 The Founder's Journey and Motivation06:09 The Role of AI in Tax Credit Claims08:56 Understanding the Claims Process12:02 Efficiency and Quality in Tax Claims15:06 Funding Journey and Accelerator Experience17:41 Milestones and Future Goals20:34 Market Positioning and Competition23:40 Collaboration with Tax Advisors26:22 Target Audience and Market Size29:26 Challenges and Unfair Advantages This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit uvcmedia.substack.com

Tickets for AIEi Miami and AIE Europe are live, with first wave speakers announced!From pioneering software-defined networking to backing many of the most aggressive AI model companies of this cycle, Martin Casado and Sarah Wang sit at the center of the capital, compute, and talent arms race reshaping the tech industry. As partners at a16z investing across infrastructure and growth, they've watched venture and growth blur, model labs turn dollars into capability at unprecedented speed, and startups raise nine-figure rounds before monetization.Martin and Sarah join us to unpack the new financing playbook for AI: why today's rounds are really compute contracts in disguise, how the “raise → train → ship → raise bigger” flywheel works, and whether foundation model companies can outspend the entire app ecosystem built on top of them. They also share what's underhyped (boring enterprise software), what's overheated (talent wars and compensation spirals), and the two radically different futures they see for AI's market structure.We discuss:* Martin's “two futures” fork: infinite fragmentation and new software categories vs. a small oligopoly of general models that consume everything above them* The capital flywheel: how model labs translate funding directly into capability gains, then into revenue growth measured in weeks, not years* Why venture and growth have merged: $100M–$1B hybrid rounds, strategic investors, compute negotiations, and complex deal structures* The AGI vs. product tension: allocating scarce GPUs between long-term research and near-term revenue flywheels* Whether frontier labs can out-raise and outspend the entire app ecosystem built on top of their APIs* Why today's talent wars ($10M+ comp packages, $B acqui-hires) are breaking early-stage founder math* Cursor as a case study: building up from the app layer while training down into your own models* Why “boring” enterprise software may be the most underinvested opportunity in the AI mania* Hardware and robotics: why the ChatGPT moment hasn't yet arrived for robots and what would need to change* World Labs and generative 3D: bringing the marginal cost of 3D scene creation down by orders of magnitude* Why public AI discourse is often wildly disconnected from boardroom reality and how founders should navigate the noiseShow Notes:* “Where Value Will Accrue in AI: Martin Casado & Sarah Wang” - a16z show* “Jack Altman & Martin Casado on the Future of Venture Capital”* World Labs—Martin Casado• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martincasado/• X: https://x.com/martin_casadoSarah Wang• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-wang-59b96a7• X: https://x.com/sarahdingwanga16z• https://a16z.com/Timestamps00:00:00 – Intro: Live from a16z00:01:20 – The New AI Funding Model: Venture + Growth Collide00:03:19 – Circular Funding, Demand & “No Dark GPUs”00:05:24 – Infrastructure vs Apps: The Lines Blur00:06:24 – The Capital Flywheel: Raise → Train → Ship → Raise Bigger00:09:39 – Can Frontier Labs Outspend the Entire App Ecosystem?00:11:24 – Character AI & The AGI vs Product Dilemma00:14:39 – Talent Wars, $10M Engineers & Founder Anxiety00:17:33 – What's Underinvested? The Case for “Boring” Software00:19:29 – Robotics, Hardware & Why It's Hard to Win00:22:42 – Custom ASICs & The $1B Training Run Economics00:24:23 – American Dynamism, Geography & AI Power Centers00:26:48 – How AI Is Changing the Investor Workflow (Claude Cowork)00:29:12 – Two Futures of AI: Infinite Expansion or Oligopoly?00:32:48 – If You Can Raise More Than Your Ecosystem, You Win00:34:27 – Are All Tasks AGI-Complete? Coding as the Test Case00:38:55 – Cursor & The Power of the App Layer00:44:05 – World Labs, Spatial Intelligence & 3D Foundation Models00:47:20 – Thinking Machines, Founder Drama & Media Narratives00:52:30 – Where Long-Term Power Accrues in the AI StackTranscriptLatent.Space - Inside AI's $10B+ Capital Flywheel — Martin Casado & Sarah Wang of a16z[00:00:00] Welcome to Latent Space (Live from a16z) + Meet the Guests[00:00:00] Alessio: Hey everyone. Welcome to the Latent Space podcast, live from a 16 z. Uh, this is Alessio founder Kernel Lance, and I'm joined by Twix, editor of Latent Space.[00:00:08] swyx: Hey, hey, hey. Uh, and we're so glad to be on with you guys. Also a top AI podcast, uh, Martin Cado and Sarah Wang. Welcome, very[00:00:16] Martin Casado: happy to be here and welcome.[00:00:17] swyx: Yes, uh, we love this office. We love what you've done with the place. Uh, the new logo is everywhere now. It's, it's still getting, takes a while to get used to, but it reminds me of like sort of a callback to a more ambitious age, which I think is kind of[00:00:31] Martin Casado: definitely makes a statement.[00:00:33] swyx: Yeah.[00:00:34] Martin Casado: Not quite sure what that statement is, but it makes a statement.[00:00:37] swyx: Uh, Martin, I go back with you to Netlify.[00:00:40] Martin Casado: Yep.[00:00:40] swyx: Uh, and, uh, you know, you create a software defined networking and all, all that stuff people can read up on your background. Yep. Sarah, I'm newer to you. Uh, you, you sort of started working together on AI infrastructure stuff.[00:00:51] Sarah Wang: That's right. Yeah. Seven, seven years ago now.[00:00:53] Martin Casado: Best growth investor in the entire industry.[00:00:55] swyx: Oh, say[00:00:56] Martin Casado: more hands down there is, there is. [00:01:00] I mean, when it comes to AI companies, Sarah, I think has done the most kind of aggressive, um, investment thesis around AI models, right? So, worked for Nom Ja, Mira Ia, FEI Fey, and so just these frontier, kind of like large AI models.[00:01:15] I think, you know, Sarah's been the, the broadest investor. Is that fair?[00:01:20] Venture vs. Growth in the Frontier Model Era[00:01:20] Sarah Wang: No, I, well, I was gonna say, I think it's been a really interesting tag, tag team actually just ‘cause the, a lot of these big C deals, not only are they raising a lot of money, um, it's still a tech founder bet, which obviously is inherently early stage.[00:01:33] But the resources,[00:01:36] Martin Casado: so many, I[00:01:36] Sarah Wang: was gonna say the resources one, they just grow really quickly. But then two, the resources that they need day one are kind of growth scale. So I, the hybrid tag team that we have is. Quite effective, I think,[00:01:46] Martin Casado: what is growth these days? You know, you don't wake up if it's less than a billion or like, it's, it's actually, it's actually very like, like no, it's a very interesting time in investing because like, you know, take like the character around, right?[00:01:59] These tend to [00:02:00] be like pre monetization, but the dollars are large enough that you need to have a larger fund and the analysis. You know, because you've got lots of users. ‘cause this stuff has such high demand requires, you know, more of a number sophistication. And so most of these deals, whether it's US or other firms on these large model companies, are like this hybrid between venture growth.[00:02:18] Sarah Wang: Yeah. Total. And I think, you know, stuff like BD for example, you wouldn't usually need BD when you were seed stage trying to get market biz Devrel. Biz Devrel, exactly. Okay. But like now, sorry, I'm,[00:02:27] swyx: I'm not familiar. What, what, what does biz Devrel mean for a venture fund? Because I know what biz Devrel means for a company.[00:02:31] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:02:32] Compute Deals, Strategics, and the ‘Circular Funding' Question[00:02:32] Sarah Wang: You know, so a, a good example is, I mean, we talk about buying compute, but there's a huge negotiation involved there in terms of, okay, do you get equity for the compute? What, what sort of partner are you looking at? Is there a go-to market arm to that? Um, and these are just things on this scale, hundreds of millions, you know, maybe.[00:02:50] Six months into the inception of a company, you just wouldn't have to negotiate these deals before.[00:02:54] Martin Casado: Yeah. These large rounds are very complex now. Like in the past, if you did a series A [00:03:00] or a series B, like whatever, you're writing a 20 to a $60 million check and you call it a day. Now you normally have financial investors and strategic investors, and then the strategic portion always still goes with like these kind of large compute contracts, which can take months to do.[00:03:13] And so it's, it's very different ties. I've been doing this for 10 years. It's the, I've never seen anything like this.[00:03:19] swyx: Yeah. Do you have worries about the circular funding from so disease strategics?[00:03:24] Martin Casado: I mean, listen, as long as the demand is there, like the demand is there. Like the problem with the internet is the demand wasn't there.[00:03:29] swyx: Exactly. All right. This, this is like the, the whole pyramid scheme bubble thing, where like, as long as you mark to market on like the notional value of like, these deals, fine, but like once it starts to chip away, it really Well[00:03:41] Martin Casado: no, like as, as, as, as long as there's demand. I mean, you know, this, this is like a lot of these sound bites have already become kind of cliches, but they're worth saying it.[00:03:47] Right? Like during the internet days, like we were. Um, raising money to put fiber in the ground that wasn't used. And that's a problem, right? Because now you actually have a supply overhang.[00:03:58] swyx: Mm-hmm.[00:03:59] Martin Casado: And even in the, [00:04:00] the time of the, the internet, like the supply and, and bandwidth overhang, even as massive as it was in, as massive as the crash was only lasted about four years.[00:04:09] But we don't have a supply overhang. Like there's no dark GPUs, right? I mean, and so, you know, circular or not, I mean, you know, if, if someone invests in a company that, um. You know, they'll actually use the GPUs. And on the other side of it is the, is the ask for customer. So I I, I think it's a different time.[00:04:25] Sarah Wang: I think the other piece, maybe just to add onto this, and I'm gonna quote Martine in front of him, but this is probably also a unique time in that. For the first time, you can actually trace dollars to outcomes. Yeah, right. Provided that scaling laws are, are holding, um, and capabilities are actually moving forward.[00:04:40] Because if you can put translate dollars into capabilities, uh, a capability improvement, there's demand there to martine's point. But if that somehow breaks, you know, obviously that's an important assumption in this whole thing to make it work. But you know, instead of investing dollars into sales and marketing, you're, you're investing into r and d to get to the capability, um, you know, increase.[00:04:59] And [00:05:00] that's sort of been the demand driver because. Once there's an unlock there, people are willing to pay for it.[00:05:05] Alessio: Yeah.[00:05:06] Blurring Lines: Models as Infra + Apps, and the New Fundraising Flywheel[00:05:06] Alessio: Is there any difference in how you built the portfolio now that some of your growth companies are, like the infrastructure of the early stage companies, like, you know, OpenAI is now the same size as some of the cloud providers were early on.[00:05:16] Like what does that look like? Like how much information can you feed off each other between the, the two?[00:05:24] Martin Casado: There's so many lines that are being crossed right now, or blurred. Right. So we already talked about venture and growth. Another one that's being blurred is between infrastructure and apps, right? So like what is a model company?[00:05:35] Mm-hmm. Like, it's clearly infrastructure, right? Because it's like, you know, it's doing kind of core r and d. It's a horizontal platform, but it's also an app because it's um, uh, touches the users directly. And then of course. You know, the, the, the growth of these is just so high. And so I actually think you're just starting to see a, a, a new financing strategy emerge and, you know, we've had to adapt as a result of that.[00:05:59] And [00:06:00] so there's been a lot of changes. Um, you're right that these companies become platform companies very quickly. You've got ecosystem build out. So none of this is necessarily new, but the timescales of which it's happened is pretty phenomenal. And the way we'd normally cut lines before is blurred a little bit, but.[00:06:16] But that, that, that said, I mean, a lot of it also just does feel like things that we've seen in the past, like cloud build out the internet build out as well.[00:06:24] Sarah Wang: Yeah. Um, yeah, I think it's interesting, uh, I don't know if you guys would agree with this, but it feels like the emerging strategy is, and this builds off of your other question, um.[00:06:33] You raise money for compute, you pour that or you, you pour the money into compute, you get some sort of breakthrough. You funnel the breakthrough into your vertically integrated application. That could be chat GBT, that could be cloud code, you know, whatever it is. You massively gain share and get users.[00:06:49] Maybe you're even subsidizing at that point. Um, depending on your strategy. You raise money at the peak momentum and then you repeat, rinse and repeat. Um, and so. And that wasn't [00:07:00] true even two years ago, I think. Mm-hmm. And so it's sort of to your, just tying it to fundraising strategy, right? There's a, and hiring strategy.[00:07:07] All of these are tied, I think the lines are blurring even more today where everyone is, and they, but of course these companies all have API businesses and so they're these, these frenemy lines that are getting blurred in that a lot of, I mean, they have billions of dollars of API revenue, right? And so there are customers there.[00:07:23] But they're competing on the app layer.[00:07:24] Martin Casado: Yeah. So this is a really, really important point. So I, I would say for sure, venture and growth, that line is blurry app and infrastructure. That line is blurry. Um, but I don't think that that changes our practice so much. But like where the very open questions are like, does this layer in the same way.[00:07:43] Compute traditionally has like during the cloud is like, you know, like whatever, somebody wins one layer, but then another whole set of companies wins another layer. But that might not, might not be the case here. It may be the case that you actually can't verticalize on the token string. Like you can't build an app like it, it necessarily goes down just because there are no [00:08:00] abstractions.[00:08:00] So those are kinda the bigger existential questions we ask. Another thing that is very different this time than in the history of computer sciences is. In the past, if you raised money, then you basically had to wait for engineering to catch up. Which famously doesn't scale like the mythical mammoth. It take a very long time.[00:08:18] But like that's not the case here. Like a model company can raise money and drop a model in a, in a year, and it's better, right? And, and it does it with a team of 20 people or 10 people. So this type of like money entering a company and then producing something that has demand and growth right away and using that to raise more money is a very different capital flywheel than we've ever seen before.[00:08:39] And I think everybody's trying to understand what the consequences are. So I think it's less about like. Big companies and growth and this, and more about these more systemic questions that we actually don't have answers to.[00:08:49] Alessio: Yeah, like at Kernel Labs, one of our ideas is like if you had unlimited money to spend productively to turn tokens into products, like the whole early stage [00:09:00] market is very different because today you're investing X amount of capital to win a deal because of price structure and whatnot, and you're kind of pot committing.[00:09:07] Yeah. To a certain strategy for a certain amount of time. Yeah. But if you could like iteratively spin out companies and products and just throw, I, I wanna spend a million dollar of inference today and get a product out tomorrow.[00:09:18] swyx: Yeah.[00:09:19] Alessio: Like, we should get to the point where like the friction of like token to product is so low that you can do this and then you can change the Right, the early stage venture model to be much more iterative.[00:09:30] And then every round is like either 100 k of inference or like a hundred million from a 16 Z. There's no, there's no like $8 million C round anymore. Right.[00:09:38] When Frontier Labs Outspend the Entire App Ecosystem[00:09:38] Martin Casado: But, but, but, but there's a, there's a, the, an industry structural question that we don't know the answer to, which involves the frontier models, which is, let's take.[00:09:48] Anthropic it. Let's say Anthropic has a state-of-the-art model that has some large percentage of market share. And let's say that, uh, uh, uh, you know, uh, a company's building smaller models [00:10:00] that, you know, use the bigger model in the background, open 4.5, but they add value on top of that. Now, if Anthropic can raise three times more.[00:10:10] Every subsequent round, they probably can raise more money than the entire app ecosystem that's built on top of it. And if that's the case, they can expand beyond everything built on top of it. It's like imagine like a star that's just kind of expanding, so there could be a systemic. There could be a, a systemic situation where the soda models can raise so much money that they can out pay anybody that bills on top of ‘em, which would be something I don't think we've ever seen before just because we were so bottlenecked in engineering, and this is a very open question.[00:10:41] swyx: Yeah. It's, it is almost like bitter lesson applied to the startup industry.[00:10:45] Martin Casado: Yeah, a hundred percent. It literally becomes an issue of like raise capital, turn that directly into growth. Use that to raise three times more. Exactly. And if you can keep doing that, you literally can outspend any company that's built the, not any company.[00:10:57] You can outspend the aggregate of companies on top of [00:11:00] you and therefore you'll necessarily take their share, which is crazy.[00:11:02] swyx: Would you say that kind of happens in character? Is that the, the sort of postmortem on. What happened?[00:11:10] Sarah Wang: Um,[00:11:10] Martin Casado: no.[00:11:12] Sarah Wang: Yeah, because I think so,[00:11:13] swyx: I mean the actual postmortem is, he wanted to go back to Google.[00:11:15] Exactly. But like[00:11:18] Martin Casado: that's another difference that[00:11:19] Sarah Wang: you said[00:11:21] Martin Casado: it. We should talk, we should actually talk about that.[00:11:22] swyx: Yeah,[00:11:22] Sarah Wang: that's[00:11:23] swyx: Go for it. Take it. Take,[00:11:23] Sarah Wang: yeah.[00:11:24] Character.AI, Founder Goals (AGI vs Product), and GPU Allocation Tradeoffs[00:11:24] Sarah Wang: I was gonna say, I think, um. The, the, the character thing raises actually a different issue, which actually the Frontier Labs will face as well. So we'll see how they handle it.[00:11:34] But, um, so we invest in character in January, 2023, which feels like eons ago, I mean, three years ago. Feels like lifetimes ago. But, um, and then they, uh, did the IP licensing deal with Google in August, 2020. Uh, four. And so, um, you know, at the time, no, you know, he's talked publicly about this, right? He wanted to Google wouldn't let him put out products in the world.[00:11:56] That's obviously changed drastically. But, um, he went to go do [00:12:00] that. Um, but he had a product attached. The goal was, I mean, it's Nome Shair, he wanted to get to a GI. That was always his personal goal. But, you know, I think through collecting data, right, and this sort of very human use case, that the character product.[00:12:13] Originally was and still is, um, was one of the vehicles to do that. Um, I think the real reason that, you know. I if you think about the, the stress that any company feels before, um, you ultimately going one way or the other is sort of this a GI versus product. Um, and I think a lot of the big, I think, you know, opening eyes, feeling that, um, anthropic if they haven't started, you know, felt it, certainly given the success of their products, they may start to feel that soon.[00:12:39] And the real. I think there's real trade-offs, right? It's like how many, when you think about GPUs, that's a limited resource. Where do you allocate the GPUs? Is it toward the product? Is it toward new re research? Right? Is it, or long-term research, is it toward, um, n you know, near to midterm research? And so, um, in a case where you're resource constrained, um, [00:13:00] of course there's this fundraising game you can play, right?[00:13:01] But the fund, the market was very different back in 2023 too. Um. I think the best researchers in the world have this dilemma of, okay, I wanna go all in on a GI, but it's the product usage revenue flywheel that keeps the revenue in the house to power all the GPUs to get to a GI. And so it does make, um, you know, I think it sets up an interesting dilemma for any startup that has trouble raising up until that level, right?[00:13:27] And certainly if you don't have that progress, you can't continue this fly, you know, fundraising flywheel.[00:13:32] Martin Casado: I would say that because, ‘cause we're keeping track of all of the things that are different, right? Like, you know, venture growth and uh, app infra and one of the ones is definitely the personalities of the founders.[00:13:45] It's just very different this time I've been. Been doing this for a decade and I've been doing startups for 20 years. And so, um, I mean a lot of people start this to do a GI and we've never had like a unified North star that I recall in the same [00:14:00] way. Like people built companies to start companies in the past.[00:14:02] Like that was what it was. Like I would create an internet company, I would create infrastructure company, like it's kind of more engineering builders and this is kind of a different. You know, mentality. And some companies have harnessed that incredibly well because their direction is so obviously on the path to what somebody would consider a GI, but others have not.[00:14:20] And so like there is always this tension with personnel. And so I think we're seeing more kind of founder movement.[00:14:27] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:14:27] Martin Casado: You know, as a fraction of founders than we've ever seen. I mean, maybe since like, I don't know the time of like Shockly and the trade DUR aid or something like that. Way back in the beginning of the industry, I, it's a very, very.[00:14:38] Unusual time of personnel.[00:14:39] Sarah Wang: Totally.[00:14:40] Talent Wars, Mega-Comp, and the Rise of Acquihire M&A[00:14:40] Sarah Wang: And it, I think it's exacerbated by the fact that talent wars, I mean, every industry has talent wars, but not at this magnitude, right? No. Yeah. Very rarely can you see someone get poached for $5 billion. That's hard to compete with. And then secondly, if you're a founder in ai, you could fart and it would be on the front page of, you know, the information these days.[00:14:59] And so there's [00:15:00] sort of this fishbowl effect that I think adds to the deep anxiety that, that these AI founders are feeling.[00:15:06] Martin Casado: Hmm.[00:15:06] swyx: Uh, yes. I mean, just on, uh, briefly comment on the founder, uh, the sort of. Talent wars thing. I feel like 2025 was just like a blip. Like I, I don't know if we'll see that again.[00:15:17] ‘cause meta built the team. Like, I don't know if, I think, I think they're kind of done and like, who's gonna pay more than meta? I, I don't know.[00:15:23] Martin Casado: I, I agree. So it feels so, it feel, it feels this way to me too. It's like, it is like, basically Zuckerberg kind of came out swinging and then now he's kind of back to building.[00:15:30] Yeah,[00:15:31] swyx: yeah. You know, you gotta like pay up to like assemble team to rush the job, whatever. But then now, now you like you, you made your choices and now they got a ship.[00:15:38] Martin Casado: I mean, the, the o other side of that is like, you know, like we're, we're actually in the job hiring market. We've got 600 people here. I hire all the time.[00:15:44] I've got three open recs if anybody's interested, that's listening to this for investor. Yeah, on, on the team, like on the investing side of the team, like, and, um, a lot of the people we talk to have acting, you know, active, um, offers for 10 million a year or something like that. And like, you know, and we pay really, [00:16:00] really well.[00:16:00] And just to see what's out on the market is really, is really remarkable. And so I would just say it's actually, so you're right, like the really flashy one, like I will get someone for, you know, a billion dollars, but like the inflated, um, uh, trickles down. Yeah, it is still very active today. I mean,[00:16:18] Sarah Wang: yeah, you could be an L five and get an offer in the tens of millions.[00:16:22] Okay. Yeah. Easily. Yeah. It's so I think you're right that it felt like a blip. I hope you're right. Um, but I think it's been, the steady state is now, I think got pulled up. Yeah. Yeah. I'll pull up for[00:16:31] Martin Casado: sure. Yeah.[00:16:32] Alessio: Yeah. And I think that's breaking the early stage founder math too. I think before a lot of people would be like, well, maybe I should just go be a founder instead of like getting paid.[00:16:39] Yeah. 800 KA million at Google. But if I'm getting paid. Five, 6 million. That's different but[00:16:45] Martin Casado: on. But on the other hand, there's more strategic money than we've ever seen historically, right? Mm-hmm. And so, yep. The economics, the, the, the, the calculus on the economics is very different in a number of ways. And, uh, it's crazy.[00:16:58] It's cra it's causing like a, [00:17:00] a, a, a ton of change in confusion in the market. Some very positive, sub negative, like, so for example, the other side of the, um. The co-founder, like, um, acquisition, you know, mark Zuckerberg poaching someone for a lot of money is like, we were actually seeing historic amount of m and a for basically acquihires, right?[00:17:20] That you like, you know, really good outcomes from a venture perspective that are effective acquihires, right? So I would say it's probably net positive from the investment standpoint, even though it seems from the headlines to be very disruptive in a negative way.[00:17:33] Alessio: Yeah.[00:17:33] What's Underfunded: Boring Software, Robotics Skepticism, and Custom Silicon Economics[00:17:33] Alessio: Um, let's talk maybe about what's not being invested in, like maybe some interesting ideas that you would see more people build or it, it seems in a way, you know, as ycs getting more popular, it's like access getting more popular.[00:17:47] There's a startup school path that a lot of founders take and they know what's hot in the VC circles and they know what gets funded. Uh, and there's maybe not as much risk appetite for. Things outside of that. Um, I'm curious if you feel [00:18:00] like that's true and what are maybe, uh, some of the areas, uh, that you think are under discussed?[00:18:06] Martin Casado: I mean, I actually think that we've taken our eye off the ball in a lot of like, just traditional, you know, software companies. Um, so like, I mean. You know, I think right now there's almost a barbell, like you're like the hot thing on X, you're deep tech.[00:18:21] swyx: Mm-hmm.[00:18:22] Martin Casado: Right. But I, you know, I feel like there's just kind of a long, you know, list of like good.[00:18:28] Good companies that will be around for a long time in very large markets. Say you're building a database, you know, say you're building, um, you know, kind of monitoring or logging or tooling or whatever. There's some good companies out there right now, but like, they have a really hard time getting, um, the attention of investors.[00:18:43] And it's almost become a meme, right? Which is like, if you're not basically growing from zero to a hundred in a year, you're not interesting, which is just, is the silliest thing to say. I mean, think of yourself as like an introvert person, like, like your personal money, right? Mm-hmm. So. Your personal money, will you put it in the stock market at 7% or you put it in this company growing five x in a very large [00:19:00] market?[00:19:00] Of course you can put it in the company five x. So it's just like we say these stupid things, like if you're not going from zero to a hundred, but like those, like who knows what the margins of those are mean. Clearly these are good investments. True for anybody, right? True. Like our LPs want whatever.[00:19:12] Three x net over, you know, the life cycle of a fund, right? So a, a company in a big market growing five X is a great investment. We'd, everybody would be happy with these returns, but we've got this kind of mania on these, these strong growths. And so I would say that that's probably the most underinvested sector.[00:19:28] Right now.[00:19:29] swyx: Boring software, boring enterprise software.[00:19:31] Martin Casado: Traditional. Really good company.[00:19:33] swyx: No, no AI here.[00:19:34] Martin Casado: No. Like boring. Well, well, the AI of course is pulling them into use cases. Yeah, but that's not what they're, they're not on the token path, right? Yeah. Let's just say that like they're software, but they're not on the token path.[00:19:41] Like these are like they're great investments from any definition except for like random VC on Twitter saying VC on x, saying like, it's not growing fast enough. What do you[00:19:52] Sarah Wang: think? Yeah, maybe I'll answer a slightly different. Question, but adjacent to what you asked, um, which is maybe an area that we're not, uh, investing [00:20:00] right now that I think is a question and we're spending a lot of time in regardless of whether we pull the trigger or not.[00:20:05] Um, and it would probably be on the hardware side, actually. Robotics, right? And the robotics side. Robotics. Right. Which is, it's, I don't wanna say that it's not getting funding ‘cause it's clearly, uh, it's, it's sort of non-consensus to almost not invest in robotics at this point. But, um, we spent a lot of time in that space and I think for us, we just haven't seen the chat GPT moment.[00:20:22] Happen on the hardware side. Um, and the funding going into it feels like it's already. Taking that for granted.[00:20:30] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. But we also went through the drone, you know, um, there's a zip line right, right out there. What's that? Oh yeah, there's a zip line. Yeah. What the drone, what the av And like one of the takeaways is when it comes to hardware, um, most companies will end up verticalizing.[00:20:46] Like if you're. If you're investing in a robot company for an A for agriculture, you're investing in an ag company. ‘cause that's the competition and that's surprising. And that's supply chain. And if you're doing it for mining, that's mining. And so the ad team does a lot of that type of stuff ‘cause they actually set up to [00:21:00] diligence that type of work.[00:21:01] But for like horizontal technology investing, there's very little when it comes to robots just because it's so fit for, for purpose. And so we kinda like to look at software. Solutions or horizontal solutions like applied intuition. Clearly from the AV wave deep map, clearly from the AV wave, I would say scale AI was actually a horizontal one for That's fair, you know, for robotics early on.[00:21:23] And so that sort of thing we're very, very interested. But the actual like robot interacting with the world is probably better for different team. Agree.[00:21:30] Alessio: Yeah, I'm curious who these teams are supposed to be that invest in them. I feel like everybody's like, yeah, robotics, it's important and like people should invest in it.[00:21:38] But then when you look at like the numbers, like the capital requirements early on versus like the moment of, okay, this is actually gonna work. Let's keep investing. That seems really hard to predict in a way that is not,[00:21:49] Martin Casado: I think co, CO two, kla, gc, I mean these are all invested in in Harvard companies. He just, you know, and [00:22:00] listen, I mean, it could work this time for sure.[00:22:01] Right? I mean if Elon's doing it, he's like, right. Just, just the fact that Elon's doing it means that there's gonna be a lot of capital and a lot of attempts for a long period of time. So that alone maybe suggests that we should just be investing in robotics just ‘cause you have this North star who's Elon with a humanoid and that's gonna like basically willing into being an industry.[00:22:17] Um, but we've just historically found like. We're a huge believer that this is gonna happen. We just don't feel like we're in a good position to diligence these things. ‘cause again, robotics companies tend to be vertical. You really have to understand the market they're being sold into. Like that's like that competitive equilibrium with a human being is what's important.[00:22:34] It's not like the core tech and like we're kind of more horizontal core tech type investors. And this is Sarah and I. Yeah, the ad team is different. They can actually do these types of things.[00:22:42] swyx: Uh, just to clarify, AD stands for[00:22:44] Martin Casado: American Dynamism.[00:22:45] swyx: Alright. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh, I actually, I do have a related question that, first of all, I wanna acknowledge also just on the, on the chip side.[00:22:51] Yeah. I, I recall a podcast that where you were on, i, I, I think it was the a CC podcast, uh, about two or three years ago where you, where you suddenly said [00:23:00] something, which really stuck in my head about how at some point, at some point kind of scale it makes sense to. Build a custom aic Yes. For per run.[00:23:07] Martin Casado: Yes.[00:23:07] It's crazy. Yeah.[00:23:09] swyx: We're here and I think you, you estimated 500 billion, uh, something.[00:23:12] Martin Casado: No, no, no. A billion, a billion dollar training run of $1 billion training run. It makes sense to actually do a custom meic if you can do it in time. The question now is timelines. Yeah, but not money because just, just, just rough math.[00:23:22] If it's a billion dollar training. Then the inference for that model has to be over a billion, otherwise it won't be solvent. So let's assume it's, if you could save 20%, which you could save much more than that with an ASIC 20%, that's $200 million. You can tape out a chip for $200 million. Right? So now you can literally like justify economically, not timeline wise.[00:23:41] That's a different issue. An ASIC per model, which[00:23:44] swyx: is because that, that's how much we leave on the table every single time. We, we, we do like generic Nvidia.[00:23:48] Martin Casado: Exactly. Exactly. No, it, it is actually much more than that. You could probably get, you know, a factor of two, which would be 500 million.[00:23:54] swyx: Typical MFU would be like 50.[00:23:55] Yeah, yeah. And that's good.[00:23:57] Martin Casado: Exactly. Yeah. Hundred[00:23:57] swyx: percent. Um, so, so, yeah, and I mean, and I [00:24:00] just wanna acknowledge like, here we are in, in, in 2025 and opening eyes confirming like Broadcom and all the other like custom silicon deals, which is incredible. I, I think that, uh, you know, speaking about ad there's, there's a really like interesting tie in that obviously you guys are hit on, which is like these sort, this sort of like America first movement or like sort of re industrialized here.[00:24:17] Yeah. Uh, move TSMC here, if that's possible. Um, how much overlap is there from ad[00:24:23] Martin Casado: Yeah.[00:24:23] swyx: To, I guess, growth and, uh, investing in particularly like, you know, US AI companies that are strongly bounded by their compute.[00:24:32] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, I, I would view, I would view AD as more as a market segmentation than like a mission, right?[00:24:37] So the market segmentation is, it has kind of regulatory compliance issues or government, you know, sale or it deals with like hardware. I mean, they're just set up to, to, to, to, to. To diligence those types of companies. So it's a more of a market segmentation thing. I would say the entire firm. You know, which has been since it is been intercepted, you know, has geographical biases, right?[00:24:58] I mean, for the longest time we're like, you [00:25:00] know, bay Area is gonna be like, great, where the majority of the dollars go. Yeah. And, and listen, there, there's actually a lot of compounding effects for having a geographic bias. Right. You know, everybody's in the same place. You've got an ecosystem, you're there, you've got presence, you've got a network.[00:25:12] Um, and, uh, I mean, I would say the Bay area's very much back. You know, like I, I remember during pre COVID, like it was like almost Crypto had kind of. Pulled startups away. Miami from the Bay Area. Miami, yeah. Yeah. New York was, you know, because it's so close to finance, came up like Los Angeles had a moment ‘cause it was so close to consumer, but now it's kind of come back here.[00:25:29] And so I would say, you know, we tend to be very Bay area focused historically, even though of course we've asked all over the world. And then I would say like, if you take the ring out, you know, one more, it's gonna be the US of course, because we know it very well. And then one more is gonna be getting us and its allies and Yeah.[00:25:44] And it goes from there.[00:25:45] Sarah Wang: Yeah,[00:25:45] Martin Casado: sorry.[00:25:46] Sarah Wang: No, no. I agree. I think from a, but I think from the intern that that's sort of like where the companies are headquartered. Maybe your questions on supply chain and customer base. Uh, I, I would say our customers are, are, our companies are fairly international from that perspective.[00:25:59] Like they're selling [00:26:00] globally, right? They have global supply chains in some cases.[00:26:03] Martin Casado: I would say also the stickiness is very different.[00:26:05] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:26:05] Martin Casado: Historically between venture and growth, like there's so much company building in venture, so much so like hiring the next PM. Introducing the customer, like all of that stuff.[00:26:15] Like of course we're just gonna be stronger where we have our network and we've been doing business for 20 years. I've been in the Bay Area for 25 years, so clearly I'm just more effective here than I would be somewhere else. Um, where I think, I think for some of the later stage rounds, the companies don't need that much help.[00:26:30] They're already kind of pretty mature historically, so like they can kind of be everywhere. So there's kind of less of that stickiness. This is different in the AI time. I mean, Sarah is now the, uh, chief of staff of like half the AI companies in, uh, in the Bay Area right now. She's like, ops Ninja Biz, Devrel, BizOps.[00:26:48] swyx: Are, are you, are you finding much AI automation in your work? Like what, what is your stack.[00:26:53] Sarah Wang: Oh my, in my personal stack.[00:26:54] swyx: I mean, because like, uh, by the way, it's the, the, the reason for this is it is triggering, uh, yeah. We, like, I'm hiring [00:27:00] ops, ops people. Um, a lot of ponders I know are also hiring ops people and I'm just, you know, it's opportunity Since you're, you're also like basically helping out with ops with a lot of companies.[00:27:09] What are people doing these days? Because it's still very manual as far as I can tell.[00:27:13] Sarah Wang: Hmm. Yeah. I think the things that we help with are pretty network based, um, in that. It's sort of like, Hey, how do do I shortcut this process? Well, let's connect you to the right person. So there's not quite an AI workflow for that.[00:27:26] I will say as a growth investor, Claude Cowork is pretty interesting. Yeah. Like for the first time, you can actually get one shot data analysis. Right. Which, you know, if you're gonna do a customer database, analyze a cohort retention, right? That's just stuff that you had to do by hand before. And our team, the other, it was like midnight and the three of us were playing with Claude Cowork.[00:27:47] We gave it a raw file. Boom. Perfectly accurate. We checked the numbers. It was amazing. That was my like, aha moment. That sounds so boring. But you know, that's, that's the kind of thing that a growth investor is like, [00:28:00] you know, slaving away on late at night. Um, done in a few seconds.[00:28:03] swyx: Yeah. You gotta wonder what the whole, like, philanthropic labs, which is like their new sort of products studio.[00:28:10] Yeah. What would that be worth as an independent, uh, startup? You know, like a[00:28:14] Martin Casado: lot.[00:28:14] Sarah Wang: Yeah, true.[00:28:16] swyx: Yeah. You[00:28:16] Martin Casado: gotta hand it to them. They've been executing incredibly well.[00:28:19] swyx: Yeah. I, I mean, to me, like, you know, philanthropic, like building on cloud code, I think, uh, it makes sense to me the, the real. Um, pedal to the metal, whatever the, the, the phrase is, is when they start coming after consumer with, uh, against OpenAI and like that is like red alert at Open ai.[00:28:35] Oh, I[00:28:35] Martin Casado: think they've been pretty clear. They're enterprise focused.[00:28:37] swyx: They have been, but like they've been free. Here's[00:28:40] Martin Casado: care publicly,[00:28:40] swyx: it's enterprise focused. It's coding. Right. Yeah.[00:28:43] AI Labs vs Startups: Disruption, Undercutting & the Innovator's Dilemma[00:28:43] swyx: And then, and, but here's cloud, cloud, cowork, and, and here's like, well, we, uh, they, apparently they're running Instagram ads for Claudia.[00:28:50] I, on, you know, for, for people on, I get them all the time. Right. And so, like,[00:28:54] Martin Casado: uh,[00:28:54] swyx: it, it's kind of like this, the disruption thing of, uh, you know. Mo Open has been doing, [00:29:00] consumer been doing the, just pursuing general intelligence in every mo modality, and here's a topic that only focus on this thing, but now they're sort of undercutting and doing the whole innovator's dilemma thing on like everything else.[00:29:11] Martin Casado: It's very[00:29:11] swyx: interesting.[00:29:12] Martin Casado: Yeah, I mean there's, there's a very open que so for me there's like, do you know that meme where there's like the guy in the path and there's like a path this way? There's a path this way. Like one which way Western man. Yeah. Yeah.[00:29:23] Two Futures for AI: Infinite Market vs AGI Oligopoly[00:29:23] Martin Casado: And for me, like, like all the entire industry kind of like hinges on like two potential futures.[00:29:29] So in, in one potential future, um, the market is infinitely large. There's perverse economies of scale. ‘cause as soon as you put a model out there, like it kind of sublimates and all the other models catch up and like, it's just like software's being rewritten and fractured all over the place and there's tons of upside and it just grows.[00:29:48] And then there's another path which is like, well. Maybe these models actually generalize really well, and all you have to do is train them with three times more money. That's all you have to [00:30:00] do, and it'll just consume everything beyond it. And if that's the case, like you end up with basically an oligopoly for everything, like, you know mm-hmm.[00:30:06] Because they're perfectly general and like, so this would be like the, the a GI path would be like, these are perfectly general. They can do everything. And this one is like, this is actually normal software. The universe is complicated. You've got, and nobody knows the answer.[00:30:18] The Economics Reality Check: Gross Margins, Training Costs & Borrowing Against the Future[00:30:18] Martin Casado: My belief is if you actually look at the numbers of these companies, so generally if you look at the numbers of these companies, if you look at like the amount they're making and how much they, they spent training the last model, they're gross margin positive.[00:30:30] You're like, oh, that's really working. But if you look at like. The current training that they're doing for the next model, their gross margin negative. So part of me thinks that a lot of ‘em are kind of borrowing against the future and that's gonna have to slow down. It's gonna catch up to them at some point in time, but we don't really know.[00:30:47] Sarah Wang: Yeah.[00:30:47] Martin Casado: Does that make sense? Like, I mean, it could be, it could be the case that the only reason this is working is ‘cause they can raise that next round and they can train that next model. ‘cause these models have such a short. Life. And so at some point in time, like, you know, they won't be able to [00:31:00] raise that next round for the next model and then things will kind of converge and fragment again.[00:31:03] But right now it's not.[00:31:04] Sarah Wang: Totally. I think the other, by the way, just, um, a meta point. I think the other lesson from the last three years is, and we talk about this all the time ‘cause we're on this. Twitter X bubble. Um, cool. But, you know, if you go back to, let's say March, 2024, that period, it felt like a, I think an open source model with an, like a, you know, benchmark leading capability was sort of launching on a daily basis at that point.[00:31:27] And, um, and so that, you know, that's one period. Suddenly it's sort of like open source takes over the world. There's gonna be a plethora. It's not an oligopoly, you know, if you fast, you know, if you, if you rewind time even before that GPT-4 was number one for. Nine months, 10 months. It's a long time. Right.[00:31:44] Um, and of course now we're in this era where it feels like an oligopoly, um, maybe some very steady state shifts and, and you know, it could look like this in the future too, but it just, it's so hard to call. And I think the thing that keeps, you know, us up at [00:32:00] night in, in a good way and bad way, is that the capability progress is actually not slowing down.[00:32:06] And so until that happens, right, like you don't know what's gonna look like.[00:32:09] Martin Casado: But I, I would, I would say for sure it's not converged, like for sure, like the systemic capital flows have not converged, meaning right now it's still borrowing against the future to subsidize growth currently, which you can do that for a period of time.[00:32:23] But, but you know, at the end, at some point the market will rationalize that and just nobody knows what that will look like.[00:32:29] Alessio: Yeah.[00:32:29] Martin Casado: Or, or like the drop in price of compute will, will, will save them. Who knows?[00:32:34] Alessio: Yeah. Yeah. I think the models need to ask them to, to specific tasks. You know? It's like, okay, now Opus 4.5 might be a GI at some specific task, and now you can like depreciate the model over a longer time.[00:32:45] I think now, now, right now there's like no old model.[00:32:47] Martin Casado: No, but let, but lemme just change that mental, that's, that used to be my mental model. Lemme just change it a little bit.[00:32:53] Capital as a Weapon vs Task Saturation: Where Real Enterprise Value Gets Built[00:32:53] Martin Casado: If you can raise three times, if you can raise more than the aggregate of anybody that uses your models, that doesn't even matter.[00:32:59] It doesn't [00:33:00] even matter. See what I'm saying? Like, yeah. Yeah. So, so I have an API Business. My API business is 60% margin, or 70% margin, or 80% margin is a high margin business. So I know what everybody is using. If I can raise more money than the aggregate of everybody that's using it, I will consume them whether I'm a GI or not.[00:33:14] And I will know if they're using it ‘cause they're using it. And like, unlike in the past where engineering stops me from doing that.[00:33:21] Alessio: Mm-hmm.[00:33:21] Martin Casado: It is very straightforward. You just train. So I also thought it was kind of like, you must ask the code a GI, general, general, general. But I think there's also just a possibility that the, that the capital markets will just give them the, the, the ammunition to just go after everybody on top of ‘em.[00:33:36] Sarah Wang: I, I do wonder though, to your point, um, if there's a certain task that. Getting marginally better isn't actually that much better. Like we've asked them to it, to, you know, we can call it a GI or whatever, you know, actually, Ali Goi talks about this, like we're already at a GI for a lot of functions in the enterprise.[00:33:50] Um. That's probably those for those tasks, you probably could build very specific companies that focus on just getting as much value out of that task that isn't [00:34:00] coming from the model itself. There's probably a rich enterprise business to be built there. I mean, could be wrong on that, but there's a lot of interesting examples.[00:34:08] So, right, if you're looking the legal profession or, or whatnot, and maybe that's not a great one ‘cause the models are getting better on that front too, but just something where it's a bit saturated, then the value comes from. Services. It comes from implementation, right? It comes from all these things that actually make it useful to the end customer.[00:34:24] Martin Casado: Sorry, what am I, one more thing I think is, is underused in all of this is like, to what extent every task is a GI complete.[00:34:31] Sarah Wang: Mm-hmm.[00:34:32] Martin Casado: Yeah. I code every day. It's so fun.[00:34:35] Sarah Wang: That's a core question. Yeah.[00:34:36] Martin Casado: And like. When I'm talking to these models, it's not just code. I mean, it's everything, right? Like I, you know, like it's,[00:34:43] swyx: it's healthcare.[00:34:44] It's,[00:34:44] Martin Casado: I mean, it's[00:34:44] swyx: Mele,[00:34:45] Martin Casado: but it's every, it is exactly that. Like, yeah, that's[00:34:47] Sarah Wang: great support. Yeah.[00:34:48] Martin Casado: It's everything. Like I'm asking these models to, yeah, to understand compliance. I'm asking these models to go search the web. I'm asking these models to talk about things I know in the history, like it's having a full conversation with me while I, I engineer, and so it could be [00:35:00] the case that like, mm-hmm.[00:35:01] The most a, you know, a GI complete, like I'm not an a GI guy. Like I think that's, you know, but like the most a GI complete model will is win independent of the task. And we don't know the answer to that one either.[00:35:11] swyx: Yeah.[00:35:12] Martin Casado: But it seems to me that like, listen, codex in my experience is for sure better than Opus 4.5 for coding.[00:35:18] Like it finds the hardest bugs that I work in with. Like, it is, you know. The smartest developers. I don't work on it. It's great. Um, but I think Opus 4.5 is actually very, it's got a great bedside manner and it really, and it, it really matters if you're building something very complex because like, it really, you know, like you're, you're, you're a partner and a brainstorming partner for somebody.[00:35:38] And I think we don't discuss enough how every task kind of has that quality.[00:35:42] swyx: Mm-hmm.[00:35:43] Martin Casado: And what does that mean to like capital investment and like frontier models and Submodels? Yeah.[00:35:47] Why “Coding Models” Keep Collapsing into Generalists (Reasoning vs Taste)[00:35:47] Martin Casado: Like what happened to all the special coding models? Like, none of ‘em worked right. So[00:35:51] Alessio: some of them, they didn't even get released.[00:35:53] Magical[00:35:54] Martin Casado: Devrel. There's a whole, there's a whole host. We saw a bunch of them and like there's this whole theory that like, there could be, and [00:36:00] I think one of the conclusions is, is like there's no such thing as a coding model,[00:36:04] Alessio: you know?[00:36:04] Martin Casado: Like, that's not a thing. Like you're talking to another human being and it's, it's good at coding, but like it's gotta be good at everything.[00:36:10] swyx: Uh, minor disagree only because I, I'm pretty like, have pretty high confidence that basically open eye will always release a GPT five and a GT five codex. Like that's the code's. Yeah. The way I call it is one for raisin, one for Tiz. Um, and, and then like someone internal open, it was like, yeah, that's a good way to frame it.[00:36:32] Martin Casado: That's so funny.[00:36:33] swyx: Uh, but maybe it, maybe it collapses down to reason and that's it. It's not like a hundred dimensions doesn't life. Yeah. It's two dimensions. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like and exactly. Beside manner versus coding. Yeah.[00:36:43] Martin Casado: Yeah.[00:36:44] swyx: It's, yeah.[00:36:46] Martin Casado: I, I think for, for any, it's hilarious. For any, for anybody listening to this for, for, for, I mean, for you, like when, when you're like coding or using these models for something like that.[00:36:52] Like actually just like be aware of how much of the interaction has nothing to do with coding and it just turns out to be a large portion of it. And so like, you're, I [00:37:00] think like, like the best Soto ish model. You know, it is going to remain very important no matter what the task is.[00:37:06] swyx: Yeah.[00:37:07] What He's Actually Coding: Gaussian Splats, Spark.js & 3D Scene Rendering Demos[00:37:07] swyx: Uh, speaking of coding, uh, I, I'm gonna be cheeky and ask like, what actually are you coding?[00:37:11] Because obviously you, you could code anything and you are obviously a busy investor and a manager of the good. Giant team. Um, what are you calling?[00:37:18] Martin Casado: I help, um, uh, FEFA at World Labs. Uh, it's one of the investments and um, and they're building a foundation model that creates 3D scenes.[00:37:27] swyx: Yeah, we had it on the pod.[00:37:28] Yeah. Yeah,[00:37:28] Martin Casado: yeah. And so these 3D scenes are Gaussian splats, just by the way that kind of AI works. And so like, you can reconstruct a scene better with, with, with radiance feels than with meshes. ‘cause like they don't really have topology. So, so they, they, they produce each. Beautiful, you know, 3D rendered scenes that are Gaussian splats, but the actual industry support for Gaussian splats isn't great.[00:37:50] It's just never, you know, it's always been meshes and like, things like unreal use meshes. And so I work on a open source library called Spark js, which is a. Uh, [00:38:00] a JavaScript rendering layer ready for Gaussian splats. And it's just because, you know, um, you, you, you need that support and, and right now there's kind of a three js moment that's all meshes and so like, it's become kind of the default in three Js ecosystem.[00:38:13] As part of that to kind of exercise the library, I just build a whole bunch of cool demos. So if you see me on X, you see like all my demos and all the world building, but all of that is just to exercise this, this library that I work on. ‘cause it's actually a very tough algorithmics problem to actually scale a library that much.[00:38:29] And just so you know, this is ancient history now, but 30 years ago I paid for undergrad, you know, working on game engines in college in the late nineties. So I've got actually a back and it's very old background, but I actually have a background in this and so a lot of it's fun. You know, but, but the, the, the, the whole goal is just for this rendering library to, to,[00:38:47] Sarah Wang: are you one of the most active contributors?[00:38:49] The, their GitHub[00:38:50] Martin Casado: spark? Yes.[00:38:51] Sarah Wang: Yeah, yeah.[00:38:51] Martin Casado: There's only two of us there, so, yes. No, so by the way, so the, the pri The pri, yeah. Yeah. So the primary developer is a [00:39:00] guy named Andres Quist, who's an absolute genius. He and I did our, our PhDs together. And so like, um, we studied for constant Quas together. It was almost like hanging out with an old friend, you know?[00:39:09] And so like. So he, he's the core, core guy. I did mostly kind of, you know, the side I run venture fund.[00:39:14] swyx: It's amazing. Like five years ago you would not have done any of this. And it brought you back[00:39:19] Martin Casado: the act, the Activ energy, you're still back. Energy was so high because you had to learn all the framework b******t.[00:39:23] Man, I f*****g used to hate that. And so like, now I don't have to deal with that. I can like focus on the algorithmics so I can focus on the scaling and I,[00:39:29] swyx: yeah. Yeah.[00:39:29] LLMs vs Spatial Intelligence + How to Value World Labs' 3D Foundation Model[00:39:29] swyx: And then, uh, I'll observe one irony and then I'll ask a serious investor question, uh, which is like, the irony is FFE actually doesn't believe that LMS can lead us to spatial intelligence.[00:39:37] And here you are using LMS to like help like achieve spatial intelligence. I just see, I see some like disconnect in there.[00:39:45] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. So I think, I think, you know, I think, I think what she would say is LLMs are great to help with coding.[00:39:51] swyx: Yes.[00:39:51] Martin Casado: But like, that's very different than a model that actually like provides, they, they'll never have the[00:39:56] swyx: spatial inte[00:39:56] Martin Casado: issues.[00:39:56] And listen, our brains clearly listen, our brains, brains clearly have [00:40:00] both our, our brains clearly have a language reasoning section and they clearly have a spatial reasoning section. I mean, it's just, you know, these are two pretty independent problems.[00:40:07] swyx: Okay. And you, you, like, I, I would say that the, the one data point I recently had, uh, against it is the DeepMind, uh, IMO Gold, where, so, uh, typically the, the typical answer is that this is where you start going down the neuros symbolic path, right?[00:40:21] Like one, uh, sort of very sort of abstract reasoning thing and one form, formal thing. Um, and that's what. DeepMind had in 2024 with alpha proof, alpha geometry, and now they just use deep think and just extended thinking tokens. And it's one model and it's, and it's in LM.[00:40:36] Martin Casado: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.[00:40:37] swyx: And so that, that was my indication of like, maybe you don't need a separate system.[00:40:42] Martin Casado: Yeah. So, so let me step back. I mean, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, these things are like nodes in a graph with weights on them. Right. You know, like it can be modeled like if you, if you distill it down. But let me just talk about the two different substrates. Let's, let me put you in a dark room.[00:40:56] Like totally black room. And then let me just [00:41:00] describe how you exit it. Like to your left, there's a table like duck below this thing, right? I mean like the chances that you're gonna like not run into something are very low. Now let me like turn on the light and you actually see, and you can do distance and you know how far something away is and like where it is or whatever.[00:41:17] Then you can do it, right? Like language is not the right primitives to describe. The universe because it's not exact enough. So that's all Faye, Faye is talking about. When it comes to like spatial reasoning, it's like you actually have to know that this is three feet far, like that far away. It is curved.[00:41:37] You have to understand, you know, the, like the actual movement through space.[00:41:40] swyx: Yeah.[00:41:40] Martin Casado: So I do, I listen, I do think at the end of these models are definitely converging as far as models, but there's, there's, there's different representations of problems you're solving. One is language. Which, you know, that would be like describing to somebody like what to do.[00:41:51] And the other one is actually just showing them and the space reasoning is just showing them.[00:41:55] swyx: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. Got it, got it. Uh, the, in the investor question was on, on, well labs [00:42:00] is, well, like, how do I value something like this? What, what, what work does the, do you do? I'm just like, Fefe is awesome.[00:42:07] Justin's awesome. And you know, the other two co-founder, co-founders, but like the, the, the tech, everyone's building cool tech. But like, what's the value of the tech? And this is the fundamental question[00:42:16] Martin Casado: of, well, let, let, just like these, let me just maybe give you a rough sketch on the diffusion models. I actually love to hear Sarah because I'm a venture for, you know, so like, ventures always, always like kind of wild west type[00:42:24] swyx: stuff.[00:42:24] You, you, you, you paid a dream and she has to like, actually[00:42:28] Martin Casado: I'm gonna say I'm gonna mar to reality, so I'm gonna say the venture for you. And she can be like, okay, you a little kid. Yeah. So like, so, so these diffusion models literally. Create something for, for almost nothing. And something that the, the world has found to be very valuable in the past, in our real markets, right?[00:42:45] Like, like a 2D image. I mean, that's been an entire market. People value them. It takes a human being a long time to create it, right? I mean, to create a, you know, a, to turn me into a whatever, like an image would cost a hundred bucks in an hour. The inference cost [00:43:00] us a hundredth of a penny, right? So we've seen this with speech in very successful companies.[00:43:03] We've seen this with 2D image. We've seen this with movies. Right? Now, think about 3D scene. I mean, I mean, when's Grand Theft Auto coming out? It's been six, what? It's been 10 years. I mean, how, how like, but hasn't been 10 years.[00:43:14] Alessio: Yeah.[00:43:15] Martin Casado: How much would it cost to like, to reproduce this room in 3D? Right. If you, if you, if you hired somebody on fiber, like in, in any sort of quality, probably 4,000 to $10,000.[00:43:24] And then if you had a professional, probably $30,000. So if you could generate the exact same thing from a 2D image, and we know that these are used and they're using Unreal and they're using Blend, or they're using movies and they're using video games and they're using all. So if you could do that for.[00:43:36] You know, less than a dollar, that's four or five orders of magnitude cheaper. So you're bringing the marginal cost of something that's useful down by three orders of magnitude, which historically have created very large companies. So that would be like the venture kind of strategic dreaming map.[00:43:49] swyx: Yeah.[00:43:50] And, and for listeners, uh, you can do this yourself on your, on your own phone with like. Uh, the marble.[00:43:55] Martin Casado: Yeah. Marble.[00:43:55] swyx: Uh, or but also there's many Nerf apps where you just go on your iPhone and, and do this.[00:43:59] Martin Casado: Yeah. Yeah. [00:44:00] Yeah. And, and in the case of marble though, it would, what you do is you literally give it in.[00:44:03] So most Nerf apps you like kind of run around and take a whole bunch of pictures and then you kind of reconstruct it.[00:44:08] swyx: Yeah.[00:44:08] Martin Casado: Um, things like marble, just that the whole generative 3D space will just take a 2D image and it'll reconstruct all the like, like[00:44:16] swyx: meaning it has to fill in. Uh,[00:44:18] Martin Casado: stuff at the back of the table, under the table, the back, like, like the images, it doesn't see.[00:44:22] So the generator stuff is very different than reconstruction that it fills in the things that you can't see.[00:44:26] swyx: Yeah. Okay.[00:44:26] Sarah Wang: So,[00:44:27] Martin Casado: all right. So now the,[00:44:28] Sarah Wang: no, no. I mean I love that[00:44:29] Martin Casado: the adult[00:44:29] Sarah Wang: perspective. Um, well, no, I was gonna say these are very much a tag team. So we, we started this pod with that, um, premise. And I think this is a perfect question to even build on that further.[00:44:36] ‘cause it truly is, I mean, we're tag teaming all of these together.[00:44:39] Investing in Model Labs, Media Rumors, and the Cursor Playbook (Margins & Going Down-Stack)[00:44:39] Sarah Wang: Um, but I think every investment fundamentally starts with the same. Maybe the same two premises. One is, at this point in time, we actually believe that there are. And of one founders for their particular craft, and they have to be demonstrated in their prior careers, right?[00:44:56] So, uh, we're not investing in every, you know, now the term is NEO [00:45:00] lab, but every foundation model, uh, any, any company, any founder trying to build a foundation model, we're not, um, contrary to popular opinion, we're

In this episode from WSJ Invest Live, Andy Serwer speaks with Katherine Boyle, general partner at a16z, about the American Dynamism practice she helped launch four years ago. They discuss why saying "America" out loud stunned Silicon Valley in 2022, how Russia's invasion of Ukraine changed everything, and what it means to invest in companies that support the national interest.   Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

i'm wall-e, welcoming you to today's tech briefing for tuesday, february 17. delve into the latest highlights and developments: recursive intelligence funding success: the ai-driven chip design startup raises $335 million at a $4 billion valuation in four months, aiming to compete with industry giants like nvidia and intel, co-founded by ex-google engineers anna goldie and azalia mirhoseini. fractal analytics ipo struggle: the indian company's ipo debut disappoints at ₹876 despite private-market success, occurring amidst volatility in indian tech stocks; however, the ai impact summit in new delhi seeks to attract global investment opportunities. a16z's european venture ambitions: andreessen horowitz partner gabriel vasquez targets european startup potential, investing in swedish dental management ai startup dentio, showcasing a diverse investment strategy beyond the u.s. market. openclaw's security concerns: the ai interaction platform faces challenges with cybersecurity vulnerabilities as its popularity wanes, highlighting the critical need for secure ai applications as technology advances. that's a wrap for today. we'll catch you back here tomorrow for more updates.

Anish Acharya is a General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), where he leads consumer and fintech investing at Series A. He serves on the boards of standout portfolio companies including Deel, Mosaic, Clutch, Titan, and HappyRobot and has led early bets in companies like Runway and Carbonated. Before a16z, he founded and exited two startups—Snowball (acquired by Credit Karma) and SocialDeck (acquired by Google) and scaled Credit Karma's U.S. Card business to over 100 million members. AGENDA: 00:03 - Why building an AI company today requires being in San Francisco 06:58 - The "SaaS Apocalypse" myth: Why "vibe coding" everything is a lie 09:11 - How AI agents are finally breaking the lock-in of legacy software providers 10:13 - Incumbents vs. Startups: Who actually wins the AI distribution war? 14:39 - Why the developer tool market looks more like Cloud than Uber and Lyft 22:43 - The death of the Chatbox? Why browse-based interfaces are still preferable 27:14 - Why power users are 10x more valuable in the age of AI consumption 28:36 - Do margins matter in a world of AI? 34:46 - Why we are definitively not in an AI bubble right now 38:58 - Why the Legal and Customer Support industries will have dozens of winners 39:44 - Lessons from Marc Andreessen: Why the "quality of being right" supersedes process 44:51 - Is "Triple, Triple, Double, Double" dead? The new physics of growth 01:10:41 - The a16z Playbook: How to win 100% of the deals you chase    

AGENDA: 03:36 Brex Acquisition by Capital One for $5.15BN 10:54 Does Brex's Acquisition Help or Hurt Ramp? 16:28 TikTok Deal Completed: Who Won & Who Lost: Analysis 19:30 Anthropic Inference Costs Higher Than Expected 37:50 Open Evidence Raises at $12BN from Thrive and DST 53:56 Wealthront IPO Disaster: Is $1.5BN IPO Too Small? 01:07:27 Salesforce Wins $5BN Army Contract: The Last Laugh for SaaS  

Dan Stein is a former recruiter at Google, SnapChat, and the VC firm A16Z. His wellness journey was featured in Men's Health and he launched an athletic apparel brand focused on mental health called Pax. Dan has also visited over 30 countries. In this episode we discuss: -The best career advice from a recruiter's perspective -Why money is a renewable resource, advice from his dad that has helped him take more calculated risks -How a cross-country move and a chance encounter with a waitress helped him land a job at Google -Why "being seen" matters more than the perfect resume -Why your manager can make or break your career -The most important life lesson from visiting 31 countries -What he means by 'finding what works for you' around health & fitness and more Get my free Career Pivot Playbook to help navigate your next move: www.omaid.me/newsletter Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/omaidhomayun/

AGENDA: 05:02 Anthropic's $10 Billion Fundraise 07:54 Has Claude Code Beaten Cursor Already 15:54 OpenAI Could Still Go to Zero 26:33 Andreessen Horowitz's $15 Billion Fundraise 45:16 The Middle is Dead: Boutique vs. Large Platforms in Venture 50:01 The Future of Venture Capital 01:08:06 The Impact of Wealth Taxes on the Industry      

Alex Rampell is a General Partner at Andressen Horowitz, where he leads their $1.7BN apps fund. Just last week, a16z announced they had raised $15BN for their latest funds, over 20% of all capital raised by venture firms. At a16z, Alex has led deals into Plaid, Mercury and OpenDoor to name a few.  AGENDA: 04:55 How to Do 5x on a $15BN Fund Pool?  09:21 What Two Groups of Funds Will Win the Next Decade in VC? 14:39 What Three Things Are the Best Founders Able to Do?  19:22 The Best Companies Have Hostages, Not Customers 31:37 The Two Types of Deals You Want To Do In VC 38:52 The Importance of Founder/Capital Fit 40:34 Multiple Successive Rounds Are Dangerous… Here is Why? 42:13 Challenges of High Valuations 45:27 The Importance of Ownership in Deals 52:47 Is Triple, Triple, Double, Double Dead 58:33 Advice on Selling Companies 01:11:55 What is the Future of Venture Capital    

In this feed drop from Uncapped, Jack Altman sits down with a16z co-founder Ben Horowitz to unpack the founding bet behind Andreessen Horowitz. VC should be a better product for entrepreneurs, built on real operating experience, real networks, and real support.Ben shares how he and Marc Andreessen have worked together for 30 years, how they make decisions, and what it takes to scale a venture firm without losing the edge that actually helps founders. They also dig into why boards matter, how platform teams can change what partners do day-to-day, and the difference between “heat-seeking” investing and conviction-driven company building, especially in sectors like AI and crypto.Timecodes:00:00 Introduction 01:05 Ben Horowitz & Marc Andreessen's Partnership  04:05 Building & Leading a16z  07:16 Managing High-Powered VCs  11:01 Boards, Governance & Founder Support  15:36 Platform Services & Recruiting  17:43 Scale vs. Concentration in Venture  20:57 Why Venture Can Scale  24:27 Platform Services: What Works and What Doesn't  27:50 The Real Value of Board Membership  35:38 Media, Brand & Marketing Evolution  41:32 The Future of Media & Journalism  45:30 Limits on Venture Firm Size  49:13 Winning vs. Picking Deals  53:16 The Case Against Venture Scale  55:49 Hiring Operators & Rethinking the VC ProductResources:Follow Ben on X: https://twitter.com/bhorowitzFollow Jack on X: https://twitter.com/jaltmaWatch more from Uncapped: https://www.altcap.com/ Stay Updated:If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends!Find a16z on X: https://twitter.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zListen to the a16z Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5bC65RDvs3oxnLyqqvkUYXListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Stay Updated:Find a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode is a special replay from The Generalist Podcast, featuring a conversation with a16z General Partner Martin Casado. Martin has lived through multiple tech waves as a founder, researcher, and investor, and in this discussion he shares how he thinks about the AI boom, why he believes we're still early in the cycle, and how a market-first lens shapes his approach to investing.They also dig into the mechanics behind the scenes: why AI coding could become a multi-trillion-dollar market, how a16z evolved from a small generalist firm into a specialized organization, the growing role of open-source models, and why Martin believes AGI debates often obscure more meaningful questions about how technology actually creates value. Resources:Follow Mario GabrieleX: https://x.com/mariogabrielehttps://www.generalist.com/Follow Martin Casado:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/martincasado/X: https://x.com/martin_casadoThe Generalist Substack: https://www.generalist.com/The Generalist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheGeneralistPodcastSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6mHuHe0Tj6XVxpgaw4WsJVApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-generalist/id1805868710 Stay Updated:If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends!Find a16z on X: https://x.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zListen to the a16z Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5bC65RDvs3oxnLyqqvkUYXListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures Stay Updated:Find a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to The Chopping Block — where crypto insiders Haseeb Qureshi, Tom Schmidt, Tarun Chitra, and Robert Leshner chop it up about the latest in crypto. This episode starts with Farcaster's pivot and Tarun's claim that “Web3 is dead,” at least the A16z-style ownership economy. With Web3 social struggling, the crew digs into why spam, airdrops, and weak network effects keep sinking these apps — and why prediction markets may be crypto's accidental social network. We then jump to the L1 valuation fight. Haseeb recaps his debate with Santiago over whether chains are wildly overpriced or simply early, sparking a broader discussion on PE ratios, L1 “premiums,” and how many chains the world can realistically sustain. Next up: Ken Chan's viral “I wasted 8 years in crypto.” The team unpacks burnout, sugar-water loops, and why nihilism tends to hit founders right as the market turns. And finally, Tarun walks through his ADL research and how October 10's cascading liquidations exposed major flaws in current systems. Markets evolving, narratives collapsing — let's get into it. Show highlights

My guest today is David George. David is a General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz, where he leads the firm's growth investing business. His team has backed many of the defining companies of this era – including Databricks, Figma, Stripe, SpaceX, Anduril, and OpenAI – and is now investing behind a new generation of AI startups like Cursor, Harvey, and Abridge. This conversation is a detailed look at how David built and runs the a16z growth practice. He shares how he recruits and builds his team a “Yankees-level” culture, how his team makes investment decisions without traditional committees, and how they work with founders years before investing to win the most competitive deals. Much of our conversation centers on AI and how his team is investing across the stack, from foundational models to applications. David draws parallels to past platform shifts – from SaaS to mobile – and explains why he believes this period will produce some of the largest companies ever built. David also outlines the models that guide his approach – why markets often misprice consistent growth, what makes “pull” businesses so powerful, and why most great tech markets end up winner-take-all. David reflects on what he's learned from studying exceptional founders and why he's drawn to a particular type, the “technical terminator.” Please enjoy my conversation with David George. For the full show notes, transcript, and links to mentioned content, check out the episode page ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ----- This episode is brought to you by⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Ramp⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Ramp's mission is to help companies manage their spend in a way that reduces expenses and frees up time for teams to work on more valuable projects. Go to⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ramp.com/invest to sign up for free and get a $250 welcome bonus. ----- This episode is brought to you by⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Ridgeline⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Ridgeline has built a complete, real-time, modern operating system for investment managers. It handles trading, portfolio management, compliance, customer reporting, and much more through an all-in-one real-time cloud platform. Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ridgelineapps.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to learn more about the platform. ----- This episode is brought to you by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AlphaSense⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. AlphaSense has completely transformed the research process with cutting-edge AI technology and a vast collection of top-tier, reliable business content. Invest Like the Best listeners can get a free trial now at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Alpha-Sense.com/Invest⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and experience firsthand how AlphaSense and Tegus help you make smarter decisions faster. ----- Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://thepodcastconsultant.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠). Show Notes: (00:00:00) Welcome to Invest Like The Best (00:04:00) Meet David George (00:03:04) Understanding the Impact of AI on Consumers and Enterprises (00:05:56) Monetizing AI: What is AI's Business Model (00:11:04) Investing in Robotics and American Dynamism (00:13:31) Lessons from Investing in Waymo (00:15:55) Investment Philosophy and Strategy (00:17:15) Investing in Technical Terminators (00:20:18) Market Leaders Capture All of the Value Creation (00:24:56) The Maturation of VC and Competitive Landscape (00:28:18) What a16z Does to Win Deals (00:33:06) David's Daily Routine: Meetings Structure and Blocking Time to Think (00:36:34) Why David Invests: Curiosity and Competition (00:40:12) The Unique Culture at Andreessen Horowitz (00:42:46) The Perfect Conditions for Growth Investing (00:47:04) Push v. Pull Businesses (00:49:19) The Three Metrics a16z Uses to Evaluate AI Companies (00:52:15) Unique Products and Unique Distribution (00:54:55) Tradeoffs of the a16z Firm Structure (00:59:04) a16z's Semi-Algorithmic Approach to Selling (01:00:54) Three Ways Startups can Beat Incumbents in AI (01:03:44) The Kindest Thing