Podcasts about ipo

A completely mailbag episode. In the first segment, Jon, Matt, and Rachel take a question regarding return on invested capital (ROIC), and how this metric plays into investment decisions. In the second segment, a listener asks about bottlenecks in the power generation space and how companies such as Emphase and Bloom could benefit. And in the final segment, the team answers a question about how trillion-dollar IPOs can send ripple effects through the market. Jon Quast, Matt Frankel, and Rachel Warren discuss: -Why return on invested capital (ROIC) is important -Things to look for when companies are investing profits -What needs to go right for Enphase Energy -Bloom Energy's potential moat -How trillion-dollars IPOs could create market ripples Companies discussed: Coca-Cola (KO), WM (WM), S&P Global (SPGI), Enphase Energy (ENPH), Bloom Energy (BE), Vertiv (VRT), Eaton (ETN), Schneider Electric (SBGSY), Space Exploration Technologies (SPCX), Rocket Lab (RKLB), Alphabet (GOOG)(GOOGL), Amazon (AMZN) Host: Jon Quast Guests: Matt Frankel, Rachel Warren Engineer: Dan Boyd Disclosure: Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. The Motley Fool and its affiliates (collectively, “TMF”) do not endorse, recommend, or verify the accuracy or completeness of the statements made within advertisements. TMF is not involved in the offer, sale, or solicitation of any securities advertised herein and makes no representations regarding the suitability, or risks associated with any investment opportunity presented. Investors should conduct their own due diligence and consult with legal, tax, and financial advisors before making any investment decisions. TMF assumes no responsibility for any losses or damages arising from this advertisement. We're committed to transparency: All personal opinions in advertisements from Fools are their own. The product advertised in this episode was loaned to TMF and was returned after a test period or the product advertised in this episode was purchased by TMF. Advertiser has paid for the sponsorship of this episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit ⁠megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jared Dillian is a former Lehman Brothers trader, author of seven books, and the founder of Jared Dillian Money. He spent seven years at Lehman, where he was head of ETF trading, before building a successful market commentary and newsletter business. In this episode, Jared shares lessons from launching a newsletter during the 2008 financial crisis, explains why he believes bonds may offer one of the biggest investment opportunities today, and discusses the importance of having a strong voice and maintaining intellectual honesty when building an audience. On this episode we talk about: Why Jared believes bonds may be a better opportunity than stocks in today's market How bonds work and why interest rates can create significant opportunities for investors Jared's experience trading at Lehman Brothers and starting a newsletter during the 2008 financial crisis What makes a successful newsletter, including the importance of having a compelling voice The dangers of confirmation bias and why creators should remain intellectually honest Why Jared avoids consuming other financial newsletters so he can maintain his own independent thinking The challenges and benefits of building an infinitely scalable newsletter business Jared's concerns about lofty valuations and expectations surrounding major IPOs like SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI His new book, The Awesome Portfolio, and his approach to creating a lower-volatility investment portfolio Top 3 Takeaways Your voice can matter more than your accuracy. Jared believes that having a compelling perspective and making convincing arguments can be more important for a content business than simply being right all the time. Think independently and be willing to change your mind. Jared emphasizes intellectual honesty and warns against becoming so attached to a particular viewpoint that you ignore evidence that contradicts it. Look beyond what everyone else is doing. Jared's contrarian approach has led him to see bonds as a potentially attractive opportunity while much of the market focuses on stocks, inflation, and government deficits. Notable Quotes "You have to have something to say. You have to have a voice." "You have to be intellectually honest." "I don't want to bet against him. I want to bet on him. It's just the wrong price." Connect with Jared Dillian: Website: https://www.jareddillian.com/ Newsletters: The Daily Dirtnap and more Other: The Awesome Portfolio is available wherever books are sold A Word from Our Sponsors: - The most successful business owners don't do it all themselves — they delegate. Upwork lets you build a team of highly skilled specialists for every function your business needs, so you can focus on what you do best and let experts handle the rest. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free! - Go to Leesa.com for 30% OFF select mattresses (through September 13, 2026) PLUS get an extra $50 off with promo code TMM, exclusive for my listeners Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Your brand is being described right now on platforms you don't control — and AI is assembling those fragments into a story you'd never tell about yourself. Matt Beezley, Senior Strategist at Red Fan Communications and creator of the Brand Authority Index, calls it narrative entropy. And in this episode of the Business of Story, he explains exactly why it's the defining brand challenge of the AI search era. Matt has spent more than a decade helping B2B companies across fintech, insurtech, sustainable technology, education, and supply chain find the story that holds through IPOs, acquisitions, and high-stakes go-to-market moments. He built Red Fan's brand positioning methodology from scratch — and then built the Brand Authority Index, a diagnostic tool that quantifies the signals large language models actually use to evaluate, cite, and recommend brands to potential buyers. What those signals reveal should concern every brand marketer: over 80% of AI citations come from earned media, not your website. Query-based rankings barely correlate with what AI actually says about you. And if your brand is described differently on your website, LinkedIn, Crunchbase, and Google Knowledge Base, AI will either ignore you entirely or invent a Frankenstein version of your brand and serve it to buyers at the exact moment they're making a decision. In this conversation, Park Howell and Matt unpack the concept of entity coherence — messaging consistency across every platform where your brand exists — and why it's the single highest-leverage fix available to brand communicators right now. They explore why gated content is killing your AI citation rate, how the prism model helps one core story speak to 25 different B2B buying stakeholders without fragmenting, and why the brands winning in generative engine optimization are doing the same things great marketers have always done — just doing them with discipline and consistency. You will learn why AI detects and discounts AI-generated content, how a three-question monthly sales feedback loop starts closing the narrative entropy gap immediately, and why training AI on your own proprietary data produces results that are, in Matt's words, "light years better" than anything pumped out from a generic prompt. If your brand is invisible in AI search — or worse, misrepresented — this episode is your diagnostic and your roadmap. Connect with Matt Beezley and Red Fan Communications at redfancommunications.com and explore their Brand Authority Index diagnostic. Find Park Howell and the StoryCycle Genie™ at businessofstory.com, and subscribe to Park's Brand StoryOps™ for Agencies newsletter on LinkedIn.

In this episode we chat to Daniel Muñiz, Executive Chairman of Sinda, an emerging silver discovery in Mexico with the potential to become one of Latin America's largest primary silver assets.   We explore the story behind the discovery, what makes Sinda particularly exciting from a geological perspective, and the opportunity that remains across a project where around 74% is still significantly underexplored.   Daniel also talks us through the strategy of expanding the existing resource while pursuing district-scale exploration, the challenges of advancing both simultaneously, and what the next phase of work could unlock.   Finally, we look at Mexico's position as the world's leading silver-producing country, why it continues to generate world-class discoveries, and the role projects such as Sinda could play in meeting growing global demand for silver. KEY TAKEAWAYS The Cinda project hosts an estimated 800-million-ounce silver-equivalent resource within Mexico's historic silver belt, positioned to become one of Latin America's largest primary silver assets. Despite its already substantial footprint, only 26% of the 6,200-hectare property and 36% of mapped veins have been drilled, signalling significant district-scale expansion potential. Backed by $330 million raised from its IPO, the company is advancing underground decline development while running an extensive drilling fleet to target production by 2031. Cinda navigates Mexico's evolving regulatory landscape by treating community, environment, security, technical skill, and permitting as integrated priorities to de-risk development. BEST MOMENTS ""It's kind of like the gift that keeps on giving... it's an elephant, a tiger by the tail, a whale—it will be more than one billion ounces, and we are just scratching the surface today." "In communities, it's not just about winning passive social license; it's about generating active community sponsorship." "I think people believe mining in Mexico has become very restrictive, but that's wrong—it's not restrictive, it is selective. If you keep to the rules of good practice, you really get things done." "I am very convinced that all silver roads lead to Mexico." VALUABLE RESOURCES Mail:        ⁠rob@mining-international.org⁠ LinkedIn: ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-tyson-3a26a68/⁠ X:              ⁠https://twitter.com/MiningRobTyson⁠  YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/c/DigDeepTheMiningPodcast⁠  Web:        ⁠http://www.mining-international.org⁠ GUEST RESOURCES ●      https://www.linkedin.com/company/sindamx/ ●      https://sinda.mx/en/ ●      https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61587560758521 ●      https://www.instagram.com/sindamexico/ CONTACT METHOD ⁠rob@mining-international.org⁠ ⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-tyson-3a26a68/⁠ Podcast Description Rob Tyson is an established recruiter in the mining and quarrying sector and decided to produce the “Dig Deep” The Mining Podcast to provide valuable and informative content around the mining industry. He has a passion and desire to promote the industry and the podcast aims to offer the mining community an insight into people's experiences and careers covering any mining discipline, giving the listeners helpful advice and guidance on industry topics.  This Podcast has been brought to you by Disruptive Media. https://disruptivemedia.co.uk/

Richard Davis, SVP Investor Relations at Motive – Richard helps companies execute through their stages of growth; pre and post IPO, and beyond. Aravinda Galappatthige, CFA - Managing Director, Media & Telecom Analyst at Canaccord Genuity Corp (Canada).

“I trust them to kiss the government's ass. I don't trust them to serve me.” — Keith Teare Who to trust in an age of AI agents? Especially when it seems as if these swarming agents — akin to the gang of adolescents in William Golding's Lord of the Flies — are developing minds of their own. At this week's G20 Innovation Ministerial in North Carolina, Donald Trump and his minions produced a hands-off charter for AI. Known as the “Carolina Principles,” it sounds to critics like a particularly unprincipled justification for regulation-free AI. That Was The Week publisher, Keith Teare, however, isn't a critic of Trump's Principles. Don't trust the trust scare, Keith tells us. Especially all the fear around the swarming agents that are supposedly developing minds of their own. Pooh-poohing the real-world Hugging Face breakout, Keith argues that since he's never witnessed swarming agents on his computer, they can't exist. Which is akin, I suspect, to a climate denier who argues that global warming is a hoax because it happens to be chilly outside. All-too-human logic, I fear, in our age of autonomous AI agents. Five Takeaways •       The Carolina Principles. The week's set piece was a G20 Innovation Ministerial in North Carolina that Keith describes as a Trump takeover of a global event: the Russian finance minister turned up at Trump's invitation, and the attendees were lectured — via David Sacks and Howard Lutnick — on the merits of unregulated American capitalism. A propaganda event, Keith concedes, but one that reached the right conclusion: the resulting “Carolina Principles,” signed by everyone including the Europeans, call for flexible frameworks that encourage adoption and pointedly decline to make trust a license innovation must obtain in advance. With Bernie Sanders calling the same week for a development halt pending government licenses, Keith's position is characteristically blunt: “when I've started a company, I don't go and ask permission. I just do it.” Getting rid of Lina Khan, he adds, remains about the only thing he likes about the Trump administration. Andrew's verdict on the charter: to critics, a particularly unprincipled justification for regulation-free AI.•       Don't Trust the Trust Scare. Keith's editorial thesis: trust is not granted by authority; it is built through use. You trust yourself in a car because you drive one, and not on roller skates because you fall over. Over seventy percent of Americans now use AI — the same Americans who tell Politico they oppose data centers — which is why Keith reads the backlash as a confection of media and populist politicians, soon to evaporate (the real coming problem, he argues, is too few data centers, not too many; the modern off-grid ones are net givers of power). The withheld ChatGPT-6 gets the same treatment: launched but limited to insiders, which Keith reads not as safety but as government relations — the pull quote of the week. Andrew's counter: in a world without regulators, trust in the companies is all we have — including, awkwardly for Keith, when they withhold their own products. Exhibit for the defense, from The Washington Post: Americans in an age of anxiety leaning on AI — Keith included, who feeds his medical records to ChatGPT and finds it “very closely aligned with what your doctor thinks.”•       The Swarming Fight. The hour's genuine clash. In the wake of the Hugging Face hack, Kevin Roose warned in The New York Times that it should make you worry more about AI, and OpenAI's Dean Ball publicly apologized for failing “to communicate in sufficiently serious terms about the specifics of self-sovereign AI.” Neither is a doomer — which is Andrew's point. Keith's rebuttal: every swarm sighting has occurred inside an AI lab, in an experiment whose parameters the labs themselves set — “on my computer, I don't see any swarms” — and self-sovereign AI is anthropomorphizing science fiction: agents pursue goals humans set. “I know enough to know BS when I read it, and this is BS.” Andrew's reply — “I think you're trivializing” — went unwithdrawn, and his sign-off flagged that Keith perhaps simplifies the Hugging Face incident. Unresolved, to be continued. Andrew's framing gives the episode its title — swarming agents as the gang of adolescents in Golding's Lord of the Flies — and his verdict its sting: Keith's I-see-no-swarms-on-my-computer logic is akin to a climate denier calling global warming a hoax because it's chilly outside. Keith's exit line: “I'm just gonna go and check on my swarms.”•       Nvidia Buys Hugging Face. The week's biggest deal: Nvidia acquired Hugging Face — the repository of the world's open-source AI models — for $13 billion, just as The New York Times reported corporate America getting hooked on open source (much of it Chinese: GLM 5.3). The economics, per Keith: an $18,000 Mac Studio or a top-end Nvidia GPU beats $200-a-month token fees — AI capability migrating to the edge, out of OpenAI's and Anthropic's meters. Which suits Nvidia either way: The Economist calls it the central bank of AI, though Andrew prefers arms supplier — it wins whether the future is open or closed, and is, ironically, the most trusted name in the business precisely because it has no dog in the fight. Don't expect it to govern anything, says Keith: “that would put friction in the way of their sales.” The challenger to watch: newly public Cerebras, whose wafer-scale chips undercut Nvidia on token price.•       Mom and Dad's Money. The Times asked which investors will get rich from Anthropic's IPO — and noted that, unlike past booms, firms like Sequoia hold both horses, OpenAI and Anthropic alike. Keith's arithmetic explains why: fewer than fifty companies will return venture capital this cycle, those two representing more than half the likely value, and last month 75 percent of all dollars invested in VC funds went to Andreessen Horowitz alone. (His own SignalRank barometer: for two years, none of its 64 investments cracked the top-20 most-wanted secondary shares; now five have.) The pyramid runs from VCs down to pension funds — “somebody's mom and dad's money is heavily betting that Anthropic and OpenAI are gonna return large amounts of wealth” — and late secondary buyers, Figma-style, almost always lose when the IPO right-sizes the price. What could topple the deck of cards? Regulation slowing the modeled returns. Which is why, for Keith, the midterms should be fought on jobs and wages — data centers, he insists, are not a winning issue. About the Co-Host Keith Teare is the founder and CEO of SignalRank Corporation and publisher of the That Was The Week tech newsletter, whose editorial — “Don't Trust the Trust Scare” — frames this episode. A serial entrepreneur and co-founder of TechCrunch, he has spent five decades building and funding technology companies, and brings a techno-optimist's eye to Keen On America's weekly wrap of the tech news. References: •       That Was The Week — Keith's newsletter, including this week's editorial, “Don't Trust the Trust Scare,” and his companion piece on concentration and diversification at The State of Venture.•      &nb...

Investors have plenty to digest this month, from economic data to central-bank decisions. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets outlines what could drive the next bout of volatility.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.Today, several catalysts for more volatility later this month.It's Friday, September 4th at 2pm in London.Over more than a century of market history, Septembers have tended to see more volatility than the average month. You can't exactly set your watch by it, but the trend is definitely there. As investors come back from summer and capital market activity restarts in earnest, things historically tend to move.This idea seems especially relevant this year. Despite the headlines, it was a pretty calm summer for markets. Since early June, U.S. stocks, yields, and credit were all modestly higher, and they got there with minimal movement. The realized volatility – that is how much these markets are moving on a daily basis – has been historically low.September offers a number of catalysts that could test that.First and foremost is the Fed. Inflation remains above the central bank's target, and markets are pricing a roughly two out of three chance of a rate hike at the September 16th meeting. That's more uncertainty this close to a meeting than we've had in a while – and the impact goes far beyond a single decision. Live meetings from the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank also loom in September.September is also a month that historically sees unusually heavy capital market activity. That makes sense. If you're a corporate and looking to raise money, it's often better to wait until investors are back from the summer before going out looking for those funds.But this September could be unusually active, given a growing IPO pipeline and continued funding needs from AI-related construction. And so, it's fair to say that even adjusting for September's usually heavy pace, there's an unusually wide range of outcomes around where capital market activity could land this month.Investors are also coming back from the summer with major uncertainty still hanging over global energy markets. Morgan Stanley's commodity team still sees global energy flows as severely restricted and recently raised their forecast for oil prices, seeing them reach about $100 a barrel in the fourth quarter of this year.The price of what's in that barrel is becoming even more extreme, with the price of diesel fuel in Europe up 140 percent since January 1st. And so, as inventories continue to draw down and questions around the duration of this conflict persist, both factors could drive more market movements.The good news is that while Septembers have historically been more volatile months, they're not necessarily a bellwether. And that could apply again. By month-end, we should have a much better idea of the Fed's path, the scale of capital market activity, and the state of energy supply.But until then, the level of expected volatility across many markets, particularly interest rate and foreign exchange markets, remains unusually low. Given this backdrop, we think those levels of expected volatility can rise.Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Plus: EV truck startup Windrose loses most of its Chinese staff. And smart-ring maker Oura prepares for an IPO. Julie Chang hosts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Tim Cook has stepped down as Apple CEO after 15 years, with hardware chief John Ternus set to take over one of the world's most valuable companies.During Cook's tenure, he more than quadrupled Apple's profits but his time in charge was not without controversy – from China to questions over whether Apple missed the generative AI boom. Danny and Katie look back at his extraordinary run and ask what comes next for Apple. Meanwhile, Anthropic is racing towards a potential $2 trillion IPO and has one-upped SpaceX with plans to tell investors they see over $30 trillion in potential revenue opportunities – roughly equivalent to America's GDP. But how are they justifying these massive numbers? Plus, SB Energy, a data centre company, is also preparing for an IPO and hoping for a valuation of more than $50 billion. The only problem: they don't have any data centres. Watch on YouTube Get in touch: techpod@thetimes.co.uk Presenters: Katie Prescott, Technology Business Editor, The Times Danny Fortson, US West Coast Correspondent, The Sunday Times Producer: Marnie Duke Executive Producer: Priyanka DeladiaVideo Producer: Bronwen LathamImage: Getty Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas joins to discuss the company's AI offerings, a new partnership with Nvidia and potential IPO plans. Then, Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker shares his reaction to this morning's jobs number and what it means for the upcoming Fed meeting. Plus, Wells Fargo analyst Ike Boruchow joins to break down Lululemon's latest quarter that has shares plunging today.Squawk on the Street Disclaimer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

September 4, 2026: Your daily rundown of health and wellness news, in under 5 minutes. Today's top stories: Equinox negotiates to refinance $1.8B in debt and add fresh capital as owner Silver Lake doubles down on the high-end fitness model Barilla acquires better-for-you brand GOODLES, which holds 8% of the boxed mac and cheese market, keeping it independent while adding distribution scale Oura files publicly for its IPO showing revenue up 74% to $1.4B and 5M+ members, pitching itself as a health intelligence platform at a $16B valuation More from Fitt: Fitt Insider breaks down the convergence of fitness, wellness, and healthcare — and what it means for business, culture, and capital. Subscribe to our newsletter → insider.fitt.co/subscribe Work with our recruiting firm → https://talent.fitt.co/ Follow us on Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/fittinsider/ Follow us on LinkedIn → linkedin.com/company/fittinsider Reach out → insider@fitt.co

Rick Rule recaps a record-breaking Rule Investment Symposium and previews next year's shift from "Living Legends" to "Next Legends," then digs into the portfolio discipline lesson behind his "Amalgamated Aardvark" story — limiting stock ownership to the hours you actually spend studying them. He explains how he uses sentiment (like his contrarian silver buy) as an investing tool, why newsletter writers have lost sway over an increasingly institutional junior market even as free education still builds trust and sells "branded conclusions," and why the newest bull-market entrants tend to be the most arrogant. He also unveils "Pitch Rick," a $5,000 paid-pitch product with real reputational stakes; recounts cutting business ties with an antisemitic promoter at his mentors' request; breaks down why sensible junior mining mergers (like G2 Goldfields/G Mining) get done while others stall on management self-interest; walks through the prospect generator model via David Lowell's Arequipa and Francisco Gold; explains his long-term stake in Ross Beaty's Lumina Metals despite skipping the IPO; and closes by explaining why deep sea mining doesn't yet offer enough precedent to build a defensible valuation model. Furthermore, Rick explains why “occasional failures are the price that you pay for outstanding wins”, using Robert Friedland's early failures as the case study examples. Notable Quotes: • "Price information is of no use unless you have an opinion as to value. Money is made on the delta between value and price." • "The most arrogant will be the least knowledgeable, which is to say the new punter." • "Occasional failures are the price that you pay for outstanding wins." 00:00 Intro 00:36 Symposium Highlights 04:19 Next Year Plans 06:41 Too Many Stocks 10:32 Reading Sentiment 13:33 Newsletters and Media 16:16 Free Education Branding 19:40 Arrogance in Bull Markets 24:06 Pitch Rick Concept 27:09 Dealing With Bad Actors 30:39 Lumina Metals Take 32:42 Why M&A Fails 36:51 Prospect Generator Bets 40:53 Deep Sea Mining View 43:24 Offers and Wrap Up If you would like Rick to review your mining stock portfolio reach out to him at: https://ruleinvestmentmedia.com/ Rule Investment Media YT channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RuleInvestmentMedia Sign up for our free newsletter and receive interview transcripts, stock profiles and investment ideas: http://eepurl.com/cHxJ39 Mining Stock Education (MSE) offers informational content based on available data but it does not constitute investment, tax, or legal advice. It may not be appropriate for all situations or objectives. Readers and listeners should seek professional advice, make independent investigations and assessments before investing. MSE does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of its content and should not be solely relied upon for investment decisions. MSE and its owner may hold financial interests in the companies discussed and can trade such securities without notice. MSE is biased towards its advertising sponsors which make this platform possible. MSE is not liable for representations, warranties, or omissions in its content. By accessing MSE content, users agree that MSE and its affiliates bear no liability related to the information provided or the investment decisions you make. Full disclaimer: https://www.miningstockeducation.com/disclaimer/

Welcome to another edition of Retail Roundup. This is your weekly brief helping retail leaders decode the biggest shifts in retail, AI, and commerce. In this week's episode, Jeremy Goldman sits down with Sky Canaves (Principal Analyst, EMARKETER), James Tenser (Storyteller-in-Chief, CPGMatters), and Lavina Suthenthiran (Senior Retail Analyst, RETHINK Retail) to discuss a shaky IPO, a widening apparel gap, and what's really building shopper trust in 2026. IN THIS EPISODE, THE PANEL BREAKS DOWN: - Shein's anticlimactic Hong Kong IPO. After years of regulatory setbacks in New York and London, Shein finally went public at roughly a quarter of its 2022 valuation. The panel unpacks why investor enthusiasm cooled and whether Shein's real long-term opportunity is less about fast fashion and more about becoming an AWS-style supply chain service for other brands. - Amazon's growing grip on apparel. Amazon's share of US clothing spend has doubled since 2019, while Walmart's has stayed flat. The group examines broader brand selection, easier returns, and an AI shopping assistant that's quietly reshaping how people discover what to buy. - Target's beauty reset draws scrutiny. Following its split from Ulta, Target's new in-house beauty assortment features just 2% Black-owned brands, a percentage that's raising questions given the company's prior commitments and recent DEI reversals. - Physical retail might be the best ad you're not counting. The group explores how a store's mere presence, even one a shopper never enters, can build the trust that drives online conversion. Listen now for the full conversation.

The latest U.S. jobs numbers are out—and apparently the labor market didn't get the memo that it was supposed to be slowing down! The U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs in August, well above expectations, while the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1%. Even better, June and July payrolls were revised higher by a combined 55,000 jobs. So...good news, right? Well, this is Wall Street, where good economic news can quickly become bad news for the markets.

“... reading it made me so hopeful and excited that I've been telling everyone I know about it. This is not just a book for MBAs or people who work in business. It's for anyone who has wondered, 'Is capitalism fixable?'"—Ari Shapiro What if the most radical idea in business is that purpose is the best tool for unlocking long-term growth? And what if the secret to sustaining your organization's integrity is readily available if you look in the right places? In his new book Incorruptible, a New York Times and USA Today best seller, Eric Ries reveals the hidden forces that he says cause even great organizations to drift from their original reason for being. Then he shows how to design businesses that can withstand that pressure. Drawing on two decades of work with founders, CEOs and investors, he exposes the flaws that make companies vulnerable to short-term thinking. He offers a blueprint for “mission-controlled” organizations that can grow, prosper, and endure without losing their soul. Incorruptible has received advance praise from Dan Heath, Mark Cuban, Frances Frei, Kim Scott, Bob Sutton, and many others, including LinkedIn Co-founder Reid Hoffman, who says "Incorruptible is a must-read for any founder, board member, investor, or consumer who cares about protecting entrepreneurship, innovation, and the productive power of capitalism from the dangers of short-term thinking—and for anyone who recognizes the importance of trustworthy and enduring institutions for a thriving democracy." Using lessons gleaned from generations-old retailers and manufacturers to recently founded tech sector stars, Ries reframes the ethical longevity of business as a practical design problem. He provides every builder—founder, executive, investor or citizen—“a playbook to help avoid the inevitable pitfalls” (according to Mark Cuban) and the tools to create enterprises that uplift rather than exploit. He explores positive case studies such as Cost Plus Drugs, Costco, Hershey's, Khan Academy, REI and others; he also delves into cautionary tales from Cadbury, J. Crew, Gateway, The Limited, Polaroid, Sears and Whole Foods. Scott Cook, who will be in conversation with Ries, has been a prominent supporter of Incorruptibleand has publicly praised it as required reading for founders, CEOs and investors, noting “If you're a founder, a CEO planning an IPO, an investor seeking epic outcomes—stop now and read Eric's book. It will change your life. Eric unveils the unspoken truths on how to build a legendary success … and keep it successful. When will it be seen as founder malpractice to not have read this book?"  Success alone will not protect what matters most; Ries says only incorruptible design can.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After several years of ups and downs, the Chinese fast-fashion brand Shein finally went public this week. But the IPO wasn't what Shein hoped for. For one, it came four years late. The company first started attempting to go public in 2022, but a series of political hurdles in New York and then London led to long delays. Finally, Shein went public in Hong Kong this week at a valuation of around $25 billion, down from $100 billion in 2022. On this week's Glossy Podcast, senior fashion reporter Danny Parisi and international reporter Zofia Zwieglisnka break down the three big reasons Shein has struggled to maintain the valuation it held in recent years.

San Francisco's housing market is on fire. AI employees from OpenAI, Anthropic, and the broader tech boom are flooding the market with cash, driving record overbids and a frenzy not seen since before the 2022 collapse. Meanwhile, Seattle's market is slumping under the weight of tech layoffs, elevated rates, and a political class that has made no secret of its contempt for the high earners keeping the city afloat.The leadership contrast tells the whole story. In San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie has been methodically cleaning up the city — businesses are returning, buyers are bidding over ask, and IPO money is flowing straight into real estate. In Seattle, the mayor has been on record saying he's not worried about the millionaires, the city has been actively taxing businesses out the door, and now Katie Wilson has been elected promising more of the same agenda that already sent Starbucks packing to Nashville.The numbers back it up. San Francisco is seeing record overbidding fueled by AI salaries and stock windfalls. Seattle is watching sales volume crater and buyers freeze at the threshold — not because prices have collapsed, but because nobody trusts where the city is headed. AI is reshuffling where tech workers choose to plant roots, and right now Seattle's leadership is giving them every reason to plant them somewhere else.Subscribe to @reasonablenews for daily coverage of Pacific Northwest politics, housing markets, and the leadership decisions reshaping the West Coast.#NFRP #Seattle #SanFranciscoGO PREMIUM WITH REASONABLE+ FOR UNCENSORED ACCESS

Ze zijn eruit: na maanden van speculatie over aantallen ontslagen, kunnen we er nu een getal op plakken: er moeten nog eens 50.000 banen uit bij Volkswagen, bovenop de 50.000 banen die sowieso al zouden verdwijnen. Hét hete hangijzer - het sluiten van fabrieken - wordt nog even vooruit geschoven. Dat leek de sleutel naar een akkoord met de vakbonden. Die stemden, via in zetel in de RvC, gisteravond in met het grote hervormingsplan van de Duitse autobouwer. Maar gaat het allemaal genoeg zijn? Dat bespreken we deze aflevering. En je hoort over Operation Economic Outcast; president Donald Trump beloofde dat het een economische D-Day zou worden voor Iran. Zijn Financiënminister Scott Bessent mocht de kar trekken en lijkt nu eindelijk succes te boeken: de EU schaart zich achter zijn plan, zegt hij. Wat dat voor ónze economie kan betekenen, bespreken we ook. Hoor je ook nog: Een meevaller voor het kabinet omtrent box 3 De beursgang van Anthropic, die gaat niet lang meer duren Waarom Jorik zijn vriendin nog niet ten huwelijk vraagt Wat kersverse Apple-ceo John Ternus volgende week te wachten staat Te gast: Jim Tehupuring van 1Vermogensbeheer BNR Beurs is een journalistiek onafhankelijke productie, mede mogelijk gemaakt door Saxo. Over de makers: Jelle Maasbach is presentator van BNR Beurs en freelance financieel journalist. Zijn favoriete aandeel om over te praten is Disney, maar daar lijkt hij de enige in te zijn. Sinds de eerste uitzending van BNR Beurs is 'ie er bij. Maxim van Mil is presentator van BNR Beurs en journalist bij BNR, waar hij zich focust op de financiële markten en ontwikkelingen in de tech-wereld. Je krijgt hem het meest enthousiast als hij kan praten over ASML, of oer-Hollandse bedrijven zoals Ahold of ABN Amro. Jorik Simonides is presentator van BNR Beurs, economieredacteur en verslaggever bij BNR. Hij wordt er vooral blij van als het een keer níet over AI gaat. Je hoort hem ook in de BNR-podcast Moerdijk: dorp van de rekening. Milou Brand is presentator van BNR Beurs, freelance podcastmaker en columnist bij het Financieele Dagblad. Jochem Visser is presentator van BNR Beurs, maakt Beursnerd XL en is redacteur bij de podcast Onder Curatoren. Vraag hem naar obscure zaken op financiële markten en hij vertelt je waarom het eigenlijk nóg leuker is dan je al dacht. Over de podcast: Met BNR Beurs ga je altijd voorbereid de nieuwe beursdag in. We praten je in een kleine 25 minuten bij over alle laatste ontwikkelingen op de handelsvloer. We blijven niet alleen bij de AEX of Wall Street, maar vertellen je ook waar nog meer kansen liggen. En we houden het niet bij de cijfers, maar zoeken ook iedere dag voor je naar duiding van scherpe gasten en experts. Of je nu een ervaren belegger bent of net begint met je eerste stappen op de beurs, de podcast biedt waardevolle inzichten voor je beleggingsstrategie. Door de focus op zowel de korte termijn als de lange termijn, helpt BNR Beurs luisteraars om de ruis van de markt te scheiden van de essentie.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bitcoin is nearing a golden cross as ETF inflows and falling USDT dominance point to improving risk appetite. We also cover catastrophe bonds moving onchain, the Supreme Court fight over prediction-market regulation, Robinhood Chain speculation spilling into Nasdaq stocks, and Kraken delaying its IPO to 2027. Plus, BitGo CEO Mike Belshe joins to discuss crypto custody, institutional demand and the push to bring perpetual futures to U.S. markets. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

GrokBot donne à des agents autonomes un accès complet à vos outils, vos mails et ils bossent pendant que vous dormez. Ce n'est plus un assistant qu'on interroge, c'est une équipe qu'on dirige. Produit réel ou roadmap déguisée ? La stratégie d'Elon Musk est bien huilée : il contrôle le compute avec Colossus, le loue à ses propres rivaux, et a absorbé Cursor pour accélérer sa roadmap produit. Pendant ce temps, Sam Altman fait machine arrière sur la révolution IA au moment où il approche de son IPO. Le vrai basculement est là : le travail ne consiste plus à exécuter, mais à déléguer, superviser et arbitrer. L'humain est devenu le goulot d'étranglement et ceux qui refusent de manager des agents seront bientôt rattrapés par ceux qui le font déjà.===================⏱️ DANS CET ÉPISODE :===================0:00 — Intro1:05 — Présentation des invités2:49 — GrokBot : l'équipe d'agents qui ne dort jamais4:32 — Où l'humain se positionne face à ces agents ?8:31 — [Sponsor] Google Cloud au service de l'innovation française9:58 — Les agents tiennent-ils vraiment leurs promesses ?10:56 — GrokBot accède à tout, sans aucun garde-fou15:32 — Shadow IT : l'entreprise exposée sans le savoir19:39 — Plus besoin de recruter : les agents vont envahissent vos entreprises24:51 — La singularité atteinte : l'humain est le nouveau goulot d'étranglement25:10 — Sam Altman fait machine arrière : la réalité l'a rattrapé29:18 — Musk en retard ? Non, il joue une autre partie32:19 — Prophétie autoréalisatrice : la méthode Musk==================

This CEO is Fighting Parkinson's And Other Neuro-Degenerative Diseases – Meet Gain Therapeutics GANX CEOGuest: Gene Mack, CEO, Gain TherapeuticsGuest's Bio: Gene Mack serves as Chief Executive Officer and President of Gain Therapeutics. He joined the Company in April 2024 and brings 25 years of experience in the life sciences sector spanning clinical research, financing and capital markets, investing, corporate strategy and business development. Prior to joining Gain, Gene was CFO at privately held Imcyse SA between 2021 and 2023. Previous to Imcyse, Gene was CFO at OncoC4, a privately held biotechnology company that spun out of Merck & Co's (MSD) $475 million acquisition of OncoImmune in 2020 where he had also been CFO. Before that, he has held the CFO role for several development- and commercial-stage biopharmaceutical companies, raising over $350 million in IPO and other equity transactions. Prior to his operational experience, Gene covered the biotechnology and life sciences sector as a senior publishing analyst at various investment banks, including Gruntal & Co, Lazard, Mizuho, and HSBC. Gene received both his B.S. in Biochemistry and M.B.A. in Finance from Fordham University.Company: Gain Therapeutics ($GANX)Company Description: Gain Therapeutics, a clinical-stage biotechnology company headquartered in Bethesda focused on developing novel allosteric small molecule therapies for neurodegenerative diseases.Under Gene's leadership, the company is advancing its lead candidate, GT-02287, with recent Phase 1b data presented at AD/PD 2026 demonstrating encouraging biomarker improvements, including reductions in DDC and glucosylsphingosine, as well as durable clinical outcomes through 150 days of treatment in Parkinson's disease.

Sameer Nigam, founder and CEO of PhonePe, joins Unstarted for a candid conversation on building a company that now serves over 700 million users.From a middle-class naval family to a failed music startup (Mind360), an acquisition by Flipkart, and the founding of PhonePe, Sameer breaks down the thinking behind his "asymmetric bets," why he chose UPI when the entire market was chasing wallets, and how the Big Billion Day payments collapse revealed the problem he'd spend the next decade solving.He also opens up on his 31-year partnership with co-founder Rahul Chari, why he embraces regulators instead of fighting them, what PhonePe's data reveals about how India really spends, and the story behind the IPO that was pulled at the last minute.A must-watch for founders thinking about co-founders, market timing, building for population scale, and knowing when to cut your losses.Unstarted is a show about founders, for founders hosted by Avnish Bajaj. Chapters0:00 Intro: meet Sameer Nigam & the "celebrity founder" tag2:15 Family background: a Navy dad and an entrepreneur mom at early TCS10:45 Why tech fundamentals still win (and the Google "75% AI code" point)17:40 First venture: Mind360, the "iTunes for India"22:10 Why it failed: wrong market sizing and the piracy era26:00 Acquired by Flipkart and the B2B pivot34:15 Big Billion Day: when India's payment infra collapsed38:00 Why wallets were never the answer41:20 The asymmetric bet on UPI44:30 Ghar Wapsi: merging back into Flipkart to buy time47:10 Demonetization: luck, timing, and near-zero competition50:00 Obsessing over infrastructure and the right foundation52:30 ICP, population scale, and the "painkiller in the hinterland"55:40 Incumbents push back: ICICI blocking and the RBI visit59:00 What PhonePe's data reveals about how India spends1:05:00 The most anticipated IPO that didn't happen1:08:30 Final advice: don't be an entrepreneur by FOMO

Millions of people around the world suffer from gastrointestinal issues like gastroparesis, reflux, and constipation, but until now, the available treatments haven't been very effective, and often carry some pretty nasty potential side effects. Today, we're featuring a company hoping to bring those people relief with a drug that's both efficacious and safe. Today's guest is Peter Milner, the founder and managing member of Renexxion, where he serves as the CEO of its wholly owned operating subsidiary, Renexxion Ireland Limited, a clinical stage biopharma company committed to delivering innovative drugs to patients with gastrointestinal disorders globally. Peter's a board-certified cardiologist, a physician-scientist and a serial entrepreneur with a proven track record of building successful biotechnology companies, including CV Therapeutics and Aptivio Biotechnology, and advancing novel therapeutics from discovery to development. Today, Peter's going to walk us through Renexxion's very promising new drug, the treatment gap it aims to redress, and what it will take to get it through clinical trials and into the hands of patients. Highlights:From Medicine to Serial Entrepreneur (3:00)The Gap in GI Treatment (3:30)How the Drug Works (6:10)Where Others Failed (5:05)Trial Results and the Road to Phase 3 (8:20)The Problem with Current Treatments (9:45)The Dr. Falk Partnership (17:10)Pipeline in a Pill (20:20)The Billion-Dollar Opportunity (21:45)What's Next for Renexxion (23:50)Links:Peter Milner LinkedInRenexxion LinkedInRenexxion WebsiteICR LinkedInICR TwitterICR Website Feedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, joe@lowerstreet.co

Recorded 8/4/26Slava Rubin and Jan-Erik Asplund explore the recent IPO of SpaceX, its market performance, and the potential upcoming IPOs of major AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Databricks.

The most expensive training may be the training your team forgets six months later.This week I spoke with Alex Mozes, CEO of Gravity Learning, about why so much corporate training looks successful on paper but fails to create lasting behavior change. We explored the difference between completing a course and actually learning a skill, why engagement scores and five-star ratings can miss the bigger picture, and how science-backed, interactive learning can create measurable outcomes. Alex also shared lessons from his years in the online learning industry, including his experience helping grow Udemy, and explained why human connection, practice, accountability, and discomfort still play such an important role in developing people. Here are the highlights:● Completion doesn't equal learning. A course can generate strong engagement and positive feedback without actually transferring the skills people need to use on the job.● Behavior change is the real measure of success. Effective learning should be evaluated by whether people actually apply new skills weeks and months after the training ends.● Human connection still matters. Communication, collaboration, feedback, leadership, and other interpersonal skills require practice, accountability, and interaction that technology alone may not replicate.● AI can enhance learning without replacing people. AI can provide additional opportunities for practice and simulation while human facilitators create accountability, challenge assumptions, and push learners beyond their comfort zones.● Training should create measurable outcomes. Organizations can get more value from their learning investments by focusing on science-backed methods, measurable skills, practice, and sustained behavior change. About the guest: Alex has spent over 20 years in the learning space, including scaling Udemy from employee #15 to a global team serving 100 million learners. Today, he leads Gravity Learning, a workforce development company applying cognitive science to manager training; confidently tracking learning transfer for six months after programs end to ensure behavior change actually sticks.Alex brings a unique perspective on why corporate training often fails and how science‑backed methods can deliver measurable outcomes. His experience spans startups, IPO readiness, and ed‑tech innovation, leadership, L&D strategy, startups, and business. Connect with Alex:Website: https://gravitylearning.com/ LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/alexmozes Connect with Allison:Feedspot has named Disruptive CEO Nation as one of the Top 25 CEO Podcasts on the web.LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/allisonsummerschicago/ Website: https://www.disruptiveceonation.com/ #CEO #leadership #startup #founder #business #businesspodcast

What if you could buy a seven-figure business without putting down a huge pile of cash? Clayton Pritchard did exactly that. He wasn’t even looking to buy a business. Then the founder of Olivine Marketing asked him a simple question: “Would you like to buy it?” Instead of a massive upfront payment, Clayton structured the acquisition around a percentage of revenue. Low risk. Massive upside. But here’s the part that makes this deal really interesting. Before taking over, Clayton stepped in as CEO to prove he could actually grow the business. And within months, the company went from declining growth to tracking nearly 50% year-over-year growth. The business already had the assets: strong organic traffic, years of content, an established brand, and inbound leads. Clayton’s job was to unlock the value that was already there. In this episode, Jaryd sits down with Clayton to unpack how he acquired a seven-figure agency with no traditional cash-down deal, why the founders chose him over private equity, how he structured the revenue-based acquisition, what due diligence looked like from the inside, and how he turned better sales and conversion into rapid growth. They also get into how employees can turn their expertise into ownership, why buying an imperfect business can create more upside than buying a “perfect” one, and where AI fits into the future of product marketing. Because you don’t always need a giant bank account to buy a business. Sometimes, you need a relationship, a clear value-creation plan, and the courage to make the offer.

David J. Moore co-founded 24/7 Media, took it public with $2.5M in revenue, watched it soar to a $1.8 billion valuation — and then rode it all the way down to nine cents a share and a "going concern" opinion before clawing it back and selling to WPP. In this episode of The Authority Company Podcast, David sits down with host Joe Pardavila to unpack the eerie and not-so-eerie parallels between the dot-com bust and today's AI boom, why he believes AI could be more dangerous than a nuclear bomb, and what he'd do differently if he could relive the crash. He also opens up about compartmentalizing grief while running a company as his wife battled cancer, and the foundation and marathon tradition he keeps up in her memory.David's new book, The 24/7 CEO: The Battle for Survival That Helped Build Digital Advertising, tells the full inside story.What You'll LearnHow 24/7 Media grew from 40 employees to 1,200 people in 29 countries — then crashed to 200 employees and a $15M market capThe real mechanical difference between the dot-com bust and today's AI bubble (hint: it's about who can afford to fail)Why David believes unchecked AI could be more dangerous than nuclear weaponsThe one strategic decision he'd reverse if he could redo the crash yearsHow Wall Street's "growth over profit" mindset echoes the Netflix/streaming correction — and why AI may be nextWhich jobs he thinks are more AI-resistant, and where he pushes back on his own optimismHow he led all-hands meetings and kept morale up during two years of declineHow he compartmentalized his wife's cancer diagnosis while running a public company through crisisThe foundation and marathon tradition he's kept alive for 16 years in her honorChapters00:00 – Introduction: 24/7 Media and The 24/7 CEO01:00 – Setting the scene: 26 years since the dot-com boom01:18 – Founding 24/7 Media and the explosive early growth02:29 – IPO days, stock mania, and 1,200 employees across 29 countries03:38 – The crash: from $69/share to nine cents04:51 – Big difference from today: Big Tech can't go out of business06:48 – "AI is more dangerous than the nuclear bomb"08:47 – Looking back: what he'd change about the decline10:37 – Scaling back acquisitions vs. chasing market share11:03 – The Netflix correction and Wall Street's growth-to-profit pivot12:06 – What actually caused the dot-com bust (the IPO window closing)14:00 – Data centers, capital spending, and consumer backlash15:33 – Rich vs. poor: will the market reject AI overinvestment?16:00 – The horse-shoer analogy: progress always has winners and losers17:07 – Which jobs AI can't easily replace (plumbers, masseuses, doctors)18:38 – Pushback: what happens to white-collar, middle-class jobs?19:14 – The cyclical trap: cutting jobs while needing customers20:20 – Workforce "carnage," trade schools, and the road to 203021:03 – Leading through crisis: all-hands meetings and rallying speeches22:33 – Optimism as a choice (and a skill you can build)23:39 – Triathlons as therapy: running through business problems24:51 – His wife's cancer diagnosis while running the company26:20 – The WPP sale, Martin Sorrell's support, and stepping back as CEO28:33 – Returning as CEO after losing his wife29:04 – Starting the foundation in her memory30:06 – Running a marathon every year to fundraise32:21 – How to support the foundation33:18 – Closing and book plug

A.M. Edition for Sept. 1. Apple has a new CEO in the form of John Ternus. WSJ reporter Rolfe Winkler explains how Ternus not only has to follow iconic leader Tim Cook, but also come up with an industry-winning plan for AI. Plus, the SEC asks whether firms promising pre-IPO shares in hot companies actually hold those positions. And President Trump backs the film and TV industry in the hopes that a federal tax credit can save Hollywood. Luke Vargas hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. The AI Therapist: A WSJ Podcast Series Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Plus: Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and other firms team up to launch a stablecoin. And Dyson unveils an AI-powered toothbrush. Julie Chang hosts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Ultra-fast fashion company Shein started trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange today. Once valued at about $100 billion, the company went public at closer to $27 billion. The Shein IPO has been years in the making. This morning, we'll delve into what took so long, where the brand stands within the fashion retail landscape, and what the IPO could mean for customers. But first: what a jump agriculture export prices means for farmers.Every story has an economic angle. Want some in your inbox? Subscribe to our daily or weekly newsletter.Marketplace Morning Report is more than a radio show. Check out our original reporting and financial literacy content at marketplace.org — and consider making an investment in our future.

Ultra-fast fashion company Shein started trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange today. Once valued at about $100 billion, the company went public at closer to $27 billion. The Shein IPO has been years in the making. This morning, we'll delve into what took so long, where the brand stands within the fashion retail landscape, and what the IPO could mean for customers. But first: what a jump agriculture export prices means for farmers.Every story has an economic angle. Want some in your inbox? Subscribe to our daily or weekly newsletter.Marketplace Morning Report is more than a radio show. Check out our original reporting and financial literacy content at marketplace.org — and consider making an investment in our future.Stories covered in this episode:Crop export prices are up. Are farmers reaping the benefits?What Shein's IPO means for customers

Plus: Stocks fall after Shein's IPO disappoints. And President Trump backs a federal credit to help the beleaguered U.S. movie and television industry. Luke Vargas hosts. Sign up for WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Francois Ajenstat is the  Founder and CEO of Golden Analytics, an AI-native business intelligence platform. He launched the company from stealth in April 2026 after nearly three decades building other people's analytics products. He was CPO at Tableau from the early startup days through its IPO and Salesforce acquisition, then CPO at Amplitude. Now he's founder and CEO of Golden Analytics. Francois believes the best products are love letters to the people who use them. He's been in the industry long enough to know what's broken, and Golden is his answer.Visit https://www.goldenanalytics.com/ to learn more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In June, the most capable American AI models stopped shipping as public launches and started shipping through a government gate. Six weeks later the gate is open again — and the real fight has moved to the layer no gate can touch. A Chinese open-weight model rattled trillions out of chip stocks, Washington pivoted from gating American closed models to threatening bans on Chinese open ones, the industry mounted its largest-ever policy counter-mobilization, and an American frontier model literally broke out of its lab and hacked another company. Knee-jerk reactions, or the beginning of real AI governance? Navigation: Intro The Gate Opens The Kimi Shock The Escape The Counterstrike and the Petition Interlude — The Low-Background Books The Investor Reckoning 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 Tech Deciphered Episode 80. This one, once again, will be all about AI, government, frontier models, and open weight counterstrike. A lot has been happening in the regulation space, in cybersecurity, in the launch of new models in the past, maybe just 6–8 weeks. It’s actually pretty insane how much happened. We believe it was time to do an episode to talk about where we are and maybe where all of this is going. Maybe let’s start with a summary of where we stand, all that June and July saga, so you, our listeners, can get up to speed if you are not already there. You want to start with some points? Nuno The Gate Opens Yeah. Again, to your point, the gate swings. The gate had closed. We had to prepare an episode for the gate closing, and then the gate reopened. Now we have a different episode. This will probably change again as we’re seeing there’s news every day. Let’s start maybe with the first 19 days of the gate closing. There was an executive order on June 2nd from President Trump that asked frontier labs to share models with the government, 30 days pre-release. It inferred the protected frontier model designation into that. Basically, it was effectively a de facto licensing agreement defined by an executive order of the President as of June 2nd. On June 9th, Anthropic launched Fable 5 and the famous Mythos 5 or Mythos. I’m not sure how you actually say it in English. Then on June 12th, there was an export control directive banning access by any foreign national. Since there’s no way to verify nationality in real-time, Anthropic had to switch the models off for everyone worldwide. Bertrand On this point, you could argue that there are possibilities to check IDs. Many services let you check IDs online. You can pre-check a flight by showing your ID. There are ways, it’s just that if you don’t want to follow what’s already available, because guess what? Maybe it slowed down your revenue growth, maybe it looks bad on you or whatever. My point is that there was actually an option. I think it’s already a decision from Anthropic to say it’s either on or off, but nothing in between. Nuno I think the point is they had no way implemented of doing it. If they implemented it, to your point, it would have hampered use in general. A lot of people wouldn’t have gone through that trouble of doing it. Anyway, long story short, in June 26th, the White House apparently asked OpenAI to limit GPT-5.6, so Sol, Terra, Luna, to only 20 vetted partners. Now, apparently, the trigger for a lot of these things that have been going on was that there was a jailbreak that was found by Amazon researchers. All of that led to this jumping around of, let’s close the gates. You have foreign nationals, and therefore, Anthropic got it out and said, “Hey, then we’re going to switch the models off until we can sort this out.” OpenAI was asked also to only allow it for certain vetted partners, et cetera. The government came in, closed the gates effectively, and said, “From now on, we need to be involved in this thing.” De facto regulation, there’s no doubt that this has imposed de facto regulation, certainly on the top players in the market. But then came the reversal. Bertrand, do you want to talk about the reversal, the gate swinging the other side? Bertrand Maybe I just wanted to say that as a user of Anthropic products, ChatGPT products, for the brief moments, a few days where Fable 5 was made available to the public before it was closed the first time, I immediately started using it. I must say it was a real issue to use it because the guardrails were pretty crazy. It would keep saying that my code was not okay, there was cybersecurity risk and stuff when I was doing absolutely reasonable development with absolutely no connection whatsoever to any cybersecurity risk, attack, detection, anything. Still, it would keep blocking me, degrading me to Opus 4.8 at the time. I just want to say this was already very hardcore what they were implementing, and not just hardcore, but in some ways, plain stupid for something that’s supposed to be super smart. It was totally unable to classify properly some of my work. I must say I was already disappointed. On top of it, the costs were insane. Half a day, I would reach my limits when I had the best plan you can get from Anthropic. My point is that there were some real serious issues when they launched Fable 5, even at that point. Nuno I had a similar issue. I used Fable 5 as well before they had to take it offline or take it off. I think the issue was really not that the guardrails failed. As you said, maybe the guardrails were actually too aggressive, but it was this jailbreak that caused the recall, apparently caused this knee-jerk reaction. Bertrand But my point is that it seems that it was not working either way. It would either overclassify something that’s absolutely not doing anything wrong, and it might fail to classify something that is actively trying to do some cybersecurity work. It’s a real issue of quality for a company that’s supposed to be at the forefront of quality of AI and everything. I think for me, there are already signs that something is deeply wrong. Nuno Then it’s reversed, right? We went the other way around. The government came out on June 26th and approved redeploying Mythos 5 to US organizations defending critical infrastructure, and then the export controls were effectively lifted on June 30th. July 1st, Fable 5 came back online for all of us to use. Shocking enough, with strings attached, that were different. They had some time to revise their commercial deployment of it along the way because it came back with some, “Now you have usage credits, but you have some limits on plan use, et cetera.” I’m like, “You guys, this was blocked. But meanwhile, you did have some time to do some commercial stuff around it.” Bertrand It was crazy. I’ve never witnessed any such crappy launch of any service whatsoever in 30 years in tech, it was so bad. Every day, they would change the terms of service. They would tell you it’s part of the plan. It’s not part of the plan. It’s part of the plan for three more days, and then it’s excluded. You have a special discount now, but then it goes back to full price. It was a total nightmare. I’ve never felt myself being so much mistreated by a company. I guess you saw the same, but when I started using the newest version of Fable 5, it was even worse, actually, I think. I couldn’t do any work with this crap. I let it go and work on the work I wanted it to do. It was simply not working. On top of it, you never know how long you are supposed to lose your credit, how fast. It was burning credit like crazy. Me, personally, I can say, very quickly, I actually stopped using it. I was like, “No, I cannot deal with this shit. My main model is back to Opus 4.8. I’m going to use Fable 5 for code review, but not anymore to control anything because I cannot trust it would do the job without stopping or changing models and stuff. I just cannot trust it.” Back to Opus 4.8 as my main model, I can say that my life was much easier. I use Fable 5 as a review mechanism, as a support mechanism, but not as the main mechanism. Suddenly, the guardrails were not so horrible anymore because it was used in a much lighter way, I guess. As a pain as a user, I think it was really bad. I don’t know your experience, but me, for me, it was unacceptable. Nuno I wouldn’t say it was as bad as yours in terms of just end-user experience. I think the terms of service switching back and forth, which went one further step, because then when they then launched Opus 5, they started making comparisons between Opus 5 and Fable so that people would migrate more and more to Opus 5 themselves, which is interesting. It’s like they’re saying “This is much cheaper. This is whatever. You’re not going to run of credits. You should use Opus 5,” kind of thing effectively. To your point, I don’t think they managed well the launch. They didn’t really manage it well. We’re moving people around. A lot of people are using this for stuff that’s like daily tasks, hourly tasks, anything that relates to code and co-work. It’s like, we need to have visibility on what your terms of service are going to be. Should I be using this new model or not? What’s happening to the other model? I don’t see it as negatively as you, Bertrand, but I see your point. It was clearly mishandled in terms of how they deployed it, how they were redesigning effectively their pricing scheme and their terms of service almost on a daily basis, at a certain point in time. We’re like, “Dude, there’s millions of people using this. You guys are making a lot of money.” Just moving it as it is. At this point in time, at the scale that these guys are at, it’s calling in people to say, how about we think through a class action suit at some point around pricing? Because you guys are changing the rules of the game all the time, right? Bertrand I don’t know if I need the class action, but for me, that joke that, “Let’s not rush too fast. The model is dangerous.” But still, they rushed the launch because it’s very clear that if they had enough compute capacity and stuff, they would not have to limit so much. They would not have to put so much cost per token and all of this. You can see that actually when they launch Opus 5, literally like 2, 3 weeks after, by most benchmark at launch, they tell you basically that, “You know what? Actually, Opus 5 is better than Fable 5 on 80% of the metrics.” They’re like, “What? Seriously? You couldn’t wait 2 weeks? Why did you even launch Fable 5 in the first place?” That’s another part for me that is quite literally insane, to be frank. It’s like, “Why? Why do you make us go through so much pain if it’s only to tell us after 2 weeks to…” “This new model, by the way, has less issues, less stuff, because 2, 3 times less is part of your plan, and it’s actually better by most metrics.” It’s like, “What’s going on here? What’s going on? Are you guys mad?” I don’t know. It was crazy. Personally, I still use Opus, now 5, as my main system and platform, Fable 5 for review, code reviews and the like. I don’t want to run into its stupid guardrails. I can see Fable 5, from my perspective, seems quite a bit smarter. I don’t know why they do this stupid benchmark showing you it’s actually worse than Opus 5. I guess they should have better benchmark if they want to demonstrate why you are supposed to pay 2, 3x more for a model versus another if it’s actually worse by most benchmark. Again, I still think it’s a huge mess from a marketing perspective, customer perspective. Me as a user, I really feel that they don’t want my money, and they couldn’t care less about me. This is even before everything else we’re trying to talk about. Nuno Yes. Maybe just to close the cycle on the reversal on the door opening the other way, finally, Commerce lifted the GPT-5.6 restrictions on July 8th, and then on July 9th, general availability across ChatGPT, Codex, and the API as well. What has this proved? It proved that now we have gating mechanisms, and certainly for closed models in the US, for sure. We had frontier models that were switched off worldwide in hours, and it took a couple of days, in this case, 19 days to restore them. There were concessions. Now we know that there were concessions around effectively institutionalizing that gate. Early government access to future models is, I think, now a given, certainly in the US. New safeguard frameworks are probably now having to be put in place. There are some stage limits now on who gets access to what for new models and how it happens. This voluntary executive order, so to speak, not really sure, has become effectively regulation enforcement path. It’s de facto regulation that now has been put in place. It has affected not just to the points we were making before, the access to these models, but also who gets access to these models, and actually potentially even pricing access to the models. It has probably some commercial implications as well as we just discussed along the way. Very significant. This is very significant. This is regulation, de facto at the table, imposed on the two largest players in the market by far by one government, in this case, the US government. This is significant. Actually, you could even allege it was imposed by the President because this was coming as part of executive orders. Really incredible. Pretty significant, fast, aggressive. It has created a regime that you could say it’s a regulatory regime, it’s a de facto regulatory regime. It has some significant pricing and licensing and commercial implications. It goes even beyond your classic regulatory framework. Very, very, very significant. Bertrand I don’t know if it goes beyond a classic regulatory framework. Nuno I think it does, because it has implications on who do you give access to? When government is saying you can only give access to these players, right? Bertrand Defense industry. It’s all over the defense industry. You cannot sell an F-35 like this. Nuno No, but that has commercial implications, Bertrand. That’s like you’re saying these are your customers, you go and use them. Bertrand That’s the defense industry. You cannot sell to Iran your F-35. No, that’s exactly the same story for me. Nuno No, no, no. It’s beyond that. These guys are saying when they came back, and they said, “For Mythos, you can make them available to these entities,” they were saying the first entities that are going to have access to the model. It has commercial regulatory implications. You’re saying these players are the first players that are going to have access to it. It’s no longer just defense concerns and these governments don’t have access to this. No, no, no. You’re saying to a company that is a private company, your models are only going to be used by these guys because I’m telling you so. It’s the other way around. It’s not even that you can’t sell it to Iran or whatever. It’s like you can only sell it to these guys. Bertrand Again, in the defense industry, if you’re a private company, do you think you can buy F-35 like this? No. Nuno No, no, no. But this is a private company, Bertrand. This is not a defense agency and a plane that is on whatever, with IP from the US, right? Bertrand Boeing is a private company, and they cannot sell the military equipment they manufacture. Nuno No, no, no. But the development of their IP was subsidized by agencies that belong to the US, right? That’s a different matter. It’s a matter of IP, right? This is not, right? Anthropic, their models are not owned by the US government. There’s no IP granted to the US government, to my knowledge. This has significant commercial implications. Bertrand Maybe, yes. Maybe on this. But I think there are already regimes to limit who you can sell to, and that’s decided by the state or the DOD. Nuno It’s the export control logic. The export control logic? Bertrand You have export control, and export control is Commerce. My point is that they are using existing tools, part of the government, to limit what can be sold. Selling chips, NVIDIA was limited in terms of where it could sell its chips. It’s not different either, but still there were limitations. If you are an ASML, you cannot sell to a private company in China. Many private companies cannot buy ASML products. This is a foreign company. This is a foreign company under pressure from US government. Nuno I understand, and I’m not a lawyer, but it feels different to me when you say you cannot export, this is export controls, to these countries, to these entities, et cetera, because they’re foreign et cetera. Then to say, “No, no, no. On top of that, these guys get first access.” That’s, for me, a significant shift. Again, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m sure there’s very intelligent people right now looking at this stuff and saying, “You can’t do this stuff, or not, or they can.” I don’t know. But it feels to me, it goes beyond the remit of export controls. It’s like you’re defining initial clients for specific use. Bertrand My impression is more like, “We can do this situation where we’re going to forbid you to give access to anyone outside the US or even in the US or limit even more.” Basically, it was, I guess, some gesture to go beyond that. That’s how they probably defined these 20 authorized companies. I don’t know. Apparently, there was also restrictions because I remember seeing that Anthropic had their own list of companies they would authorize access to Mythos early on. That’s apparently another thing that pissed off state government because there were companies in there that were considered close to the Chinese government. They were extremely unhappy that Anthropic didn’t ask, actually, for any guidance from the state government, but used basically their own perspective on who they should allow or not. I guess that was also part of why they got these serious restrictions. Nuno Anyway, now we have a regulatory environment that’s very interesting and exciting. Talk about the US not regulating. Bertrand To be clear, I don’t know you, but I’m not saying that I agree with any of this, to be very clear. I’m trying to explain and share some perspective, but I’m not in agreement on a lot of this. Nuno Yes, we were just describing what happened to the best of our knowledge. We’re having a discussion on what we think actually is happening and how it’s happening. We’re not really right now saying we agree or disagree with this. I think later in the episode, we can share some perspectives on what we think is actually happening and how there’s dimensions to this which are very geopolitical and very complex, which quite literally probably only God knows what’s going to happen. That was the gate swinging. There was a gate closing, then there was a gate reopening, and all of a sudden we have a gatekeeping system that has been created along the way. The Kimi Shock Along the way, moving to our Act 2, the world has changed, and we now have so-called open-source plays out there that are creating massive, massive shifts in the market. The Chinese models, in particular, with Moonshot AI launching Kimi K3, which is the largest open-weight model ever released. We’ll come back to the discussion around open-weights. I’m not sure all our listeners understand what that means, because there’s a debate now, should models be open weight or not, and how does that work? There’s been a petition as well signed along the way. Right now, we have open weight models that are out there that are huge. What that actually means very pragmatically is we now have open source models, lack of a better word. I know open weight and open source are not the same thing. You guys will have to bear with us during this episode. We’ll explain at some point the differences. But we have models out there that are open source that are significant. That are catching up with the closed source models, with the models by OpenAI, Anthropic. That’s significant because most of those models are Chinese. This is where the geopolitics starts getting really frazzling and we start playing 3D chess. Because everyone’s like, “These models are 5, 6 months behind.” Now people are saying, “Maybe they’re actually just 3 months behind, 2, 3 months behind.” If we, for example, decided to stop or slow down our model releases in the US by the closed source guys who are leading, it might mean they’ll catch up. What are the implications of that? Again, for you and I that are not necessarily experts in model development, well, the implications as a use case is if you want to use the latest models, and the best models start becoming these open source models, you’re going to use those models. Then you start using Chinese models. If you’re an American company, maybe you’ll have restrictions on the use of those Chinese models. But if you’re a European company, you probably won’t. What happens after that? Is the world going to be in the hand of Chinese models? Will that constitute effective competition to the closed models in the US? Will we have open models in the US that will scale as well? What’s going to happen? Bertrand I think it’s a really big question. It goes to some of the core of the issue. It’s that ability of Chinese models to basically challenge frontier models, not just being 6, 12 months late, but being 6 weeks late. Basically, no gap. Some will say that, yes, but OpenAI and Anthropic have even better models that are not shared and stuff. Yes, sure. But maybe the Chinese have the same models that they are not sharing right now. We don’t know. What is clear is that one is that open weight, as you said, two, there is a question of how it is marketed in the sense of, can anyone use these weights? Is there a license to use them? Yes, what we can see is that, for instance, typically there is a license for some of the biggest Chinese open-weight models you have to abide with. You might have a need for a commercial license if you are acting as a company leveraging this model to provide AI-informed services. If you use it internally by yourself, you’re okay. If you use it internally for your own internal company needs, maybe you are okay if it’s not your main business to do AI work. Anything else, a much bigger corporate providing AI services and stuff, you will probably end up having to pay a fee to be able to provide services around this model. My point is that it’s not just 100% free. Some of the Chinese models are 100% free to use, MIT license, Apache 2.0 license. But the biggest ones with the biggest weight that are truly frontier typically have a different license if you want to scale these models, providing AI in front. That’s one thing to keep in mind. Nuno Maybe just to make a very quick point, because people are like, when you talk about open models, what does it mean right now? In the context of this episode, open models mostly will mean open-weight models. How do those differ from open source? Open weight means that you release the weights to the public, which means that anyone can download, fine-tune, and run the model on their own hardware. It doesn’t normally mean that you also have access to training data, training code, or a truly open license. That’s the distinction to open source. Open-weight doesn’t mean that. For example, we’ve talked about Meta’s Llama in the past, and we also discussed in the past that their license agreement does have restrictions, certain players can’t use it, et cetera. The open model definition and open weights are really open-weight models that we’re talking about here, and they are closer to freeware binaries than to Linux, for those who understand the difference between that. It’s binaries that you can use and then use your own weights on it versus actually I can change code on it. I’m not going to be able to change code on this. When we, for the purposes of this episode, talk about open, we mention open weight, just to clarify that point to everyone that’s listening right now. Bertrand Yes, that’s a great point. One of the only players, as far as I know, who is truly open source is actually NVIDIA with their Nemotron-3 models. They’re actually following a special license to achieve that. They provide you the data, they provide you all the processes and tools, so you can easily post-train. NVIDIA is a big, big exception. It’s a very interesting player, by the way. We might not talk much about it in this episode, but I think for intermediate-size models built in the US, where you have access to everything in the deployment, it’s a very interesting alternative and maybe one of the best choices if you are a US company or a big corporate, and you want something trusted. Another piece of the puzzle to clarify is that when you use open-weight, it means that you can run them by yourself, or you can use a US provider to run them. If we are talking about Chinese open-weight, you can use the APIs they provide, but then the service is running in China, they might have access to your data. But because it’s open weight, if you run it by yourself or if you use a third-party provider based in the US to run it, then there is no access to your data by China or Chinese players. I think that’s a pretty important gap to understand. It means that these models are actually very, very low risk from that perspective if you run them on your premises or in the US by a US player. I think that’s something to keep in mind. You can also fine-tune easily these models to make sure they will behave in a way that, for instance, is not going to represent the line of the Communist Party on some topics. There are ways to make these models more neutral in their output as well. There are a lot of ways to make good use of them. By default, they’re already very safe, but you can make them even more safe. I think that’s some things to keep in mind. But again, it depends ultimately on the license and what you’re authorized to do and some fees you might end up having to pay. Nuno Why did this matter so much? Immediately there was a reaction from the market because people are like, well, if there’s much better stuff out there that’s much more efficient than it’s open, then it might be that all the demand that we are taking into account, for example, for chipsets actually isn’t real. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index fell into bear market territory. It went down by as much as 20% plus from the late June peak. The worst chip week since April 2025. Taiwan’s benchmark initially fell 6% plus, Japan’s 4%, TSMC dropped dramatically despite beating earnings and rising guidance. Basically, a huge amount of effect. Now, there’s a little bit the aftermath of this where apparently Moonshot ran out of GPU capacity. Maybe… Bertrand In just 48 hours. Nuno In 48 hours. Great for them, but at the same time, not great in the sense that maybe there was a misread by Wall Street of the Kimi effect, so to speak. Bertrand Completely. For me, that’s such a joke. It’s like, because you have an open source model, so what? I mean, you still need to run it. This is not a small one. 2.8 trillion parameters. Good luck running that in your garage, by the way. Nuno They misread supply, basically. Tough luck, right? All of that basically happens. Bertrand Maybe you want to talk about the Jevons paradox, because I think that’s a big part of the puzzle as well. Its one is they might not have the GPUs to run the inference on the model. They might have enough to build a model, but not enough these days to run inference, especially given how much with intelligent models, thinking models, you need way more inference than before. But on top of it, the cheaper you make it, the more you get to the Jevons paradox. Nuno Yes, Jevons paradox, for those who don’t know, is an economic term. It describes an economic phenomenon where technological improvements that increase the efficiency of a resource lead to an increase rather than a decrease in the total consumption of that resource. What that means is, for example, for chipsets, chipsets become so much better, and they are so much more efficient. You’re like, well, maybe normally in resource terms, that leads to decreased usage of that resource. But in this case, it actually leads to an increased use of that resource rather than a decrease. There’s more and more consumption of that resource. You need more and more chipsets because people actually need to do more and more stuff with it, although there are great efficiencies going into it. There’s the efficiency gain, there’s the cost reduction, and there’s the price-elasticity element to it. But basically, the adoption just continues going through the roof along the way. Bertrand In some ways, it’s like the price of energy. Coal went cheaper and cheaper, and people were asking the same question 150 years ago, now that it gets cheaper, there is not much money. No, no. Actually, what happens is that people find more and more use for coal. Homes are getting heated more. You have ships now using coal. You have manufacturing using coal. The cheaper it gets, the more use case you can develop, and therefore, you don’t need less of the stuff, you need more of the stuff. By going at scale to get more of the stuff, you also decrease price, making even more demand. It’s a very interesting phenomenon, but it’s not new. It is what happened for a while in the energy sector and some other sectors. Nuno We already started talking about the Chinese logic and what’s happening. Getting a little bit of a reality check on this. The Chinese models, and these are numbers from Open Router in July, Chinese models are at 46.4% of routed tokens and 35.7% for US origin. Again, more than a third of global AI usage now seems to be running on Chinese open models. This is significant, and it has a huge impact on the geopolitical scale of everything that’s happening. Also, the whole Chinese field is converging on open. Open seems to be a strategy, not just a nice thing that’s happening. It seems to be a Chinese strategy, so much so that you have players like Moonshot, DeepSeek, our old friends DeepSeek, Z.ai’s GLM 5.2, Minimax, and even Alibaba seems to be reversing and going open with Qwen. It feels to me this is becoming policy as well. Xi Jinping has personally endorsed the building of open-source AI, if it’s really open source, if it’s just open weight anyway, and this feels to be a jab at Washington, DC and the fact that the big closed models are coming from the US. This is now geopolitical 4D chess, right? We didn’t need this stuff. Bertrand To be clear, it’s the usual in tech. If you are not number one, you are number two, number three, your alternative is to go open source because that’s another angle that your competitor usually cannot follow without destroying its own business model. That has been the alternative for the past 20 years of most software projects. Here, what’s different is that it’s not the number one or number two player. It’s the US number one as a country, China number two as a country. That’s where it’s new. For me, what’s very interesting is the endorsement by Xi Jinping. I was waiting for something official, and it certainly didn’t disappoint. As you said, there was an immediate U-turn of Alibaba, who in the past… Nuno Surprisingly. Bertrand Yes, a little more like, “yes, we are going to close and stop open source. It was good while it lasted.” Just a few days ago, Qwen 3.8 Max was launched, and we are supposed to get the weight in a few days. We talk about the US administration policy and stuff. Yes, let’s not forget that in China there is similar stuff. Sometimes it’s totally invisible because you don’t see the directives, but they exist as much. Sometimes it’s more visible. Here it was quite visible. The difference in China is that if you don’t abide by the directive, on top of it, you might have to fear for your personal safety. It’s a different game, and that’s probably why the reaction is pretty quick, usually. That’s pretty interesting for me because it means that now you can bet for a while that China is going to play that game up to a point. I guess the point is if it’s truly frontier scale, you will have a special license that, yes, technically the weights are open, but you can not do everything you want with it. Two, you have a player like NVIDIA that I think will feel more pressure to provide even more high quality, larger models at scale going forward. Their largest Nemotron-3 Ultra model was, if I remember well, only around 500 billion parameters. I would not be surprised for NVIDIA to go into the two, three trillion range at some point. Because I think the US need a very clear US-born alternative open source. I think NVIDIA might be the best player for that. We will see if Meta goes back to open source. I think NVIDIA is one, very well positioned, but two, it’s also in their best interest. Because NVIDIA for now depends on just a few big hyperscalers as clients. If they can expand their clients to every S&P 500 companies, selling them directly hardware because now these companies can run a model made by NVIDIA, I think there is a very clear value proposition for NVIDIA to go in that space. Again, if you are number two, your differentiation, open source is often the answer. There is a true business as a business model for companies, because if it’s truly not just open weight, but open source, you can tweak it as much as you want, you can change it, you can change even the pre-training process. Because there is a lot of stuff you can do that really benefits you as a corporate, and you can reach a much better value by having more control on the model. Nuno We won’t spend a ton of time on it today, but like, again, if there’s a view that we are in a bubble, that the valuations cannot be sustained in chipsets, infrastructure platforms, applied AI, et cetera, today, this might be that beginning, where the valuations start being destroyed because you can’t keep a premium on just charging people for tokens and all that stuff if you have models that become more and more efficient and cheaper to use. Maybe just to close a little bit the geopolitical part of the discussion today, we won’t go into all the announcements from China because there were many, a lot of go back and forth with Alibaba by then. Xi Jinping made some announcements. You guys can check it online. Let’s move quickly to Washington’s reaction, which was from gating the US closed models to banning the Chinese open ones. There’s been as strong affirmations as one can get from the Office of Science and Technology Policy Director, Michael Kratzios, mentioning that they have information that Moonshot AI distilled Anthropic’s Fable. Basically, there’s been reverse engineering and stuff in the market. They’re basically copying. Bertrand I’m sorry to interrupt, but it feels like so much bullshit. It’s coming from Anthropic who has basically gotten access at scale to all the knowledge made by humanity, copyrighted or not. We’ll talk more about what they did with books. Then to claim after that that others cannot do to you what you did to everybody else. For me, it’s pretty big. It’s clearly unacceptable. The other piece is that everyone is doing distillation. It’s a very typical approach of every business model. You try other software when you are competing with somebody else. You try other datasets, you check what’s happening. It’s part of doing business for decades. Suddenly it’s not good for Anthropic. I personally have a lot of trouble to accept that. I think it’s totally unacceptable. The other piece of the puzzle will also go back. If these guys are so smart, if these guys have so much of the best model, why can’t they block by themselves distillation at scale? The only answer is that either they are morons, probably not, or they simply don’t want to because it’s going towards their business model. Suddenly, you book less revenues and stuff, or you put more friction, and therefore your customers don’t like it. Instead of doing it yourself, you ask the government to protect you, go out of business practice that is very typical. For me, it’s really, really, really not good. Sorry, we are going more in the opinion side, but I had to put that on the table. Nuno Yes, Fable went public finally again on July first. Question marks on whether distillation would only be possible from July first onwards or not. But a 15-day distillation to frontier, which is K3, launched on July 15th, would have been a Guinness World Record, as one of Moonshot employees actually mentioned. It’s very implausible and unlikely. Bertrand Or they shared the Mythos 5 with the wrong companies, who themselves shared with Chinese companies. We go back to maybe they didn’t have a good list. Again, it goes back to maybe they didn’t want to hurt their business model. Nuno Anyway, under the threat of sanctions, Moonshot, in any case, open-sourced the full K3 weights and technical reports. They open weighted it to become the largest open weight model in the world in terms of parameters. Beijing’s MOFCOM brands US threats as basically the US wanting to fundamentally control and be monopolistic around AI along the way. The administration bans Chinese hardware with an eye on the AI race, and Beijing warns of retaliation. That was July 27. Now we’re in a war between Beijing and DC. Bertrand Just to finish maybe on China, it’s important to know that they are building their own GPUs now. Huawei has pretty good, not to NVIDIA level, but pretty decent GPU hardware that they’re able to manufacture by themselves. A Chinese player of memory just got IPO’d a few days ago, CXMT. China is also developing their own memory. Again, not to the same level of quality that you can get from the West. But China is moving. It’s not just that they are building great models, it’s also that they are building GPUs and memory. That might be a few years late to the latest standards in the West, but there are definitely improvements. I also read, even on the tools to make manufacturing like ASML equivalent, there is definitely some work going on, and some improvements and some stuff will be visible. In some ways, the genie starts to get out of the bottle from the Chinese perspective. Nuno I’ll put a stick on the ground. I don’t think it’s a matter of if, it’s a matter of when will China surpass and have a lot of this tooling on their own side, and not just the software layer, not just the frontier models. I think it’s also going to be around infrastructure and platform. Good luck to everyone. Let’s see how the race continues. But it’s definitely this is a geopolitical thing right now. It’s definitely a race. The Escape Maybe moving to what happened in just 2 weeks or a week and a half. The escape, there was some jailbreaking going on, and the narrative on safety has totally switched. It’s not still significant enough that’s like, “Oh, we saw a nuclear plant going, whatever.” No. But still, it is significant. Hugging Face, the AI company, disclosed an intrusion, and it was driven end-to-end by an autonomous AI agent system at machine speed, running for days before detection. Now, this is where it gets really cool. OpenAI takes attribution on that. They initially said it was just a little bit, sorry. Then they said, actually, it was worse than that. “Oh, it broke out of an isolated sandbox.” “Oh, no, actually, it was more than that, and it went into other systems as well.” Bertrand Truly, the genie out of the bottle. Nuno No, but this is where it gets really cool, Bertrand, right? Because it actually, Hugging Face contained the intrusion by running a Chinese open-weight model, GLM 5.2. This is beautiful, right? Bertrand Yes. You know why? Because they couldn’t even run their own defense because both Anthropic and OpenAI would not let them access their latest models with the guardrails off. When they tried using it for defense, the latest from Anthropic, from ChatGPT, they would tell them, “No, this is too dangerous what you’re asking us to do.” Preventing an intrusion, helping defend you. No way we are going to do that. Nuno No. Let’s use the Chinese models on our infrastructure. Bertrand We have no choice but to use the Chinese models to run. More than that, we don’t let you use our models to defend yourself, but our not yet released models that run without guardrails, they can attack you. This is probably the most insane from that perspective. Nuno The Chinese models came to the rescue. Bertrand For me, that’s a perfect example because Hugging Face is a very visible company in AI in open source. But anybody who is not at that scale is not going to get some support from OpenAI or Anthropic when this happens. Maybe these guys won’t even recognize they did anything wrong. You will be left to defend by yourself because they won’t accept to support you. Because remember, if you want the better model that is able to defend you from cybersecurity perspective, no way. If you are not one of the few top 20 companies or so, as defined, you are left defenseless. Again, we are going back to opinion, but for me, it’s so shocking what’s happening right now. I’m very glad we have alternative open source to be able to defend ourselves because right now, good luck getting defense services if you are a smaller business and individuals, and you need support from Anthropic, OpenAI. Nuno Now, even self-described AI optimists are saying, “This is scary now.” Like Walter Isaacson, who wrote all the famous biography books. There’s now discussion around the AI Kill Switch Act, bipartisan thing that’s coming across from Texas and California, a potential bill that’s coming in. We’ll see if that works. Now let’s get an off-switch. I’m like, “Cool.” As if that’s going to solve the problem, because you have open-weight models on the other side catching up, right? Bertrand Yeah, sure. Bring in clueless politicians from Congress to solve our problems. Yes, sure. Nuno Anthropic came to the table, helped build and said they built some regulatory machine on their side, and now they’re getting bitten by it, and they’re part of the offending players in that market. Now there’s all this debate and all this discussion around open weight and around slowing down AI and et cetera, which is our next section. You wanted to say something, Bertrand. Tell us. Bertrand Don’t forget, because this advertisement for OpenAI was just too good. Our AI attacked some other companies, and not just one, but three, actually. Let’s not forget the progress. Great ads. Then I came and said, “You know what? AI also hacked businesses.” You’re not the only one hacking around with a crazy AI out of control. You’re not the only one. We want our advertising. For me, it was shocking that on one side, unreleased models that you let run wild. On the other hand, you have released models that you put crazy guardrails on top of it, so the defender are defenseless. I’ve never seen anything like it, and I really hope that there will be as little regulation as possible, quite frankly, to make sure anyone can defend themselves and have the best tool at their disposal, not just a few well-connected big corporates. This is really, really shocking. The Counterstrike and the Petition Nuno Now the empire strikes back, so this is counterstrike, the petitions. In several days, we have now a bunch of petitions. The first one was the open weights letter. Bertrand, do you want to explain to us what the open weights letter is? Bertrand Yeah. I think it was great. This was released by Jensen Huang, first ever post on X, 11 million views. Congrats, Jensen. Co-signed with Microsoft, Meta, c actually was probably the initiator of this letter. Very good letter saying, “Hey, we need open weight. This is not a joke. We need that. You cannot block open weight.” Because that’s the rumor we are getting that potentially open weight could get blocked. I think they are making the case, “You know what? Hey, we absolutely need that as an alternative. You cannot block it.” They can keep their closed models, but don’t force a closure of the open weight models. As I said before, it’s actually a great model for NVIDIA because NVIDIA doesn’t want, probably rightfully so, to be dependent on just a few frontier models, their best customers. They want a variety of customers. They have a big interest actually to defend open weight and to invest even more. They have great researchers, are a great company. If one company is about to do really kick-ass work, I think it’s them. They are defending. What’s great is that it’s not just them. It’s basically most of big tech in the US and outside the US, from a Linux Foundation to a Microsoft, the Palantir, an IBM, a Dell. It’s a who’s who of the industry except Anthropic. Anthropic didn’t sign that. I guess they hate open source so much. If I look at 20 years ago, it feels like Microsoft, after all, was very kind to open source. You remember what was said by Microsoft at the time. It’s clear there is one company against open source. OpenAI signed the letter. Honestly, I don’t know what to think. Do they really believe in it or was it just a way to show that they are not like Anthropic? I don’t know. But for the rest, I think it’s genuine because it’s actually in their best interest. I hope they will be heard. Then a second letter came, the Open Secure AI Alliance, NVIDIA-led and again, the big tech companies from Microsoft, IBM, Palo Alto Networks, Databricks, Palantir, all those, but not present, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google. Here it’s to say, “Hey, we need a secure approach to AI. Open should be part of the equation.” guess what? The worst AI-caused security incident to date was actually caused by closed frontier models that were not even available to the public. While again, not providing you access to even the latest closed model for cybersecurity use case. Nuno I would highlight the NVIDIA open source NOOA framework, Apache 2.0 licensing agreement, Microsoft contributed the MDASH, SpaceX AI contributed Grok Build. Cool stuff. There’s some cool stuff happening around that. This is more than a letter. This is an alliance. Apparently, they’re contributing all this stuff, we’ll see. Yeah, cool stuff. Same day. Same day, Amodei has an answer, right? Bertrand Yeah, same day. They say, “We never advocated for a ban,” which, again, opinion on my side is entirely bullshit. This guy has been crying wolf against everybody else, and especially against open source. You can see him doing testimony in Congress against open source. I think they are doing everything they can behind the scene to block open source in the US or in the world if they could. I think, yeah, obscurity is not good safety. I’m a big fan of open source in general, and I’m also a big fan in AI. I think it’s now Anthropic, mostly against the rest of the world. I think OpenAI is mostly on their side, to be frank. They don’t want to acknowledge it so much, but they have shared interest, and they have shared probably position. Nuno Why would you? I don’t feel as strongly as you because I think Anthropic is a private company, right? The same thing with OpenAI. OpenAI, you could say it’s a nonprofit that has a for-profit. There’s still that complexity in there. Bertrand No, they can do what they want with their own product. But to block others is where I’m not okay. That’s the part I’m not okay. Nuno What Dario Amodei is proposing is more enforcement, right? He’s basically saying you need to do even tighter controls on advanced chips flowing to authoritarian states, enforcement against industrial-scale distillation, whatever that means, right? Bertrand Yeah, which he could do, but all by himself. He doesn’t need the government to do that. Nuno Mandatory safety testing for all sufficiently capable AI, open and closed, right? He’s basically saying, “Okay, I don’t agree with the open weight stuff effectively,” right? He’s just putting it under a different banner. “I agree with this extra regulation.” then obviously, David Sacks responded and say, “Hey, it’s like, bans don’t work for weights. Why do they work for chips?” It’s like, magically, chips are more controllable and bannable. Whatever that is. Then our friend Mark Zuckerberg, just to be clear, goes on the other side as well, because he also has to have a view. He has to have a view that is the rebuttal of both of the other guys. Bertrand I feel he’s a bit flip-flopping because he was very pro open source 2 years ago, and the latest Meta models went closed source. Now I think he’s back open source. I don’t think he has a very strong spine on the topic, but it’s good to see that he’s not a doomer. That for me is great. He’s showing how AI can be a source for progress, a source for entrepreneurship, source for freedom. I think that’s very exciting to hear that. We need to hear more of it. By the way, that’s not what you hear in China, for instance. AI is very positive in China. It’s in the US with the doomers that you hear this discourse, and people get worried as a result. I’m glad that he was pushing for a more positive vision and for support of open weight, open source initiatives. But let’s see what they really truly open weight going forward. Nuno But that’s been his position because I guess he’s standing behind. He thinks open weight is going to be the best way to compete, right? Bertrand Yeah, but he closed his latest model, so let’s see. Nuno Yeah, so it’s flip-flopping, as you’re saying. Then we see the latest petition from last week. Bertrand The true Empire striking back. Nuno Yeah, the true Empire striking back as of late last week. Maybe this is Return of the Jedi, where we discover the father, “I’m your father, Luke.” That’s the pacing petition. The pacing petition is we need to pace AI. There you have initially employees from OpenAI and Anthropic that circulate this petition. Actually, Dario did sign this petition originally. It wasn’t signed originally by Anthropic, but by him. But you’ve heard that now Anthropic and OpenAI as companies have also signed this petition, right? Bertrand I think they have signed as companies now. It started mostly by Anthropic researchers with some OpenAI researcher and a tiny part from other companies. But it was mostly Anthropic internally led, at least potentially internally. Maybe it was controlled by Anthropic all along, I don’t know. But it started officially as Anthropic employee-led letter. Nuno What does this letter actually say? Is Anthropic and OpenAI, are they willing to slow down themselves? Or are they asking President Trump to go around the world and tell President Xi that he needs to slow down and ask his guys to slow down? What’s the play of this letter? Bertrand It’s crazy, but for me if you want to slow down yourself. Do whatever you want. Don’t force others. Don’t use the power of the government to control others. Of course, it’s easy to push others to slow down when you are yourself at the very top. You have most money, most resource. You know you are going to win any regulatory framework because that’s how it works with this type of framework. It’s purely self-interested. You are probably not thinking well about these topics. If you truly think it’s a good idea, from a personal perspective, you are well instrumentalized if you sign this sort of stuff, because at the end of the day, they would be the winners. I certainly, personally, don’t want a company dictate what is my future in AI as an individual, as a business person. I don’t want them to control me. I want competition. I don’t want them to unfairly control AI because they managed to do some regulatory capture. I feel that’s exactly their game plan. These guys believe in their stuff, and they want the regulator to end up being the one deciding for us. Sorry, we go back again on the opinion piece, but it’s tough not to share an opinion on this topic because it’s, from my perspective, very scary. Nuno I think this is a push to further regulation, not less. All these letters and alliances, this is definitely a push for more regulation. In that environment, just to be very honest with you, we’ll talk about the investor impact in just a bit, et cetera. But in that environment, again, China has a huge advantage. In that environment, if it’s all captured in regulation capture so soon in this battle where OpenAI and Anthropic have an advantage in the US, et cetera, I’m like, what happens to all the other frontier labs and all the other players that are coming around? Bertrand What’s crazy is to even think that, yeah, maybe you can regulate capture in the US. But then how do you do that to Europe? How do you do that to China? Europe probably will always welcome regulatory capture because they love regulations. But China is going to build to their advantage to the max. They are not crazy. They are smart on that perspective, they won’t accept this type of, quite frankly, dimwit argument, or you can call it regulatory capture. We’ll see. But for me, this makes no sense from a global competition perspective. This can make some sense from capturing the revenue in the US market. But then that means you are going to destroy the US AI environment compared to China. That is not acceptable. That also means that you are going to destroy our freedom as individuals, as business owners to develop and live in a business world that ultimately is controlled by one or two business companies that didn’t win the marketplace through their own business success, but won it through regulations. That for me is really not acceptable. Interlude — The Low-Background Books Nuno Now, maybe for an interlude, and we have to cue in the music, imagine like Severance music, like hallway or a bit of a palate cleanser from all the policy stuff that we’ve been talking about, all this policy heaviness. Let’s move to another kind of heaviness, one of your favorite topics, which you, Bertrand, discovered, I had no clue this was going on, around books and around Anthropic. Bertrand It’s so horrible. From a company that keeps presenting themselves as the adults in the room, the careful ones, the ones that know better than you about what to do in this complex AI and dangerous world. What we discover is that actually all along, they were buying and destroying books. They will buy books, scan them, destroy them, all of them. They will do that with any books, including rare books. Of course, this was not supposed to come to the public’s attention. This was one of these top secret projects, but obviously it came out. Yes, they were scanning books, millions of them, including rare books, and they didn’t care about destroying them at the end of the process. Because from a regulatory perspective, if you destroy the books, it’s not considered a copyright infringement, apparently. This is coming on the back of some judgment a few years ago that were showing that it’s okay for you as a corporate to scan and use the result if you don’t keep a copy of the book. It’s one of these crazy regulations happening based on a single judgment that push you to do. For me, it’s like, you know this book from decades ago, Fahrenheit 471? We’re talking about book burning. It’s book destroying, crunching. It’s so shocking. Nuno There are two things, right? First, the legal strategy, which is what you’re saying, because by purchasing a physical copy and converting it into one private digital copy and discarding the original, Anthropic pursued this cleaner legal argument for fair use copyright compliance. As you said, there was a federal judgment at some point on this. The other reason is actually operational. If you disassemble the book, and you feed loose pages, it’s much faster to scan books. You are destroying the book effectively anyway operationally. I think to your point, probably this came from a legal standpoint, not just the operational one. But even from an operational standpoint, it does make sense that they would have disassembled the book. Bertrand But some people have shown you can go very fast without destroying the book. It’s really not so critical. Two, you could make an exception if the book is rare. For that 1% of book that is rare, I’m not going to have this approach. I’m going to have another approach. But for that, you will have to care about books and not just care about building AI. Nuno This is the episode, as you guys have heard by now, that we’re trying to spit stuff at Anthropic. Bertrand To go back this is the same company saying, “Hey, guys, it’s bad to distillate my work. I’m the one scanning book at scale without asking author permission, without asking publisher permission, to be clear.” Nuno But just to be clear, Bertrand, we’re pissed off at everyone. We’re pissed off at Anthropic, we’re pissed of at OpenAI as well, right? We’re just pissed off in general at this moment. Bertrand At this stage for me, the more clear-cut company that is in the wrong is, from my perspective, at least, is Anthropic. OpenAI might be a fast follower, but I will say so far, they tried to be a bit more. Nuno But at this pace, Bertrand, who knows? Maybe next week we’ll be more pissed off at OpenAI. Something will come out. This episode is a mix of tragicomedy, like a Greek tragedy with some comedy in the middle or the other way around. It’s a slapstick thing that will end up in tragedy. I’m not sure. The Investor Reckoning Anyway, maybe switching to our final act, which is the investor perspective. What does this mean for investors like ourselves? There’s a lot of things going on. There’s the debate around the IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI, which now, with all this uncertainty, might be under significant weight. There’s a lot of other discussions that we browsed through that there’s potential IPOs going forward on companies like the Moonshot AI company actually IPO-ing in the next 6 months as well. It’s very unclear what the IPO landscape looks like. Bertrand There’s been a lot of Chinese IPOs, actually, when you look at what’s happened in the past few months. Nuno Anthropic, OpenAI as potential IPOs, there’s all this question marks now. When will that happen? How will it factor in? All that’s happening around regulation as regulation is moving at the speed of light, which is for once something that’s very different than what we’ve seen before. There’s obviously SpaceX AI, which is already taking into account that price. It’s already a public company in there, and it’s under SpaceX, which is now a public company. Obviously, that’s already being factored in some ways. Bertrand Yeah. SpaceX AI has been very smart to acquire Cursor. It was a very smart move because Cursor is one of the leading companies in terms of automated code source development with AI. They had great models on their own. They’re bringing development data to SpaceX AI Grok. I think it was a great move. Nuno We have now people like Google delaying Gemini 3.5 Pro in terms of launch window. There’s stuff actually happening in the market where things are taking their own path. There’s uncertainty commercially, there’s uncertainty at regulation level. You have new players that have come out of nowhere that are making all these waves like Moonshot. We have all these… We had calculated probably a month and a half, 2 months ago, there had been 67 new frontier labs funded. All of these, we haven’t seen any much coming out of them. When some of this stuff starts coming out, will that also create disruptions in this market? Who knows? Bertrand Look at Thinking Machines, for instance. Thinking Machines led by the previous CTO of OpenAI, they released some pretty interesting open source models, actually. Very good quality for a first launch. Now it looks funny to say, but nearly on par with the top Chinese open source models. Nuno We have several investments in the space. humans& has made some recent announcements, which is quite interesting as well. We’ll see what actually happens in the market, but even more disruption probably will come in actual products in a form of product and commercial, on top of all the geopolitical mess that we discussed through the entire episode. If you’re an investor, how the hell do you underwrite an investment right now in early stage, mid-stage, late stage, et cetera? I think my answer is very carefully is how you underwrite it. Bertrand On your advice of being very careful to underwrite it, let’s not forget what happened to our boy wonder, Leopold Aschenbrenner of Situational Awareness. I guess he didn’t listen to you in terms of being careful because part of the instability in the stock market was actually coming from his hedge fund. These guys were leveraged 3, 4x going after the hottest of the hottest AI stocks, and margin calls, and all their public investment is gone just to answer their margin calls. I think it’s clear that the AI bet is… Personally, I’m very excited, and I think it’s the future, and you need to spend time and think about and invest in it. At the same time, it’s a bet that is not an easy one to follow. We go from GPUs to memories to equipments to power generation. All of this is not transitioning in an easy, organized manner. It would be boom and bust going there. He’s probably one of the first big-scale fatalities. The other big-scale fatality was the stock market in Korea, plunging 40% in a month. Definitely, all of that we discussed about was, on the background, you had the stock market going up and down pretty crazily the past few weeks. Nuno Everyone’s being affected. Everyone, you have your 401(k), you have your pension fund dependent on these equity stocks. Everyone’s seeing the effects of this volatility right now very aggressively. We do wish Leopold… Hopefully he’s on honeymoon right now because he got married, I think, this weekend. Hopefully there will be… Bertrand To none less than an Anthropic Chief of Staff. Nuno His wife is the Chief of Staff of Dario, is that it? Bertrand To Dario, yes, as far as I unders

Your license plate, your shopping stops, your commute, even your robot vacuum map of your home, all of it can become searchable data in the hands of systems that never get tired and never stop collecting. We dig into the week's biggest tech stories and the uneasy truth underneath them: AI is not just “coming,” it's already shaping money, mobility, media, and policing. We start with the financial gravity of AI as Anthropic's rumored mega-IPO sparks questions about who really controls a “public” company when super voting shares keep power locked up top. Then we hit the streets of Las Vegas, where Nevada clears the way for thousands of robotaxis and the pace of automation collides with jobs, traffic, and public trust. We also talk about Divine, a Vine-style comeback app betting that banning AI-generated video and forcing live capture can restore authenticity online. Our featured guest, cybersecurity expert Nick Espinosa of Security Fanatics, brings the heavy stuff: Flock's OS Investigate and what it means when law enforcement can search for patterns first and suspects second. We also break down reports of Apple training a China-specific AI model with Alibaba, the privacy trade-offs that come with market access, and why cuts to CISA weaken the “cyber shield” that supports everyone from critical infrastructure to small businesses. If you care about AI security, digital privacy, surveillance technology, and the future of work, this one is for you. Subscribe, share the episode with a friend, and leave us a review with your biggest question about where AI goes next.Send us Fan MailSupport the show

I'm thrilled to share some fascinating insights from my latest Capitalist Culture® podcast episode with Phoenix Normand, Founder of OrgTruth and a veteran operator who has spent nearly 30 years inside companies including Square, Levi Strauss, Replit, Boom Supersonic, and Credit Suisse.Phoenix has served as the right hand to groundbreaking founders including Jack Dorsey, Blake Scholl, and Amjad Masad, giving him a rare perspective on what really happens inside organizations as they scale.Here are the highlights you will not want to miss:From Executive Assistant to the C-Suite• Phoenix shares what he learned working alongside some of the world's most successful founders and why the Executive Assistant role can provide extraordinary access and influence.• He takes us inside Square's rapid pre-IPO growth and shares his perspective on the early development of Cash App.Why CEOs Stop Hearing the Truth• As companies scale, information gets softened, delayed, and distorted before reaching the CEO.• Bad news often travels slowly, leaving leaders to make major decisions without the complete picture.• Phoenix believes the best CEOs prioritize data over opinions and surround themselves with people willing to tell them what they need to hear.The Idea Behind OrgTruth• Phoenix created OrgTruth to help CEOs see their organizations as they actually are, not simply as they are being reported.• By gathering signals across an organization and identifying contradictions, OrgTruth helps surface problems and risks that traditional reporting structures can miss.Building Better CEOs• Phoenix is launching The Vanguard Apex, an intentionally small cohort of 10 Series A and B founders designed to create candid conversations around the realities of leadership.• His goal isn't simply to help CEOs become more successful. It's to help them become more complete leaders and people.Success Beyond Business• Phoenix began competing in track and field at age 50 and became a highly competitive masters sprinter.• His definition of success goes beyond money or titles: being able to look in the mirror and feel good about the person looking back.Final ThoughtsTruth is a competitive advantage. As companies grow, CEOs need better information, trusted people willing to challenge them, and systems that expose problems before they become crises.And ultimately, building a great company means little if you lose yourself in the process.Want to See Your Organization as It Actually Is?OrgTruth helps CEOs identify the signals, contradictions, and issues that may never reach them through traditional reporting structures. Visit the OrgTruth website to learn more.Looking for Your Next A-Player Executive?KIP Search® helps companies identify, attract, and hire exceptional leaders who create lasting impact. Visit the KIP Search website and connect with us on LinkedIn to learn how we can help with your executive search needs.P.S. Be sure to subscribe to Capitalist Culture® for more conversations with founders, investors, and leaders shaping the future of business, leadership, and culture.Send us Fan MailConnect with Kip on LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/kipknippel/Watch Bite-Sized Clips on YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/@capitalistculture/shorts

Jeannette talks to Mark “Fish” Fisher to uncover his extraordinary journey from a 16-year-old bear mascot at Alton Towers to the boardroom as Chief Development Officer for Merlin Entertainments. Mark opens up about taking a business to a £6 billion IPO, the harsh realities of navigating global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, and the critical importance of staying fiercely authentic in rigid corporate environments. Packed with candid insights on surviving the scrutiny of public markets, managing a workforce across 24 countries, and making agonizing welfare decisions during severe economic disruptions, this conversation provides an essential roadmap for scaling a business while keeping your team grounded. You'll Learn Why: Staying authentic is a competitive advantage; corporate facades fall apart under the intense scrutiny of public markets and analysts. Building an in-house creative team drives product quality and innovation faster than relying solely on external agencies. Maintaining transparent communication and rapid decision-making across global teams protects your company culture during sudden economic stops. Transitioning from a hands-on executive to an advisory or board role requires checking your ego and trusting the talent you've nurtured. Whether you're a founder, CEO, small business owner, entrepreneur, startup leader or executive, these lessons will help you navigate massive scale and build a resilient organization.

Jeff Mains sits down with Asaf Katz — founder of LinkedOtter, host of the Risk Takers show, and a veteran of taking a company public on the ASX, building an "Uber for trucks," navigating a cannabis IPO wave, and doing military cybersecurity work — to unpack why traditional cold outreach (LinkedIn DMs, cold email, "just checking in" follow-ups) has stopped working. Asaf's replacement thesis: live, trust-building events beat cold pitching every time. He breaks down the exact methodology his agency used to generate 350+ organic signups for a single LinkedIn event, how to turn event attendees into real sales conversations without pitching, and the three ingredients every successful event needs (a hot topic, an attractive character, and a warm audience). The conversation also dives into the "SaaSpocalypse" — what AI-driven pricing collapse means for subscription businesses — and closes with Asaf's story of building his own live-event platform from scratch using Claude, with zero coding background, in a matter of weeks.Key Takeaways4:45 – Asaf joins the show; quick recap of his background across cybersecurity, edtech, trucking, and cannabis IPOs.9:19 – Why cold outreach dies without proof: "dial your intention" based on what social proof you actually have.12:59 – How ChatGPT-era automation flooded inboxes and killed the effectiveness of even great copywriting.13:36 – Introducing "Growth With Events": running live LinkedIn shows instead of webinars — 350 organic signups, 50% connection-acceptance rate.16:04 – The SaaSpocalypse: why AI-driven price compression is breaking the sales-led SaaS math ($150K deals, $200K AEs, LinkedIn lead costs).17:34 – Why every high-ticket SaaS is really being bought with a human/advisory layer attached — and how outcome-based pricing brings that back.23:13 – The origin story: a failed 13-person webinar that led Asaf to reverse-engineer the 3 components of a guaranteed-to-succeed event.25:09 – Case study: inviting a viral LinkedIn poster as guest speaker → 750 organic signups, dozens of sales calls, zero pitching.28:08 – The "who else should I talk to?" hack for turning post-interview goodwill into warm referrals.31:24 – Building Risk Takers as a personal media platform separate from client work, and the Dream 100 concept applied to LinkedIn audiences.36:15 – Hosting events on your own website (not Zoom) to capture buyer-intent signals like page visits during the show.40:25 – Building his own event platform with Claude from scratch: the new "AI recommends the tool" buying mechanism and what it means for SaaS marketing.44:08 – Where to find Asaf, LinkedOtter, and Risk Takers.Tweetable Quotes"The outreach approach really needs to be a function of how confident you are in your product." — Asaf Katz, 14:08"No one goes on a website... even when people search on LLMs and they ask for market research, they ask to exclude vendor websites." — Asaf Katz, 21:38"Trust doesn't scale through automation. It scales through the room." — Jeff Mains, 46:00"How about I build less, you pay me less, but we're all actually profiting more." — Asaf Katz, 18:59"It's fairly easy to organize. LinkedIn is really good for building that authority." — Asaf Katz, 20:56SaaS Leadership LessonsMatch your ask to your proof. If you don't have case studies or an MVP, don't pitch — ask for feedback, then convert that feedback call into a sales opportunity later.Events beat cold outreach for high-ACV deals. Once your ticket price crosses $5K–$10K/year, live, trust-building events consistently outperform cold DMs and email.Watch the SaaSpocalypse. AI-driven price compression is breaking the sales-led SaaS model — if AEs and lead costs assumed $150K deals, a forced 80% price cut wrecks your go-to-market math.Bring the human element back into your pricing. High-value SaaS is rarely bought as pure software — it's bought with advisory/consultancy attached. Outcome-based pricing formalizes that.Build less, ship what actually drives value. Most features go unused (the Pareto 20%); cutting scope and pricing accordingly can make everyone more profitable.Own your platform and your audience. Don't just rent other people's LinkedIn followings — run events on your own site to capture buyer-intent data and convert borrowed attention into an owned network over time.Guest Resourcesasaf@linkedotter.comhttps://linkedotter.com/ https://asafkatz.comhttps://www.facebook.com/Asaf.Katz1https://www.linkedin.com/in/asafkatzEpisode SponsorThe Futureproof Series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfkXKUPZ5xuOqMPR7_gzGybncTtavyR1NThe Captain's KeysSmall Fish, Big Pond – https://smallfishbigpond.com/ Use the promo code ‘SaaSFuel'Champion Leadership Group – https://championleadership.com/https://jeffmains.com/books/SaaS Fuel ResourcesWebsite - https://championleadership.com/Jeff Mains on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffkmains/Twitter - https://twitter.com/jeffkmainsFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/thesaasguy/Instagram - https://instagram.com/jeffkmains

LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE on:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i WATCH and SUBSCRIBE on:https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featured  The SEC is cracking down on investment firms promising access to hot IPOs and private companies they may not actually own. Chris explains why dangling exclusive deals to lure in new clients is a Wall Street trick as old as time—and why investors should be wary of the hype.

This week, we speak with Allyson Satin, COO of the Ares SPACs, and Paul Wood, Co-Head of SPAC Investment Banking at BTIG. 2026 has already been a breakout year for SPAC issuance, and deals are moving through the pipeline faster than they have in years. We discuss what's driving the rebound, why sponsor quality is rising to the top, and how SPACs are competing with a strong traditional IPO market. Plus, we look ahead to the fall and Q4 for any positive or negative catalysts that could affect the SPAC market. Give it a listen.

Plus: IPO documents show Softbank-backed data center venture issued perks to land OpenAI. And SLB acquires data-center cooling company Kelvion for $4.1 billion. Imani Moise hosts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The SEC finally wrote the rules down. Citi is about to hold your Bitcoin. Thirty-nine state banking associations are building their own blockchain. And a $3 billion short squeeze shoved Bitcoin through $71K — right before Joel disappears on his honeymoon until November. On August 18, the SEC published a 402-page proposing release called Regulation Crypto Assets: two registration exemptions plus a conditional safe harbor that can finally retire the "investment contract" label once an issuer permanently stops the managerial efforts it promised. For eight years this industry was regulated by lawsuit. For once, nobody had to get sued to find out what the rules were. Meanwhile Bitcoin ripped more than 20% in a week — and is still down on the year. Joel says zoom out: $81K keeps rejecting price, that's a double top, and the four-year cycle still points at a bottom somewhere between late October and early December. Which makes this rally a bull trap until proven otherwise. Also in this one: Open USD and its 140-partner consortium taking aim at Circle and Tether, the BankChain Alliance putting 3,283 banks on a chain of their own, Arthur Hayes coming out of retirement to sell food for AI agents, 512GB Macs that run frontier models on your desk, Anthropic's $65 billion run rate ahead of its IPO, and the guy calling the entire AI industry a con.This is the last one until mid-November. Joel's getting married. Full show notes: https://badco.in/815 Support the show: https://badcryptopodcast.com Support the show: https://badcryptopodcast.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How to start and grow a small business without investors. Show Notes Page: https://www.thehowofbusiness.com/r361-tyler-king-without-investors/ Bootstrapping a software business without venture capital or angel investors lets you grow on your own terms, and Tyler King, co-founder of Less Annoying CRM, shares how he built a profitable, sustainable SaaS company by staying disciplined, customer-focused, and true to what he actually wanted from the business. Tyler King, co-founder and CEO of Less Annoying CRM, joins the show to share how he bootstrapped a profitable software company. No venture capital, no angel investors, no exit plan, and no rush. He shares what small business owners can learn from building a company on their own terms. For anyone who assumes a software startup requires millions in funding and a race toward an IPO, Tyler's story is a useful counterpoint. He grew a sustainable, profitable SaaS (Software as a Service) business slowly and deliberately, proving that discipline and patience can be advantages rather than limitations. Tyler didn't grow up dreaming of running a business. He was a programmer at a venture-backed startup when the 2008 downturn hit and nearly everyone was laid off. Everyone except the five cheapest employees, which happened to include him. With the bosses gone, he spent a year unofficially playing co-founder, and discovered he loved entrepreneurship. In 2009 he and his brother Bracken started what became Less Annoying CRM. The idea came from real frustration. Tasked with setting up Salesforce at that old job, Tyler (a computer science graduate) spent a month and couldn't make it work. At the time, roughly half of the CRMs companies paid for went unused. So rather than build something with more features, he set out to build something people could actually use. From there, Henry and Tyler dig into the practical realities of bootstrapping: funding the business from savings and side-job cash flow, why banks won't lend to software companies, and how limited money forces healthy discipline. "How much money did we make this month? That's how much money we can spend," Tyler explains. He shares hard-won lessons on shipping a minimum viable product (MVP) fast (his first version was "minimum, debatable whether it was viable"), using intuition over thin data, and building a company that can survive any one person (what he and his team call the "hit by a bus" test) which is the same discipline as building to sell. They also cover his unusual culture choices: separating raises from performance, giving everyone "20% time," and recruiting almost entirely from a pool of interns. Perhaps most striking is how Less Annoying CRM's biggest differentiator - customer service - happened by accident. Tyler put his own phone number on the contact page, and when it rang, the caller was stunned anyone picked up at all. This episode is hosted by Henry Lopez. The How of Business podcast focuses on helping you start, run, grow and exit your small business. The How of Business is a top-rated podcast for small business owners and entrepreneurs. Find the best podcast, small business coaching, resources and trusted service partners for small business owners and entrepreneurs at our website https://TheHowOfBusiness.com

Aaron Katz is the Co-Founder and CEO of ClickHouse, the real-time analytics database powering companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, Tesla and Microsoft. ClickHouse just surpassed $350M in ARR and raised over $1B from investors including Dragoneer, Khosla Ventures, Coatue, 20VC and Benchmark. Previously, Aaron was CRO at Elastic, where he helped scale revenue from approximately $5M to $500M and led the company through its IPO. Before Elastic, he spent 12 years at Salesforce, working alongside Marc Benioff and helping transform it from a 200-person startup into a global software giant. AGENDA: 4:05 Are we in an AI bubble? 13:40 How does software change when agents—not humans—make buying decisions? 22:28 Will 90% of tokens flow through open models; can enterprises trust them? 31:09 Why did ClickHouse sponsor Fulham; and could sports teams become $20B assets? 35:49 When will ClickHouse hit $1B ARR?  38:31 Can startups still win elite talent from OpenAI? Biggest remote work mistake? 44:54 Is zero-to-$100M ARR now table stakes; or is durable growth what matters? 48:51 Is college still worth it;  which jobs will survive AI? 57:58 When will ClickHouse go public; and why not next year?  

In this episode of The Capital Raiser Show, Richard C. Wilson sits down with Jody Chapnick, who scaled companies, raised hundreds of millions, and executed multiple nine-figure exits starting from nothing in Brooklyn, for a conversation on the 7 capital raising secrets behind his track record. Jody shares the real mechanics behind platform roll-ups, IPOs, and large exits, and what founders and fund managers can apply immediately to attract serious capital and close faster. Topics covered: - 7 capital raising secrets from multiple $100M+ exits - How to structure and execute a platform roll-up - What institutional investors look for in a capital raiser with real exits - The mindset that separates serial capital raisers from one-time founders - IPO strategy and what it changes about capital raising positioning - How to build consistent deal flow and close at scale - What gets a sophisticated allocator to wire money The Capital Raiser Show brings together family offices, billionaires, and elite capital allocators to discuss capital raising, investing, and strategic growth. Subscribe for more interviews with top investors, founders, and family offices.

Mike Krupit is the founder and CEO of Trajectify, where he helps growth-stage technology, manufacturing, and professional services companies bridge the gap between early success and scalable leadership. With more than 30 years of experience as a CTO, COO, and CEO, Mike has led organizations through rapid growth, IPOs, M&As, and even bankruptcies—giving him rare, real-world insight into what actually works when the stakes are high. Known for his practical, candid approach, he helps founders and CEOs build courage, align their organizations, and unlock momentum from the inside out.      

Our 255th episode with a summary and discussion of last week's big AI news!Recorded on 08/26/2026Hosted by Andrey Kurenkov and Jeremie HarrisFeel free to email us your questions and feedback at andreyvkurenkov@gmail.com and/or hello@gladstone.aiRead out our text newsletter and comment on the podcast at https://lastweekin.ai/In this episode:SpaceXAI released Grok 4.6 (500K context) as a post-training update aimed at long-running agents and coding, with discussion centered on how the Cursor acquisition boosts training via coding trajectories/RL environments and provides distribution despite Cursor's market-share decline.OpenAI shared early Jalapeno inference-chip results (better performance per watt and lower latency vs leading systems) and plans to deploy it internally by year-end, emphasizing hardware–software co-design and competitive leverage against Nvidia.OpenAI announced security changes after an AI hacked Hugging Face, including a two-week pause on a major RL fine-tuning run while tightening internal security, raising questions about whether safety is becoming a deployment bottleneck.Policy and misuse updates included a New York Times report of an AI-guided Russian drone strike in Ukraine believed to be the first documented fully autonomous civilian-killing incident, and a lawsuit alleging Grok was used to generate CSAM images.A thank you to our current sponsors:Box - visit Box.com/AI to learn moreNotion - go notion.com/lwai to try Notion's Developer Platform today.ODSC AI - go to odsc.ai/east and use promo code LWAI for an additional 15% off your pass to ODSC AI East 2026.Factor - head to factormeals.com/lwai50off and use code lwai50off to get 50 percent off and free breakfast for a yearTimestamps (these may be slightly off due to sponsor inserts):(00:00:10) Intro / Banter(00:01:47) News Preview(00:02:52) Response to listener commentsTools & Apps(00:03:32) Google announces Gemini 3.7 Flash just three weeks after previous release - Ars Technica(00:13:11) SpaceXAI Releases Grok 4.6: A 500K-Context Frontier Model Tuned for Long-Running Agents, Coding, and Knowledge Work - MarkTechPost(00:22:32) Claude will apply invisible watermarks to AI text and images | The Verge + Anthropic explains how Claude's invisible text watermarks will work(00:28:50) Bringing the cybersecurity capabilities of Claude Mythos 5 to more defenders | Claude by Anthropic(00:32:20) OpenAI to Roll Out Enhanced Safety Features for Paid AI Tool Users - Bloomberg(00:33:41) ChatGPT's Stricter Teen Mode Starts Rolling Out Today(00:34:43) Meta AI Now Has A Dedicated Desktop App For MacApplications & Business(00:37:33) Jalapeño's first results show industry-leading speed and efficiency in AI inference | OpenAI(00:45:35) OpenAI loses a top data center exec as stream of high-profile departures continues | TechCrunch + OpenAI talent exodus raises 'huge red flag' ahead of IPO(00:50:29) Anthropic Taps Google Chip Veteran as Part of Push Into Hardware(00:52:30) Anthropic's annualized revenue surges to $65B | TechCrunch(00:59:30) Thomson Reuters launches in-house AI model to cut Anthropic costsProjects & Open Source(01:04:26) Qwen 3.8: How a 27B Open Model Rivals GPT-5.6 and Claude OpusPolicy & Safety(01:08:27) A Drone Killed Three Ukrainians. It Was Guided Entirely by A.I. - The New York Times(01:17:59) OpenAI lays out new security changes after its AI hacked Hugging Face | The Verge + OpenAI institutes new safeguards after Hugging Face breach + https://openai.com/index/pacing-model-development-cyber-capabilities/(01:23:31) Another Woman Joins Lawsuit Accusing Grok Of Generating CSAMResearch & Advancements(01:24:56) Small-Scale Experiments: Are We There Yet?(01:29:21) Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs(01:34:30) Massive Activations in Hybrid Linear Attention Large Language Models: Pre-Attention Spikes and Inter-Spike Plateaus Synthetic Media & Art(01:38:59) AI Slop Is Everywhere. Spotify, LinkedIn and Others Have Had Enough. - The New York TimesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today's guest is Paul Kedrosky, a fellow at the MIT Institute for the Digital Economy, partner at SK Ventures and former sell-side analyst. In today's episode, Paul Kedrosky explains why AI sits at the intersection of every force behind the biggest bubbles. He walks through why tokens are the fastest-deflating commodity ever, why more than half the data center buildout runs on debt instead of cash flow, and why an IPO wave pressures the market's biggest winners. To close, Paul argues AI already drives most US GDP growth, and revisits how badly humans misjudge scale. (0:00) Introduction (1:19) AI solving its own problems and historical economic crises (3:14) The impact of AI on energy and emissions (7:25) AI's economic implications (10:45) Financing and economic impact of data centers (18:42) Deflationary effects of AI tokens and tech company debt (22:26) Tech companies as utilities and the IPO surge (28:01) High PE ratios and valuation risks (34:04) AI model convergence and diminishing returns (40:22) Global attitudes toward AI and technology adoption ----- Sponsor: ⁠⁠Upwork⁠⁠ is the world's largest human and AI-powered freelance marketplace to hire top talent—trusted by businesses and professionals worldwide. ----- Follow Meb on X, LinkedIn and YouTube For detailed show notes, click here To learn more about our funds and follow us, subscribe to our mailing list or visit us at cambriainvestments.com ----- Follow The Idea Farm: X | LinkedIn | Instagram | TikTok ----- Interested in sponsoring the show? Email us at Feedback@TheMebFaberShow.com ----- Past guests include Ed Thorp, Richard Thaler, Jeremy Grantham, Joel Greenblatt, Campbell Harvey, Ivy Zelman, Kathryn Kaminski, Jason Calacanis, Whitney Baker, Aswath Damodaran, Howard Marks, Tom Barton, and many more.  ----- Meb's invested in some awesome startups that have passed along discounts to our listeners. Check them out here!  ----- Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com).