Podcasts about VC

Four childhood friends pooled $30,000 in a Chicago apartment to make wet wipes for men. Everyone told them dudes would never use them. Thirteen years later, Dude Wipes does close to $220 million in retail sales, runs on a team of just over 20 people, and is Mark Cuban's best-ever Shark Tank investment. They bootstrapped almost the entire way, none of them had retail experience, and they built a nine-figure business in a category the legacy players weren't even watching. In this interview, Ryan Meegan breaks down how they carried a business to $40 million with just three people, the guerrilla news-jacking playbook that made Dude Wipes a worldwide Twitter trend for pennies, and why brand marketing they never tried to measure was the smartest bet they made. What you'll learn in this interview: • Why four founders with different skill sets and zero egos never clashed in 15 years • How they got their first national retail deal with Kroger through pure cold-calling hustle • The Shark Tank bidding war that landed Mark Cuban's check - and why he calls it his best investment • Why going viral and trending #3 worldwide on Twitter barely moved sales - and why they kept doing it anyway • The Isaiah Crowell NFL moment: how a $3,500 deal turned into ESPN, Howard Stern, and national press • The Amex float strategy: how putting every PO on a credit card funded growth without big raises • Why they refused the VC and Shopify-loan path most DTC brands take - and how they built bank credibility instead • The line-extension trap: why deodorant and body wash failed, and how Covid refocused them on flushable wipes • How three people ran the business to $40M before hiring 15 more • Why they took private equity from TSG while keeping control - and the billion-dollar goal behind it If you're bootstrapping a CPG brand, trying to build awareness without a war chest, or wrestling with whether to chase line extensions or go deeper in your core category, this conversation will fundamentally change how you think about brand, capital efficiency, and staying in the game long enough to win. SAVE 50% ON OMNISEND FOR 3 MONTHS Get 50% off your first 3 months of email and SMS marketing with Omnisend using the code FOUNDR50. Start here → ⁠⁠⁠https://your.omnisend.com/foundr⁠⁠⁠ SAVE 95% ON XERO FOR 6 MONTHS Simplify your business finances with 95% off Xero for your first 6 months. Start here →⁠⁠⁠ https://foundr.com/xero⁠⁠⁠ WANT TO GROW YOUR BRAND WITH META ADS? Join the Foundr Operators Waitlist → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://foundr.com/operators⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ HOW WE CAN HELP YOU SCALE YOUR BUSINESS FASTER Learn directly from 7, 8 & 9-figure founders inside Foundr+ Start your $1 trial → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.foundr.com/startdollartrial⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ PREFER A CUSTOM ROADMAP AND 1-ON-1 COACHING? → Starting from scratch? Apply here → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://foundr.com/pages/coaching-start-application⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ → Already have a store? Apply here → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://foundr.com/pages/coaching-growth-application⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ CONNECT WITH NATHAN CHAN Instagram → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/nathanchan⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathanhchan/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ CONNECT WITH DUDE WIPES Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/dudewipes/ Website → https://dudewipes.com/ Ryan's LinkedIn → ⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-meegan-07971859/ FOLLOW FOUNDR FOR MORE BUSINESS GROWTH STRATEGIES YouTube → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/2uyvzdt⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Website → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.foundr.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/foundr/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Facebook → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/foundr⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Twitter → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.twitter.com/foundr⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ LinkedIn → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/company/foundr/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Podcast → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.foundr.com/podcast⁠

80 年前，国泰航空第一架飞机 Betsy 降落上海龙华机场；80 年后，一场关于飞行的对谈，在这片曾经的机场旧址展开：从最初连接几座城市的货运与客运航线，到今天遍布世界的航空网络，一架飞机、一座机场，一条航线如何改变人们抵达远方的方式，又如何深刻影响一座城市的发展，乃至一个国家与世界之间的关系？ 8月末，在「国泰航空八十周年庆典」现场，国泰航空联合「声东击西」进行了一场线下圆桌。我们邀请到了北京大学政府管理学院副教授马啸、知乎副总裁、「声东击西」联合发起人张晶，从各自难忘的飞行经历聊起，讨论民航如何支撑人员往来与高价值货运，航空枢纽为何能够改变城市命运，以及国泰与香港的发展如何彼此交织。在节目的后半段，我们也回应了现场听众的提问。 本期节目，是这场线下对话的呈现。我们希望借航空这一基础设施，重新理解那些看似个人化的飞行体验，如何嵌套在更大的城市竞争、产业变迁和全球连接之中。 本期人物 马啸，北京大学政府管理学院常聘副教授、博士生导师 张晶，知乎副总裁、「声东击西」联合发起人 徐涛，声动活泼联合创始人 主要话题 [01:52] 那些难忘的飞行经历：一架超重的飞机与一次红眼航班 [05:35] 飞机作为一种基础设施：民航如何支撑人员、商品与经济活动的流动 [10:12] 亚特兰大、孟菲斯：航空节点如何影响一座城市的命运 [16:59] 从启德到赤鱲角：香港与国泰如何在航空发展中彼此塑造 [22:13] 争机场、抢航线与半小时航程：城市为什么重视航空连接 [36:09] 现场问答：价格、时间与服务，我们如何选择一趟航班 延伸阅读 国泰航空：同心飞跃八十年 《机场里的小旅行》 《幸福终点站 The Terminal》 《航空港》 也可以在小红书账号「徐涛-声东击西」看到更多相关内容和幕后 给声东击西投稿 「声东击西」一直在寻找来自不同社会和群体的真实声音。我们曾经采访过为特朗普竞选生产 MAGA 帽子的中国制造商、记录过七位在美国大选中经历起伏的华人个体，也讲述了委内瑞拉青年的故事。 如果你也有一些特别的经历、观察或想法，不论是亲身体验的故事，还是你在某个行业、社区中的所见所闻，都欢迎你向我们投稿。 你的声音可能出现在未来的节目当中，我们非常期待你的分享！ 投稿入口 加入我们 声动活泼团队目前正在招聘内容监制、商业运营经理、商业发展经理和实习生，如果你也对播客行业的内容制作和商务运营感兴趣，欢迎投递！ 详情点击招聘入口：加入声动活泼（在招职位速览） 幕后制作 后期：赛德 运营：George 设计：饭团 实习编辑：翔宇、怡然 商务合作 声动活泼商业化小队，点击链接可直达商务会客厅，也可发送邮件至 business@shengfm.cn 联系我们。 关于声动活泼 「用声音碰撞世界」，声动活泼致力于为人们提供源源不断的思考养料。 我们还有这些播客：声东击西、What's Next｜科技早知道、商业WHY酱、跳进兔子洞&跳进兔子洞第三季、吃喝玩乐了不起、不止金钱、泡腾 VC、反潮流俱乐部 欢迎在即刻、微博等社交媒体上与我们互动，搜索声动活泼即可找到我们。 也欢迎你写邮件和我们联系，邮箱地址是：ting@sheng.fm 获取更多和声动活泼有关的讯息，你也可以扫码添加声小音，在节目之外和我们保持联系！ Special Guest: 马啸.

Thank you to The Commons for supporting this episode: https://www.thecommons.com.au/The biggest stories on the internet from September 3rd, 2026.Please consider buying us a coffee or subscribing to a membership to help keep Centennial World's weekly podcasts going! Every single dollar goes back into this business

VC experts on why Physical AI funding is heating up | E2333 This Week In Startups is made possible by: partner 1 - link partner 2 - link partner 3 - link   Today's show: Are we one step closer to data centers in space? Katelin Holloway of Seven Seven Six and Paige Doherty of Behind Genius Ventures break it down what it would take. Plus investor interest is surging in Physical AI companies. Paige explains why she backs applications of physical AI over general-purpose robotics, and how her thesis on multimodal AI led to the largest check she's ever written. We then dive into the Pentagon's rollout of ChatGPT Mil and Grok for Government. And Katelin gives us her insight into how VCs are investing in Europe and the regulations behind the scenes. Guests: Katelin Holloway on X: https://x.com/katelin_cruse Seven Seven Six: https://sevensevensix.com/ Paige Doherty on X: https://x.com/paigefinnn Behind Genius Ventures: https://www.behindgeniusventures.com/ Full Transcript and Summary, powered by Plaud https://web.plaud.ai/s/pub_772dbc9f-cd78-4de7-911e-8d3ee2883fbb::AF3ncHtIZkSyKKL-K-XUZBAUBEdoQQBEGCQSsja3gXsll8Dm6-Xbrrlhk7g8U-xwIW9kHyYwaB0dBuoC Related Links: Department of War adds ChatGPT Mil and Grok for Government: https://fortune.com/2026/09/01/pentagon-chatgpt-grok-government-military-ai-members-pete-hegseth-defense-department/ OpenAI for Government: https://openai.com/global-affairs/introducing-openai-for-government/ Starshield — SpaceX's government/defense arm: https://www.spacex.com/starshield/ UN work on LAWS (Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems): https://disarmament.unoda.org/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/background-on-laws-in-the-ccw/ European Commission designates ChatGPT a VLOSE: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-designates-chatgpt-reddit-roblox-under-digital-services-act Commission press release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1772 Euronews on why a chatbot that searches the live web counts as a search engine: https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/08/31/eu-places-chatgpt-reddit-and-roblox-under-strictest-digital-safety-rules Entrepreneur First: https://www.joinef.com/posts/introducing-the-bridge/ Henrick Johansson, the European VC persona: https://x.com/compliantvc Starcloud — orbital data centers: https://www.starcloud.com/ Starcloud raises $250M at a $2.3B: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260821884035/en/Starcloud-Raises-$250-Million-at-$2.3-Billion-Valuation-to-Scale-AI-with-Orbital-Data-Centers "From Sputnik to Starship: Estimating the experience curve of space launch technology" https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/5/7/pgag217/8732400 Cambridge Bennett Schoo: https://www.bennettschool.cam.ac.uk/blog/is-space-trade-the-next-global-transport-revolution/ Crunchbase News: physical AI startups raised $47.4B across 521 deals in H1 2026: https://news.crunchbase.com/venture/physical-ai-funding-startups-robotics-aerospace-h1-2026/ Crunchbase News on record defense-tech funding: https://news.crunchbase.com/defense-tech/startup-venture-funding-all-time-record-ai-anduril/ Jensen Huang's prediction: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/executive-insights/ Zipline: https://www.flyzipline.com/ Nox Metals: https://www.noxmetals.com/ CNBC: Anthropic changes its data retention policy: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/01/anthropic-data-retention.html Bloomberg on the plan to let enterprises hold the 30-day window: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-20/anthropic-plans-to-change-data-retention-policy-for-advanced-ai Plaud — sponsor; the wearable AI note-taker → **https://plaud.ai/twist** (code TWIST for 10% off) Harmonic: https://harmonic.ai/ Timestamps: 0:00 Why making it to Fund IV is when it gets real 9:24 Pentagon rolls out ChatGPT Mil and Grok for Government 10:49 Sentry - Your team should be focused on shipping features — not chasing down bugs. New users can get $240 in free credits when they go to https://sentry.io/twist and use the code TWIST 11:53 Paige on defense tech and three years at Northrop Grumman 13:40 Katelin: The bottleneck used to be winning the contract, now it's surviving one 16:13 Autonomous weapons, robot dogs, and the Boston Dynamics conversation in Paris 19:07 Lightfield - Name one person who's ever enjoyed updating a CRM. Exactly. Lightfield's AI agent does it for you — it even prospects and books your meetings. Used by thousands of startups. Free at https://lightfield.app 22:03 EU designates ChatGPT a "very large online search engine" under the DSA 24:54 Katelin's contrarian take: Europe is undercapitalized 29:56 Odoo - The all-in-one business platform. Your first app is free! Get started today at https://Odoo.com/twist 31:07 Starcloud raises $250M at a $2.3B valuation 53:06 Competing with Elon: the single point of failure for the whole space economy 57:49 Physical AI raised ~$47B in the first half of 2026 1:03:42 Jason's Zipline regret and the death of "hardware is hard" 1:07:07 Is "unc" a compliment? A Gen X / millennial / Gen Z / Gen Alpha 1:09:39 Anthropic reverses its data retention policy after enterprise pushback 1:12:18 Katelin on data custody: "That's not a procurement question" 1:15:31 Back to on-prem: Go.AI, the Go1, and vertical LLMs Subscribe to the TWiST500 newsletter: https://ticker.thisweekinstartups.com Check out the TWIST500: https://www.twist500.com Subscribe to This Week in Startups on Apple: https://rb.gy/v19fcp   Follow Lon: X: https://x.com/lons   Follow Jason: X: https://twitter.com/Jason LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasoncalacanis   Check out all our partner offers: https://partners.launch.co/   Great TWIST interviews: Will Guidara, Eoghan McCabe, Steve Huffman, Brian Chesky, Bob Moesta, Aaron Levie, Sophia Amoruso, Reid Hoffman, Frank Slootman, Billy McFarland   Check out Jason's suite of newsletters: https://substack.com/@calacanis   Follow TWiST: Twitter: https://twitter.com/TWiStartups YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thisweekin Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thisweekinstartups TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thisweekinstartups Substack: https://twistartups.substack.com

A financial analyst spots something wrong with a deal. He writes up his dissent. But the AI disagreed. The investment committee spent 90 seconds discussing his objection, and went with the AI score. A year later, the analyst stopped writing dissents entirely — what's the point? This story is from finance. But the pattern is emerging everywhere — in law firms, in startups, in any organisation where AI is now in the room when decisions get made. This episode is about what to do about it. You will hear from Rana Gujral, the author of the AI Instinct: The Future of Humans and Machine Decision Making Throughout his career, Rana has founded and exited a machine learning SaaS company, led major technology transformations, and built AI systems deployed across industries ranging from financial services to defence. Listen to this episode to learn: Why the biggest AI risk is not that it gets things wrong — it is that it gets things right in exactly the same way as everyone else How to tell whether AI is augmenting your thinking or replacing it — and the two tests that reveal the difference What happens to junior talent in law firms and startups when AI takes over the work that builds judgment The one practical step you can take this week to make sure you are still actually thinking — not just ratifying what the machine already decided Timestamps: 00:00 – Why AI scoring is silencing human dissent 00:49 – Welcome and back-to-school business energy 05:14 – How one bad AI-backed VC deal got approved 07:32 – How leaders can protect employee judgment from AI 10:24 – Why human intuition still beats AI scores 13:59 – The hidden risk of AI in law firms and junior lawyers 17:47 – Is AI augmenting or replacing your team's thinking? 20:39 – How to rebuild independent thinking after relying on AI 22:27 – Rana Gujral on his new book, The AI Instinct Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Simply select "Ratings and Reviews" and "Write a Review" then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Listen to our podcast on: Apple Spotify YouTube Audible Pandora Transcript: https://www.techfornontechies.co/blog/319-your-judgment-is-your-most-valuable-asset-are-you-losing-it-to-ai

That’s a lot of zeroes! But you know what’s more? 1000. (Nearly there.) In this episode, Mark and Dan discuss Amazing Spider-Man (vol. 7) #33, which is legacy issue #997. This issue was written by Joe Kelly. The cover features artwork by Ed McGuinness and Marcio Menyz. The interiors feature pencils by Ed McGuinness, inks by Mark Farmer, colors by Marcio Menyz, and, of course, letters by VC's Joe Caramagna. This issue was first released on July 22nd, 2026. Rick Coste edited this episode. Alex Galucki edited the video version of this podcast. Our artwork is handcrafted by artists Ron Frenz, Nick Cagnetti, and the late Sal Buscema. Our theme songs were produced by Ryland Bojack, Tony Thaxton, and Spider-Maj. Our animated introduction to the show is by Josh Sutton of Panels to Pixels. Watch the show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOPCnjzQZNViyEnoOuckaVQ We would also love to see you join our Amazing Spider-Slack community board. If you'd like to join in on our amazing conversations, click this link to get started: https://join.slack.com/t/amazingspider/shared_invite/zt-42tsfhs2-yBaH6KkRmOWiW_8gCf9SmQ This week's Patreon podcasts include a review of Amazing Spider-Man (vol. 7) #35, our discussion of the two Spider-Man/Superman comics, and two episodes of the Whatever a Spider Can Diaries, which document Dan’s process of writing a book about Spider-Man. If you'd like to follow along with our reviews as they are released, please check out our Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/superiorspidertalk Read our B-Title reviews, collecting memories, and more in the Amazing Spider-Talk Substack! http://www.amazingspider.substack.com You can email questions to our show at amazingspidertalk@gmail.com or by clicking here. You can also BUY MARK'S BOOK, 100 Things Spider-Man Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die. The post The Amazing Spider-Man (vol. 7) #33 / LGY #997 – REVIEW appeared first on Amazing Spider-Talk.

In this episode, we sit down with Nirav Tolia, co-founder and CEO of Nextdoor and a longtime Silicon Valley entrepreneur who previously co-founded Epinions, which became Shopping.com.We discuss the lonely reality of being a CEO, building and rebuilding companies through failure, why Nirav returned to Nextdoor after years away, navigating fear and self-doubt as a leader, and how established technology companies can adapt in the age of AI. We also get into his time on Shark Tank, working alongside Mark Cuban and Kevin O'Leary, and what stepping away from Silicon Valley taught him about business and life.If you're interested in entrepreneurship, startups, leadership, Silicon Valley, AI, Shark Tank, building companies, or understanding what it's really like to lead a business through its hardest moments, this episode is for you.This episode is supported by Sydecar, HEX, Wispr Flow, Granola, Beehiiv, KalshiSydecar: https://sydecar.io/partners/trailblazersbeehiiv: https://www.beehiiv.com/splash?utm_campaign=trailblazers-2026-Partnership&utm_medium=podcast&utm_source=trailblazers&utm_term=podcast-14&stripe_campaign_code=TRAILBLAZERS30 (or use code “trailblazers30” for 30% OFF)Granola: http://granola.ai/trailblazers *Granola is the official notetaker of Trailblazers! Check out the episode show notes here: https://notes.granola.ai/t/55838edb-522f-4468-a139-fad215bab7ca-00b881l8Kalshi: http://Kalshi.com/r/trailblazersWispr Flow: https://ref.wisprflow.ai/trailblazersHEX: http://hex.ai/trailblazers

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

In this episode of Inspiring Women, host Laurie McGraw (EVP, Transcarent) sits down with Paige Hendrix Buckner, CEO of All Raise, the nonprofit working to grow the power and influence of women and non-binary venture capitalists. Paige breaks down why having the title of "partner" no longer guarantees real decision-making power inside VC firms, and why that gap is quietly blocking capital from reaching women and non-binary founders. She shares the data behind All Raise's mission, the current headwinds facing women raising their own funds, and where she sees the biggest opportunities for change over the next five years. In this conversation: - Why titles don't equal power in venture capital - The data on returns from firms with more women partners - Only 1.6% of U.S. AUM is managed by women and people of color - Why deal attribution and board seat quality matter as much as headcount - The three groups of women founding their own VC firms - How the wealth transfer to women is creating new investing opportunities - All Raise's next five years: community, data, and storytelling About the guest: Paige Hendrix Buckner is CEO of All Raise, a nonprofit accelerating the success of women and non-binary venture capitalists. She previously served as All Raise's Chief of Staff and Interim CEO, and was COO of Founder Gym before that. About the host: Laurie McGraw is EVP at Transcarent and host of Inspiring Women, a podcast featuring conversations with women shaping the future of business and leadership.

Live from Gamescom at the Xsolla Clubhouse in Cologne, Alexandra Takei, VP of Platform Revenue & Gaming at Medal and General Intuition, sits down with Ben Kvalo, Founder and CEO of Midwest Games, to unpack what she calls "new age publishing." With traditional deals no longer the only game in town, Ben explains why he built Midwest Games to run two publishing models under one roof: a classic invest-and-revenue-share arm, and "Shadow Publishing," a for-hire services model that lets developers keep their IP and revenue entirely.Drawing on his background at 2K, Blizzard, and Netflix, Ben breaks down why he chose to root the company in the Midwest rather than a traditional hub, how studios actually choose between the two publishing tracks, and why investors like Prevail, Kun Gao (Crunchyroll), and Mitchell Patterson (Wolfjaw) bet on a hybrid publisher in a moment when capital is fleeing games for AI (and how it completely reversed from the VC financing era in 2021 where VC's wouldn't touch publishers). The conversation gets concrete with real portfolio examples plus Ben's take on discoverability, sourcing enough quality titles to publish something every month, and how AI is reshaping both developer costs and his own underwriting.The episode closes with Ben's outlook on where publishing goes next.We'd also like to thank Medal.tv for making this episode possible. If you're a PC gamer and want to clip your moments, or a studio, publisher, or marketer looking to reach a high-quality gaming audience and get your game in front of the right players, check out all Medal has to offer at https://grow.medal.tv.If you like the episode, please help others find us by leaving a 5-star rating or review! And if you have any comments, requests, or feedback shoot us a note at podcast@naavik.co. Watch the episode: YouTube ChannelFor more episodes and details: Podcast WebsiteFree newsletter: Naavik DigestFollow us: Twitter | LinkedIn | WebsiteSound design by Gavin Mc Cabe.

Wafer Co-Founder and CEO Emilio Andere talks with TITV Host Akash Pasricha about optimizing open source models for non-Nvidia chips. We also talk with New Enterprise Associates Partner Mustafa Neemuchwala about Nvidia's $3.5 billion convertible bond investment in MediaTek, and we get into the VC case for building software in the AI era with The General Partnership Co-Founder Phin Barnes.Articles discussed on this episode: https://www.theinformation.com/newsletters/ai-agenda/wafer-inference-provider-uses-non-nvidia-chips-lands-acquisition-offers-200-million-plus-valuationSubscribe: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@theinformation The Information: https://www.theinformation.com/subscribe_hSign up for the AI Agenda newsletter: https://www.theinformation.com/features/ai-agendaTITV airs weekdays on YouTube, X and LinkedIn at 10AM PT / 1PM ET. Or check us out wherever you get your podcasts.Follow us:X: https://x.com/theinformationIG: https://www.instagram.com/theinformation/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@titv.theinformationLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/theinformation/Chapters:00:00 - Introduction01:13 - Wafer Raises $40M Series A at $200M+ Valuation03:42 - Optimizing Open Weight Models for AMD & Non-Nvidia Chips11:26 - OpenAI's Jalapeño Chip & Agentic Workflows12:56 - Nvidia Invests $3.5B in MediaTek Convertibles17:42 - Does Nvidia-MediaTek Deal Deepen Circular Financing?23:30 - The VC Case for Building Software in the AI Era28:45 - The VC Mechanics Driving Mega-Rounds & Pivots34:02 - Outcome-Based Pricing vs. Predictable SaaS Margins

Built for Life Newsletter: https://builtforlife.io Twice-weekly emails for high performers who want to look good, feel great and perform at their best    Book a 1-1 strategy session: https://www.rntfitness.co.uk/ytapplynow    Case Study: https://www.rntfitness.co.uk/vivek-yalamanchili-rebuilt-his-health-in-his-40s   –   Welcome to RNT Fitness Radio. Today I'm joined by RNTer Vivek, who recently hit a checkpoint with us. When Vivek turned 40, he decided enough was enough. Having watched a number of his friends go through the RNT journey and absolutely crush it, he finally took the plunge at the start of 2026.   He's a father of two, holds a global role in a VC group, and is based out in Texas. For Vivek, the challenges were always the same: a relentless work schedule spanning every time zone, travelling two weeks of every month, and two young kids to balance it all around.   This is a brilliant insight into what it looks like to go from having no structure with your health and fitness to fully dialling in, and using the physical transformation as a vehicle to improve every other aspect of your life. Vivek is down 26 lbs, in the best shape of his life, and looking forward to a productive muscle-building phase with us.   So let's dive in.   Chapters: 0:05 Intro 1:58 The Trigger Moments Behind Vivek's Decision 3:30 Why Personal Health Kept Getting Deprioritized 5:08 Turning 40 And Deciding Enough Was Enough 6:42 Building A New Routine Around Work And Family 11:00 Nutrition And Travel Strategies 14:58 A Free Book For Listeners 15:27 Staying Consistent Through The Process 16:46 The Mindset Shift Around Food And Habits 19:09 Prioritizing Sleep As A Family Man 21:12 Hitting Checkpoint At 26 Pounds Down 23:47 Future Goals 26:11 Family And Work Impact 29:37 Advice For Busy Dads Turning 40 32:04 Final Words   –   Follow us: Website - https://www.rntfitness.com  Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/rnt_fitness  Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/akashvaghela YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@akash_vaghela  

Thanks for listening, and please follow us on Insta @NHPTalent and www.youtube.com/thePOZcast For all episodes, please check out www.thePOZcast.com #thePOZcast is proud to welcome Dalia as our newest partner. Dalia helps employers convert more career-site traffic into qualified applicants by giving job seekers a universal candidate profile that eliminates repetitive applications and streamlines the application process. Learn more (link below) https://www.dalia.co/audit?utm_source=pos About: I'm joined by two leaders who have built careers around one simple idea: great businesses are built by great people. First is Josh Robinson, a transformational executive with more than 20 years of experience leading finance, technology, and business strategy across organizations ranging from $50 million to $7 billion in revenue. Josh is known for building high-performing teams, creating cultures that attract top talent, and helping companies think big, start small, and scale fast. Joining him is Mike Nathan, a Navy veteran, entrepreneur, investor, and startup builder who's helped launch, advise, and invest in more than a dozen companies across industries. From Search & Rescue Swimmer to founder, board member, and operator, Mike believes that business is one of the most powerful vehicles for creating meaningful impact for people and communities. Together, Josh and Mike bring an incredible combination of operational excellence, entrepreneurial grit, and people-first leadership. I'm excited to dive into their journeys, what they've learned building companies and cultures, and where they see the future of work and leadership heading next. Key Takeaways: Not every high performer should become a manager. Companies need meaningful advancement paths for strong individual contributors instead of forcing them into leadership roles they may not want or be equipped for. Leadership is less about having every answer and more about building the right team. Great leaders trust subject-matter experts, ask better questions, and create the conditions for others to execute. Authenticity builds more trust than pretending to know everything. Employees respond better to leaders who admit what they do not know and work alongside the team to find the answer. Conviction can matter as much as competency. Skills may get someone through the interview process, but genuine belief in the company's mission determines whether they will remain committed when things get difficult. A founder's ability to delegate is a critical indicator of scalability. Founders who constantly say “I,” control every decision, and cannot step away will eventually become the bottleneck in their own business. Raising capital should serve a specific goal, not someone's ego. Companies should pursue funding when it accelerates product development, sales, expansion, or a planned exit, not because announcing a major round has become a status symbol. AI is creating the rise of the “Army of One.” Individuals and small teams can now use AI, outsourcing, and personal branding to produce the output and profitability once associated with much larger organizations. Take the “Army of One” seriously, but not literally. AI can dramatically increase individual productivity, but growing companies will still need talented people when complexity, scale, and human connection demand them. Replacing employees with AI is often the wrong strategy. The greater opportunity is to give employees AI tools, remove repetitive work, and redeploy people into more valuable roles that improve service and generate revenue. The professionals who thrive will combine expertise with AI fluency. Human judgment, technical knowledge, and relationship skills will remain valuable, but people who fail to learn how to apply AI within their field risk being left behind.     Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Leadership and Impact 01:43 Personal Leadership Journeys 05:19 The Role of Individual Contributors vs. Leaders 08:12 Evolving Beliefs About Leadership 09:48 Hiring Talent vs. Building Executable Teams 12:44 Evaluating Founders and Their Potential 14:43 Post-Mortem Analysis of Failed Startups 15:52 The Right Time to Raise Capital 17:52 The Army of One Myth and AI's Role 26:51 AI's Impact on Jobs and Company Culture 32:28 The Importance of Human Expertise in a Tech-Driven World 33:16 Hiring for Heart: The Key to Successful Interviews 35:21 Assessing Compatibility: The Role of Personality in Hiring 37:49 Radical Transparency in Leadership and Its Challenges 41:33 Risky Decisions: Career Moments That Changed Everything 45:06 Debunking Business Clichés: What Needs to Die 47:40 AI: Signal or Hype? Perspectives on Job Disruption 51:57 Investing in Healthcare: The Future of Tech-Enabled Solutions 54:13 Legacy: What Do We Want to Be Remembered For? 55:36 Defining Success: Balancing Personal and Professional Life    

In this episode, we sit down with Jack Raines, investor at Slow Ventures and author of Young Money, a book about navigating the career, money, and life decisions that define your 20s.We discuss how to avoid wasting your 20s, why you should spend more money while you're young, how to balance ambition with adventure, how to know when you're on the wrong career path, and why building a personal brand without real substance can become a career liability.If you're interested in careers, money, investing, entrepreneurship, venture capital, personal branding, AI, or making better decisions in your 20s, this episode is for you.This episode is supported by Sydecar, HEX, Wispr Flow, Granola, Beehiiv, KalshiSydecar: https://sydecar.io/partners/trailblazersbeehiiv: https://www.beehiiv.com/splash?utm_campaign=trailblazers-2026-Partnership&utm_medium=podcast&utm_source=trailblazers&utm_term=podcast-13&stripe_campaign_code=TRAILBLAZERS30 (or use code “trailblazers30” for 30% OFF)Granola: http://granola.ai/trailblazers*Granola is the official notetaker of Trailblazers! Check out the episode's show notes here: https://notes.granola.ai/t/5d11c7d5-3a1a-4c00-bbfa-aa06845fd977-008umkv4Kalshi: http://Kalshi.com/r/trailblazersWispr Flow: https://ref.wisprflow.ai/trailblazersHEX: http://hex.ai/trailblazers

Ajay Gupta founded Stirista in San Antonio after helping with micro-targeting a presidential campaign. His first product identified people who spoke a second language for multicultural marketing — built from scanned baby-name books, a hundred thousand first names, and 107 sales calls before Dish Network became the first big client at $100,000. Stirista now helps brands find new customers using data, connected TV, and email, with identity-enriched data as the "secret sauce" behind the targeting. The company has roughly 270 employees and will clear $100 million in profitable revenue this year. It was bootstrapped for over a decade before a single $14M growth equity investment round from Wavecrest Growth Partners. Gupta is now the serial acquirer, rolling up founder-run data businesses whose owners want to retire and find a good home for their employees. Nearly every deal uses an earnout, avoids debt, and keeps most of the staff, which is a deliberate contrast to private-equity roll-ups that gut Key Takeaways One Round: Ten years bootstrapped, then a single $14M round to bring in world-class leadership. Avoid Debt: Nearly every acquisition uses earnouts and cash, not the leveraged PE roll-up playbook. Hire the Pros: Sometimes you spend money on senior talent to elevate how the whole company thinks. Stay Flexible: The people who grow with a startup listen to clients and adapt, not just work hard. Scale as Moat: Privacy regulation now demands enough scale to comply across every state's laws. Quote from Ajay Gupta, CEO and Founder of Stirista "We've identified a type of business we like to acquire: founder-run companies, usually an older founder looking to retire. We've already worked with almost ninety percent of them in some capacity, so there's a trust factor. "The founder wants to retire, and they're looking for a nice home for their employees. That's a very important part of it. And these founders are often tired, so some of them actually end up working with us for a couple of years afterward, because now they have the freedom to go out and sell. "A lot of them were sellers who built nice small businesses, then got bogged down by payroll and leases and all the things we free them from. As a founder and CEO myself, it's an easy conversation to have — and we have a track record of keeping most of the employees, so they know it's not somebody coming in to gut the company down to the bones just for profit." Links Ajay Gupta on LinkedIn Stirista on LinkedIn Stirista website Wavecrest Growth Partners (investor) Podcast Sponsor – Full Scale This podcast is sponsored by Full Scale, one of the fastest-growing software development companies in any region. Full Scale vets, employs, and supports over 300 professional developers, designers, and testers in the Philippines who can augment and extend your core dev team. Learn more at fullscale.io. The Practical Founders Podcast Tune into the Practical Founders Podcast for weekly in-depth interviews with founders who have built valuable software companies without big funding. Subscribe to the Practical Founders Podcast using your favorite podcast app or view on our YouTube channel. Get the weekly Practical Founders newsletter and podcast updates at practicalfounders.com. Practical Founders CEO Peer Groups Be part of a committed and confidential group of practical founders creating valuable software companies without big VC funding.  A Practical Founders Peer Group is a committed and confidential group of founders/CEOs who want to help you succeed on your terms. Each Practical Founders Peer Group is personally curated and moderated by Greg Head.

当最基本的粮食援助可能在几周后停止，生活在南苏丹难民营里的人们，接下来要靠什么活下去？ 2026 年 8 月，联合国世界粮食计划署与联合国难民署发出警告：由于人道主义援助资金严重不足，南苏丹超过 24 万名难民和寻求庇护者可能在数周内失去粮食援助，其中绝大多数是妇女和儿童。 本期节目，我们采访了正在世界粮食计划署（WFP）南苏丹国家办公室工作的王宏锐。不久前，他第一次前往位于南苏丹西北部阿维尔的难民营：在那里，他遇见了徒步六个月、带着四个孩子逃离苏丹的家庭；也遇见了一位为给孩子换粮食，不得不抵押 WFP 援助卡的母亲；还有一个因未达到严重营养不良的认定标准、无法领取营养物资的孩子。他撸起袖子，露出细瘦的胳膊，平静地对宏锐说：「我很饿，我没有食物。」 当全球多场人道主义危机争夺着日益有限的援助资金，当已经降至最低限度的救济仍可能随时中断，一个身处其中的援助工作者，如何面对眼前具体的饥饿与自己的无力？他又该如何理解这份工作的意义？ 一起来听听宏锐从南苏丹带来的讲述。 本期人物 王宏锐，世界粮食计划署南苏丹办公室伙伴关系官员 徐涛，声动活泼联合创始人 主要话题 [01:52] 从 WFP 罗马总部到南苏丹：希望离受援者更近一些 [08:39] 辗转六个小时，第一次走进南苏丹的难民营 [16:17] 抵押援助卡的母亲，以及一位援助工作者的无力 [20:20] 从楼房到难民营：一位苏丹母亲的逃难经历 [28:16] 物资援助已完全停止，现金援助比例不断削减 [37:53]一位中国援助工作者如何理解援助工作的意义 延伸解读 [11:54]在树下休息的新难民妈妈和靠吃盐补充电解质的孩子 [26:37]在南苏丹难民营的小女孩用王宏锐的手机自拍 王宏锐与孩子们的合影 [28:59]营养不良的测量方法：工作人员会用一条带有刻度和不同颜色的纸带（上臂中围测量带），测量孩子的上臂中围。测量时，要把纸带绕在肩膀和手肘之间的上臂中点。对于 6 个月到 5 岁的儿童，如果上臂围低于 11.5 厘米，就意味着孩子可能处于严重急性营养不良状态，需要接受进一步评估和治疗。 联合国世界粮食计划署中国国家办公室官网 WFP South Sudan官网 WFP South Sudan X主页 WFP 南苏丹捐款链接（IP需在境外） 节目中提到的 WFP 校餐计划：如何用一顿饭改变孩子的未来？ 当饥饿成为武器：世界粮食计划署代理执行干事卡尔·斯考呼吁安理会采取切实行动 世界粮食计划署、联合国难民署联合新闻稿:资金告罄，南苏丹难民面临极端饥饿 也可以在小红书账号「徐涛-声东击西」看到更多相关内容和幕后 给声东击西投稿 「声东击西」一直在寻找来自不同社会和群体的真实声音。我们曾经采访过为特朗普竞选生产 MAGA 帽子的中国制造商、记录过七位在美国大选中经历起伏的华人个体，也讲述了委内瑞拉青年的故事。 如果你也有一些特别的经历、观察或想法，不论是亲身体验的故事，还是你在某个行业、社区中的所见所闻，都欢迎你向我们投稿。 你的声音可能出现在未来的节目当中，我们非常期待你的分享！ 投稿入口 加入我们 声动活泼团队目前正在招聘内容监制、商业运营经理、商业发展经理和实习生，如果你也对播客行业的内容制作和商务运营感兴趣，欢迎投递！ 详情点击招聘入口：加入声动活泼（在招职位速览） 幕后制作 后期：赛德、翔宇、怡然 运营：George 设计：饭团 实习编辑：翔宇、怡然 商务合作 声动活泼商业化小队，点击链接可直达商务会客厅，也可发送邮件至 business@shengfm.cn 联系我们。 关于声动活泼 「用声音碰撞世界」，声动活泼致力于为人们提供源源不断的思考养料。 我们还有这些播客：声东击西、What's Next｜科技早知道、商业WHY酱、跳进兔子洞&跳进兔子洞第三季、吃喝玩乐了不起、不止金钱、泡腾 VC、反潮流俱乐部 欢迎在即刻、微博等社交媒体上与我们互动，搜索声动活泼即可找到我们。 也欢迎你写邮件和我们联系，邮箱地址是：ting@sheng.fm 获取更多和声动活泼有关的讯息，你也可以扫码添加声小音，在节目之外和我们保持联系！ Special Guest: 王宏锐.

 With Louis Diamond Vanguard's acquisition of Altruist could reshape RIA custody, bringing together Altruist's technology with the scale, capital, and reputation of one of the industry's best-known brands. In Summary Vanguard's acquisition of Altruist brings one of the financial industry's most established brands together with one of RIA custody's fastest-growing challengers. In this Rapid Reaction Industry Update, Louis Diamond looks beyond the reported $4B+ purchase price to consider what the combination could mean for advisors—what he sees as the good news, the potentially negative outcomes, and everything in between. Altruist gains the capital, scale, and brand recognition that could help it compete more aggressively for larger RIAs and breakaway teams. Vanguard gains a technology-forward custody platform and greater access to the independent advisor channel. The larger implication may be increased competition across RIA custody. With Schwab and Fidelity controlling much of the market, a Vanguard-backed Altruist could create new pressure around technology, pricing, service, referrals, and innovation—while raising new questions about how Vanguard balances its growing advice business with its role as custodian. The Storyline RIA custody has long been dominated by Schwab and Fidelity, particularly since Schwab's acquisition of TD Ameritrade. Altruist emerged as one of the few credible challengers, building its position around modern technology, lower costs, and an advisor-focused platform.   But technology was only part of the equation. For larger breakaway teams in particular, Altruist faced another hurdle: brand recognition. Advisors could be impressed by the platform while still wondering how clients accustomed to names like Merrill, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Schwab, or Fidelity would respond to an unfamiliar custodian.   Vanguard changes that equation.   Louis examines why the acquisition makes strategic sense for both companies, from Vanguard's push to expand access to financial advice to Altruist's opportunity to operate with the backing of a well-capitalized, long-term owner.   For advisors, however, the bigger story is what happens next. A stronger competitor in custody could affect everything from technology and pricing to referral opportunities and the choices available to breakaway advisors.   There are also important questions still unanswered. Vanguard operates its own advice businesses. Altruist's speed and fintech culture may be tested inside a much larger organization. And while Vanguard says Altruist will remain independent, the longer-term operating model remains to be seen.   The deal may not change advisors' options immediately. But it has the potential to change the competitive dynamics surrounding those options considerably.   Topics Covered Vanguard's acquisition of Altruist RIA custody competition Schwab and Fidelity Altruist's technology and Hazel AI Vanguard's financial advice strategy Custodian brand recognition for breakaway advisors Advisor referral networks Custody and technology pricing Direct advice and custodian conflicts The future of RIA platforms and Supportive Independence > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why is the Vanguard-Altruist acquisition significant for RIA custody? (03:53)Louis explains why custody has remained highly concentrated around Schwab and Fidelity and how combining Vanguard's scale and reputation with Altruist's technology could create a much stronger third competitor.   What problem does Vanguard potentially solve for Altruist? (05:01)Altruist has built a strong reputation among advisors for its technology, but larger breakaway teams have sometimes questioned whether clients would recognize or trust the brand. Vanguard could significantly reduce that concern.   Why does buying Altruist make sense for Vanguard? (07:00)Vanguard has more than 50 million investors and has publicly discussed the need to expand access to financial advice. Louis considers how Altruist could give Vanguard both additional capacity and a stronger connection to independent advisors.   What does Altruist gain from Vanguard beyond capital? (09:51)Louis discusses the significance of having a long-term, investor-owned parent rather than remaining dependent on successive rounds of venture capital, while gaining additional resources to develop custody, technology, and Hazel AI.   How could this acquisition change the choices available to breakaway advisors? (12:33)The combination of Altruist's technology with Vanguard's brand could make the platform more viable for larger teams that previously hesitated because of client recognition and trust concerns.   Could Vanguard become a meaningful source of client referrals to RIAs? (13:42)With millions of existing investors and more demand for advice than Vanguard can necessarily serve internally, Louis considers whether a future referral program connecting Vanguard clients with Altruist RIAs could become an important competitive advantage.   What are the potential risks of the Vanguard-Altruist combination? (16:54)The acquisition also raises questions around Vanguard's competing advice business, Altruist's long-term independence, differences in corporate culture, innovation speed, and talent retention.   What could happen next across the custody market? (20:00)Louis offers several predictions, including responses from Schwab and Fidelity, wider adoption of Hazel AI, a potential Vanguard-Altruist referral channel, and greater use of Altruist by breakaway advisors.   Key Takeaways Vanguard's acquisition of Altruist could introduce a more formidable competitor into an RIA custody market heavily concentrated around Schwab and Fidelity. Vanguard addresses one of Altruist's biggest challenges with larger breakaway teams: providing a widely recognized financial brand that advisors can more easily explain to clients. Altruist gives Vanguard a technology-forward entry point into RIA custody as Vanguard continues expanding its strategy around access to financial advice. Advisors could benefit from greater competition through pressure on custody and technology pricing, service, product development, and innovation. A future referral channel could become an important part of the combination, particularly given Vanguard's enormous investor base and Altruist's growing network of RIAs. The acquisition also introduces potential conflicts and execution risks, including Vanguard's own advice businesses, the integration of two very different corporate cultures, and questions about whether Altruist can maintain its speed and independence over time. For breakaway advisors, the custody shortlist may have changed: Altruist can now pair its technology and fintech capabilities with the capital and reputation of Vanguard. https://youtu.be/UlgCBjLXrnw Quotable Moments “Custody is really a trust business.”— Louis Diamond (05:55) “Every time a well-capitalized player shows up, especially in custody, advisors win.”— Louis Diamond (12:33) “Really, it's tech-forward independence now without a brand trade-off.”— Louis Diamond (13:42) “There are always innovators showing up from outside the establishment, and every time one succeeds, advisors end up with more options and more leverage and more negotiating power than they had the year before.”— Louis Diamond (22:44) FAQs Why is Vanguard acquiring Altruist? Louis sees several strategic reasons for the acquisition. Altruist gives Vanguard an established technology and custody platform serving more than 6,000 advisors, while potentially expanding Vanguard's ability to reach investors through independent financial advisors. It may also provide another distribution channel for Vanguard investment products and future offerings. What does Vanguard's acquisition mean for Altruist? Altruist gains the backing of one of the world's largest and best-known investment firms while retaining, at least initially, its brand, leadership, and operating structure. Vanguard's capital could allow Altruist to continue investing in custody capabilities, technology, and products such as Hazel AI without relying on additional venture funding rounds. How could the acquisition affect RIA custody competition? Schwab and Fidelity currently dominate RIA custody. Louis believes a Vanguard-backed Altruist could become a stronger challenger by combining Altruist's technology and pricing model with Vanguard's scale, capital, and reputation. That could increase competitive pressure around pricing, service, technology, and innovation. Why could the deal matter to breakaway advisors? Altruist's technology has attracted advisor interest, but some larger breakaway teams have questioned whether clients would be comfortable holding substantial wealth with a less familiar custodian. Vanguard's ownership could substantially reduce that brand-recognition hurdle and make Altruist a more viable option for larger teams. Could Vanguard refer clients to advisors using Altruist? No referral program has been announced. However, Louis believes it is an important possibility to watch. Vanguard has more than 50 million investors, while Altruist provides access to thousands of independent advisors. Connecting investors seeking human advice with RIAs on the Altruist platform could create a meaningful new referral channel. Are there risks for advisors using a Vanguard-owned custodian? Potentially. Vanguard operates its own financial advice businesses, creating some of the same competitive concerns advisors have raised about other custodians with retail advice operations. Other questions include whether Altruist will remain operationally independent over time and whether its culture and pace of innovation can be maintained under Vanguard ownership. What happens next for Altruist, Schwab, and Fidelity? Louis expects the competitive response to be worth watching. He believes Schwab and Fidelity could respond through technology, AI, pricing, or other changes to their advisor offerings. He also expects Altruist to compete more aggressively for breakaway teams and sees the potential for Hazel AI to expand well beyond advisors who custody assets with Altruist. Does the Vanguard-Altruist deal change anything for advisors immediately? Not necessarily. The transaction still needs to close, and its longer-term impact will take time to emerge. But for advisors evaluating custodians, independence, or the value they receive from existing partners, the acquisition adds another factor to consider as the competitive landscape evolves. Louis sees several strategic reasons for the acquisition. Altruist gives Vanguard an established technology and custody platform serving more than 6,000 advisors, while potentially expanding Vanguard's ability to reach investors through independent financial advisors. It may also provide another distribution channel for Vanguard investment products and future offerings. Altruist gains the backing of one of the world's largest and best-known investment firms while retaining, at least initially, its brand, leadership, and operating structure. Vanguard's capital could allow Altruist to continue investing in custody capabilities, technology, and products such as Hazel AI without relying on additional venture funding rounds. Schwab and Fidelity currently dominate RIA custody. Louis believes a Vanguard-backed Altruist could become a stronger challenger by combining Altruist's technology and pricing model with Vanguard's scale, capital, and reputation. That could increase competitive pressure around pricing, service, technology, and innovation. Altruist's technology has attracted advisor interest, but some larger breakaway teams have questioned whether clients would be comfortable holding substantial wealth with a less familiar custodian. Vanguard's ownership could substantially reduce that brand-recognition hurdle and make Altruist a more viable option for larger teams. No referral program has been announced. However, Louis believes it is an important possibility to watch. Vanguard has more than 50 million investors, while Altruist provides access to thousands of independent advisors. Connecting investors seeking human advice with RIAs on the Altruist platform could create a meaningful new referral channel. Potentially. Vanguard operates its own financial advice businesses, creating some of the same competitive concerns advisors have raised about other custodians with retail advice operations. Other questions include whether Altruist will remain operationally independent over time and whether its culture and pace of innovation can be maintained under Vanguard ownership. Louis expects the competitive response to be worth watching. He believes Schwab and Fidelity could respond through technology, AI, pricing, or other changes to their advisor offerings. He also expects Altruist to compete more aggressively for breakaway teams and sees the potential for Hazel AI to expand well beyond advisors who custody assets with Altruist. Not necessarily. The transaction still needs to close, and its longer-term impact will take time to emerge. But for advisors evaluating custodians, independence, or the value they receive from existing partners, the acquisition adds another factor to consider as the competitive landscape evolves. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. Related Resources  Rise and Reinvent: Joe Duran on Building and Rebuilding World-Class Firms From Insurance Sales to $8B RIA: A Northwestern Mutual Breakaway Story Diamond Consultants 4th Annual Advisor Transition Report View the transcript of this episode… Vanguard Acquires Altruist: What It Means for RIAs, Custody & Breakaway Advisors With Louis Diamond Louis Diamond (00:06): Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is a special rapid reaction industry update, Vanguard acquires Altruist, what it means for advisors in the industry. I’m Louis Diamond, and this is The Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond (00:28): At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. (01:21): Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Louis Diamond (02:05): Funny how the biggest news in the business almost never comes from the firms everyone is watching. On Wednesday, August 26th, 2026, Vanguard announced its acquiring Altruist. If you asked me a year ago to name the company most likely to buy an RIA custodian, Vanguard would not have been near the top of my list. Vanguard was in the RIA custody business once. They left in 2003 and handed roughly $120 billion of advisor assets to TD Ameritrade on the way out. 23 years later, they’re buying their way back in, reported $4 billion or more. So let’s talk about what happened, why it matters, and where I think it goes from here. (02:48): What happened? On August 26th, 2026, a definitive agreement was announced out of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. A deal is closing later this year where Vanguard is acquiring Altruist, the relative upstart RIA custodian. The price, an undisclosed number, but a reported $4 billion, some outlets reporting $4.6 billion or more. Either way, more than double their last private market valuation at the end of April 2025. Another element is Altruist is staying as a standalone. They’ll keep their brand, CEO, management team, and operate the same model just as a wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard. Altruist in one breath, for those unaware, was a custodian and fintech company founded in 2018 by Jason Wenk. They became a self-clearing custodian, third largest as far as number of advisors served, north of 6,000 advisors, and had a reputation for serving smaller or upstart advisors, but recently started getting into more of the larger market breakaway space. (03:53): One estimate I’ve seen peg’s Altruist market share of RIA custody at around 6%, but you compare that to about three quarters of the market for Schwab and Fidelity combined. So a relatively small player, but a rapidly emerging player and threat in US RIA custody. This is not the first time Vanguard has been involved with Altruist. They reportedly were an early investor in Altruist back in 2020 and former Vanguard CEO, Bill McNabb, has been on the board of Altruist, so a lot of history between the firms. Let’s get into now why I think this is interesting for the industry as a whole. In my view, custody has never really been all that competitive, especially since TD Ameritrade sold to Schwab. You really had an oligopoly between Schwab and Fidelity. Sure, there’s a number of compelling, say more boutique custodians, whether Pershing Advisor Solutions, Goldman Sachs, which was another newer entrant to custody, LPL, Raymond James, First Clearing, and a number of others are also in the space, but it is a market that is dramatically dominated by the two largest players. (05:01): So I think this matters because you add an amazing venerable brand and reputation of Vanguard with this scrappy upstart custodian, and all of a sudden you can see a world where custody is one of the more competitive spaces in the industry. Altruist, in my view too, was one of the first credible challengers to the incumbent custodians in 20-ish years. Goldman has since picked up some decent market share and certainly they’re attractive for the segment of advisors. But Altruist with their tech-forward approach, low fees, and even just the way they went to market as an antagonist to Schwab and Fidelity, they’re a big deal and I think this just magnifies what they’re able to do. The gap though for Altruist was brand and reputation. Sure, they had amazing tech. No one ever has doubted that. Hazel AI, which they recently launched has been very well received. (05:55): Advisors I’ve worked with who have demoed the platform are incredibly impressed. The big Achilles heel though for Altruist has been my clients don’t know who Altruist is. Why would my clients put their millions of dollars of wealth with a self-clearing custodian that doesn’t have the same scale or reputation as the incumbent custodians? Well, that really goes away here. And at the end of the day, custody is really a trust business, but you’d have to think that a client would trust their assets held with Vanguard or with Altruist through Vanguard in a very similar way that they would trust assets held by Bank of New York Mellon or Charles Schwab or Fidelity Investments or Goldman Sachs. So to me, Vanguard acquiring Altruist solves that problem in one sentence, very simple. Why I think this makes sense for Vanguard? Salim Ramji, the CEO of Vanguard, has been saying since he arrived from BlackRock two years ago that only one in five Americans work with a fee-based financial advisor and that quality advice shouldn’t be a luxury good and this shortage is only going to get worse as advisors retire. (07:00): This is really him putting his money where his mouth is and really trying to make financial advice, human directed financial advice more accessible to everyday Americans and the upper echelons of wealth in this country. Vanguard as a company has over 50 million reported investors and over 12 trillion in assets. A lot of these people want Vanguard advice, but Vanguard hasn’t had the manpower or the capacity to deliver it itself. Buying Altruist over time can certainly solve that capacity gap and make it so that a human-based financial advisor or any of Vanguard’s internal platforms now have a greater ability to provide advice to Americans looking for financial advisors in the United States. I think this also means more distribution capability for Vanguard funds. Not that Vanguard has ever had a problem with distribution. They have a relatively small wholesaling force compared to other firms, but given their cost and reputation and performance, they’re really on pretty much every platform. (08:04): Most advisors have some clients that are invested into Vanguard mutual funds or ETFs, but this I think just gives them a greater ability to distribute Vanguard products, probably in a similar way to Goldman’s approach. When Goldman entered US RIA custody, in large part, they were doing it for distribution of different things. For Goldman, it was private markets and lending and other types of products. Vanguard is more ETFs and mutual funds, but Vanguard has also been pushing more into the private market space, so I can definitely see a world in which they can ratchet up the distribution of their products in a fairly cost-efficient way. I think to me, the most interesting thing about this marriage is the mission overlap is quite real. When Vanguard started, and to this day, their goal was to provide quality investment products at a fraction of the cost of the incumbents so that investing can be accessible to everyday Americans. (08:59): That’s exactly the verbiage that Jason Wenk and Altruist has used from the beginning, where they want to become a all-in-one hub or tech-enabled custodian so that an advisor, regardless of their size and a client regardless of their AUM, have the ability to get quality advice. I recently listened to a podcast called Acquired. We’ll link it in the show notes, but it’s a three-hour in-depth look into the building of Vanguard. And if you combine that with the podcast episode that I recorded with Jason Wenk, the CEO of Altruist, if you play them side by side, the parallels are eerily similar. So we’ll link both into the show notes, but I really think both of these firms were cut from the same cloth and really from the beginning, both have gone against the grain and tried to rattle incumbent players in the industry. So at least on paper, seems like a very good match. (09:51): Why does this deal make sense for Altruist? For one, for Jason Wenk and his leadership team, this has to be the outcome you drew up, maybe even better. Founding a new custodian in 2018, selling it in 2026, eight years later for over $4 billion, that’s a pretty incredible return on time for this team. They deserve it all and built something special and really entered into a space where no one wanted to venture just given the market share of the major incumbents, but good for them and has to feel good to pull off this type of sale. I think the big thing too is the buyer is the story. Vanguard as a company, it’s investor owned. They’re not private equity owned. They’re not VC backed like Altruist was. So Altruist can get off of the fundraising treadmill. They don’t have to worry about fund life or a five-year hold period or an eventual sale to a strategic. (10:42): Now they can really just focus on the business at hand, having one of the most well-capitalized companies in the world as their capital backer and owner. And every advisor on a PE-backed platform knows the question hanging over every relationship, who owns this next? That’s a question they won’t have to answer anymore at all, and they can really just focus now going forward. I think this also gives Altruist a fortress balance sheet and a ton of capital to keep pushing and developing their Hazel AI platform, which was launched in September 2025. Hazel’s an AI tax planning tool, kind of AI superpower that really has taken the industry by storm and has started to be sold as a standalone product to RIAs. And from what I’ve seen, they’ve sold it to over 1600 new RIAs just in the first month alone for $60 a seat per month, and that’s available to folks if they custody at Altruist or not. (11:36): So this, I think, just gives them an ability to distribute their fintech solutions and certainly develop their custody platform in a way that maybe was challenging or not as possible before. They can also take a longer term view instead of having to worry about they raised a series F, whatever comes after F and an eventual sale, investors wanting to get a return on capital, they can now focus on building over the long term, which has been Vanguard’s strategy all along. I think too, this will give Altruist the ability to invest in new capabilities that they didn’t have before, whether it’s lending or whether it’s more on the product side. It takes a lot to be a custodian. It seems like a relatively straightforward business just holding assets, but there’s a lot of products, solutions, really requirements that everyday investors and RIA clients have, and I think this will just ratchet up Altruist’s ability to close some of the capability gaps that they’ve had since they launched and they’re very transparent about those. (12:33): What I’m most excited about this, just coming from my vantage point in the industry, is why should an advisor care? To me, there’s five things that advisors should really take notice of with this acquisition. First one’s competition. Every time a well-capitalized player shows up, especially in custody, advisors win. Schwab and Fidelity have fought Vanguard in the asset management space for decades, and more recently in financial advice. Now you’re adding custody against a firm that doesn’t need to be profitable the next quarter, and all of a sudden we very much have an arms race and some competition is good for pricing, for service, for innovation, and I think this is going to be only positives for clients across the country, having another competitive option and keeping the incumbents really on their toes. Another reason, the breakaway shortlist has changed. Objection I always heard about Altruist was, “The tech is great, the AI seems cool, but how do I explain the name Altruist to a 68-year-old client who’s leaving Merrill or UBS or Morgan Stanley?” (13:42): While someone may still get some objections because Vanguard may not have the same brand cache as Goldman Sachs or UBS Private Wealth or Merrill Private Wealth, that objection got a lot weaker today. Really, it’s tech-forward independence now without a brand trade-off. It’s a genuinely different offer in the market than it was before. Third, I think this is one that hasn’t been talked about much, but should be watched closely, potential for referrals. Schwab confirmed last week that it was taking the SAN or the Schwab Advisor Network client referral minimum from two million to five million. For anyone not aware, referrals from the retail branches of Schwab and Fidelity are one of the major organic growth funnels for many of the top RIAs in this country and have driven valuations to billions and billions of dollars for firms that are in this program. (14:36): I really do see this as being a potential new massive referral opportunity of Vanguard existing clients and customers to Altruist custody to RIAs at a time when Schwab is trying to keep more of those referrals from themselves, which is a very savvy strategy, but at the same time, probably creates a bit of an opening for Altruist and Vanguard to become a really good referral hub for clients, which is a major draw for signing up new RIAs as clients, for breakaway advisors, et cetera. (15:07): So more details need to come there. We don’t even know if they’re starting a referral channel, but I have to imagine that’s high in the punch list and will be a very compelling offering in the marketplace. Yeah, think about it. Vanguard is 50 million investors and a CEO who said multiple times that they don’t have enough advisors or humans to deliver this advice. So perfect. You now have a massive array of RIAs and more and more coming to the table who offer that advice and being able to still serve them, still keep the assets in-house, but do it in a way where Vanguard doesn’t have to scale up their advisor force. They now have advisors to refer to. Fourth is pricing. I think the Vanguard effect is going to be real here. When Vanguard started, and even to this day, they’ve been the one who’ve pushed down the expense ratio on mutual funds and ETFs. (15:56): It’s been a massive benefit to investors across this country. It’s been Altruist’s playbook all along too, more focused on the advisor, so offering amazing tech and a custody platform for virtually no cost to an advisor. So I would say whatever you’re paying for technology, for custody, and really anything else that Altruist and Vanguard might touch, I would expect it to go down potentially and just have more pressures on the incumbent firms to really sharpen their pencil or to get more creative on pricing and innovation. I think that the fifth thing to keep in mind is Schwab has long used its scale and positioning in the market to best competitors, whether it was going to $0 on tickets for equities and ETFs, et cetera, a number of years ago or a number of other strategies they’ve taken. Now you have a firm that has similar scale as Schwab, a reputation for playing the long game and being comfortable making less money in the process. (16:54): So again, massive benefit to the advisors to have another major player driving down costs and increasing innovation in the space. But this is not all positives. As with anything, there’s the good and the bad, and also some open questions. The biggest, I think, downside or potential thing to watch here, and certainly if you are a BDO at a custodian, this is the line you’re using, “Vanguard has its own advice business, personal advisor, digital advisor, and a CEO who stated that his goal is that an advisor is in every investor’s pocket.” So now you have the custodian that’s holding your client’s assets also running one of the largest advice operations in the country. We’ve heard this concern in the past about Schwab or Fidelity where you have RA custody and then these firms have massive retail distribution networks. So certainly Vanguard, I think, will be in the same lane. (17:46): And if you look at a Pershing or an LPL or Raymond James, it’s a little bit different because they don’t have their own channels in the same way that Schwab or Fidelity do. So certainly if you’re BNY Mellon in particular, which is a straight B2B custodian, this is a clear point of differentiation for Vanguard, Altruist and certainly versus the other custodians. Next one is Vanguard has said that Altruist will remain a standalone business. The brand will stay intact, the management team, et cetera. But in fairness, every acquirer says versions of the same thing. The real test is let’s wait two years, three years and see how converging roles or similar roles across the firm start to converge into one, and over time will they more Altruist brand and human capital into one structure. (18:36): Right now we don’t know, but I’m always a bit skeptical with acquisitions that you have the honeymoon period, takes time for the deals to close, and then what happens a couple of years down the line? Either as there’s new executives in charge, there’s turnover, or just there’s certain synergies that can be had, and the best way to do it is by combining operations and the like. (18:56): The next risk, I think it might sound a little bit mundane, but it’s culture and speed. Vanguard based in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Altruist in LA, very different cultures. Altruist as a fintech company has been superfast to market, building, breaking things, innovating. And Vanguard, I think they’ve been extremely innovative on pricing, on product development, but I’ve never heard amazing reviews about Vanguard’s technology. So does this convergence of cultures create an issue? Does it create more bureaucracy for Altruist trying to build stuff? Is there a cultural mismatch when it comes to speed of market and innovation? And I think the last thing to keep in mind or to watch is the talent drainage at Altruist post-closing. Yes, I was a FinTech company and custodian offering equity, lots of upside for people that have taken this journey with them. Vanguard notoriously is the opposite. They don’t offer equity to anyone and they offer their employees high base salaries and you have a culture of longevity within the firm. (20:00): So after the lockup period is done for, or the earn out period is done for any Altruist equity owners and many of their employees, does that cause some talent drainage where folks want to go onto the next big thing, think what will happen to all the amazing SpaceX employees a year from now when their IPO lockups are done? Does that lead them to another opportunity? All these are questions I don’t know, but trying to play devil’s advocate. I think the biggest potential negative is just the Vanguard advice business as a competitor, a conflict to RIA custody. Let me give you a couple of predictions before we wrap here. I think Schwab and Fidelity will respond fast, whether it’s on the AI front or because the pressure is really on. I don’t know, maybe the $5 million referral minimum that Schwab just announced, maybe that sunsets after a period of time. I have no idea. (20:53): I’m also excited to see, we’ll call it the tech face off between Altruist and Robinhood. Robinhood acquired TradePMR, which is on the Wells Fargo First Clearing platform and is in the process of launching an RIA custodian themselves. So now you have, I think, two pretty incredible tech-forward custodians really trying to gain market share, so that will be fun to watch. Could there be a threat in the RIA platform space? So RIA platforms meaning RIAs, we call them supportive versions of independence, where advisors can plug into, they get technology, compliance, operations, et cetera, and still own their business. Given the end-to-end tech stack that Altruist boasts, and they’ve also been in development of their own corporate RIA, does that become that much more of a competitive feature that could possibly become a solution in and of itself that takes a dent out of these RIA platforms playbook? (21:45): I don’t know, but I think it’s possible. Altruist Hazel AI, does that push even well beyond custody? There’s a ton of AI and fintechs popping up around the industry. Hazel has certainly taken a lot of headlines and attention. With Vanguard behind it now, does that push the price lower? Does it help their distribution? Maybe you picture this, if you have a Vanguard-owned product sitting in the daily workflow of a competitor’s advisors, so let’s say you’re a Morgan Stanley, you’re a Schwab advisor, et cetera, do you now have a Vanguard-owned product in Hazel as part of your workflow or your fintech stack? Could be interesting. I will call a referral channel for Vanguard or Altruist, we’ll say within the next year or two. I think it would be crazy if that didn’t happen and that will be a massive disruptor. And finally, my prediction is more breakaways landing in Altruist. They’ve started to crack that door, but now with the powerful brand and reputation behind them, the sky’s probably the limit. (22:44): So in closing, a guy, Jason Wenk, started a company in 2018 in Los Angeles because he thought independent advisors deserve better software at a lower price. Eight years later, one of the most respected financial institutions in the world paid $4 billion for it, and the reason is he was right in that bet. There are always innovators showing up from outside the establishment, and every time one succeeds, advisors end up with more options and more leverage and more negotiating power than they had the year before. It’s a consistent theme across the industry. So nothing changes tomorrow, deals take time, deals have a way of falling apart, but if you’re evaluating custodians, thinking about independence for the first time, wondering whether your current partner is going to keep earning your business, today is a good day to reopen that question. And if you’re an advisor, I think cheer this on and be excited. (23:42): And as a industry participant, I am very excited to see how this deal takes hold and how this pushes the rest of the industry to innovate and continue to be better. So that’s it for today. Thank you for hearing my ramblings, and I’ll see you next time. Mindy Diamond (24:02): As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibilities seriously and are dedicated to your clients, but are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms or could a better option exist? Should I Stay Or Should I Go? Is a book written with you in mind. It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and roadmap to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions and think critically and objectively, whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook.   Vanguard Acquires Altruist: What It Means for RIAs, Custody & Breakaway Advisors With Louis Diamond Louis Diamond (00:06): Welcome to the latest episode of our podcast series for financial advisors. Today’s episode is a special rapid reaction industry update, Vanguard acquires Altruist, what it means for advisors in the industry. I’m Louis Diamond, and this is The Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond (00:28): At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. (01:21): Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our annual advisor transition report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Louis Diamond (02:05): Funny how the biggest news in the business almost never comes from the firms everyone is watching. On Wednesday, August 26th, 2026, Vanguard announced its acquiring Altruist. If you asked me a year ago to name the company most likely to buy an RIA custodian, Vanguard would not have been near the top of my list. Vanguard was in the RIA custody business once. They left in 2003 and handed roughly $120 billion of advisor assets to TD Ameritrade on the way out. 23 years later, they’re buying their way back in, reported $4 billion or more. So let’s talk about what happened, why it matters, and where I think it goes from here. (02:48): What happened? On August 26th, 2026, a definitive agreement was announced out of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. A deal is closing later this year where Vanguard is acquiring Altruist, the relative upstart RIA custodian. The price, an undisclosed number, but a reported $4 billion, some outlets reporting $4.6 billion or more. Either way, more than double their last private market valuation at the end of April 2025. Another element is Altruist is staying as a standalone. They’ll keep their brand, CEO, management team, and operate the same model just as a wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard. Altruist in one breath, for those unaware, was a custodian and fintech company founded in 2018 by Jason Wenk. They became a self-clearing custodian, third largest as far as number of advisors served, north of 6,000 advisors, and had a reputation for serving smaller or upstart advisors, but recently started getting into more of the larger market breakaway space. (03:53): One estimate I’ve seen peg’s Altruist market share of RIA custody at around 6%, but you compare that to about three quarters of the market for Schwab and Fidelity combined. So a relatively small player, but a rapidly emerging player and threat in US RIA custody. This is not the first time Vanguard has been involved with Altruist. They reportedly were an early investor in Altruist back in 2020 and former Vanguard CEO, Bill McNabb, has been on the board of Altruist, so a lot of history between the firms. Let’s get into now why I think this is interesting for the industry as a whole. In my view, custody has never really been all that competitive, especially since TD Ameritrade sold to Schwab. You really had an oligopoly between Schwab and Fidelity. Sure, there’s a number of compelling, say more boutique custodians, whether Pershing Advisor Solutions, Goldman Sachs, which was another newer entrant to custody, LPL, Raymond James, First Clearing, and a number of others are also in the space, but it is a market that is dramatically dominated by the two largest players. (05:01): So I think this matters because you add an amazing venerable brand and reputation of Vanguard with this scrappy upstart custodian, and all of a sudden you can see a world where custody is one of the more competitive spaces in the industry. Altruist, in my view too, was one of the first credible challengers to the incumbent custodians in 20-ish years. Goldman has since picked up some decent market share and certainly they’re attractive for the segment of advisors. But Altruist with their tech-forward approach, low fees, and even just the way they went to market as an antagonist to Schwab and Fidelity, they’re a big deal and I think this just magnifies what they’re able to do. The gap though for Altruist was brand and reputation. Sure, they had amazing tech. No one ever has doubted that. Hazel AI, which they recently launched has been very well received. (05:55): Advisors I’ve worked with who have demoed the platform are incredibly impressed. The big Achilles heel though for Altruist has been my clients don’t know who Altruist is. Why would my clients put their millions of dollars of wealth with a self-clearing custodian that doesn’t have the same scale or reputation as the incumbent custodians? Well, that really goes away here. And at the end of the day, custody is really a trust business, but you’d have to think that a client would trust their assets held with Vanguard or with Altruist through Vanguard in a very similar way that they would trust assets held by Bank of New York Mellon or Charles Schwab or Fidelity Investments or Goldman Sachs. So to me, Vanguard acquiring Altruist solves that problem in one sentence, very simple. Why I think this makes sense for Vanguard? Salim Ramji, the CEO of Vanguard, has been saying since he arrived from BlackRock two years ago that only one in five Americans work with a fee-based financial advisor and that quality advice shouldn’t be a luxury good and this shortage is only going to get worse as advisors retire. (07:00): This is really him putting his money where his mouth is and really trying to make financial advice, human directed financial advice more accessible to everyday Americans and the upper echelons of wealth in this country. Vanguard as a company has over 50 million reported investors and over 12 trillion in assets. A lot of these people want Vanguard advice, but Vanguard hasn’t had the manpower or the capacity to deliver it itself. Buying Altruist over time can certainly solve that capacity gap and make it so that a human-based financial advisor or any of Vanguard’s internal platforms now have a greater ability to provide advice to Americans looking for financial advisors in the United States. I think this also means more distribution capability for Vanguard funds. Not that Vanguard has ever had a problem with distribution. They have a relatively small wholesaling force compared to other firms, but given their cost and reputation and performance, they’re really on pretty much every platform. (08:04): Most advisors have some clients that are invested into Vanguard mutual funds or ETFs, but this I think just gives them a greater ability to distribute Vanguard products, probably in a similar way to Goldman’s approach. When Goldman entered US RIA custody, in large part, they were doing it for distribution of different things. For Goldman, it was private markets and lending and other types of products. Vanguard is more ETFs and mutual funds, but Vanguard has also been pushing more into the private market space, so I can definitely see a world in which they can ratchet up the distribution of their products in a fairly cost-efficient way. I think to me, the most interesting thing about this marriage is the mission overlap is quite real. When Vanguard started, and to this day, their goal was to provide quality investment products at a fraction of the cost of the incumbents so that investing can be accessible to everyday Americans. (08:59): That’s exactly the verbiage that Jason Wenk and Altruist has used from the beginning, where they want to become a all-in-one hub or tech-enabled custodian so that an advisor, regardless of their size and a client regardless of their AUM, have the ability to get quality advice. I recently listened to a podcast called Acquired. We’ll link it in the show notes, but it’s a three-hour in-depth look into the building of Vanguard. And if you combine that with the podcast episode that I recorded with Jason Wenk, the CEO of Altruist, if you play them side by side, the parallels are eerily similar. So we’ll link both into the show notes, but I really think both of these firms were cut from the same cloth and really from the beginning, both have gone against the grain and tried to rattle incumbent players in the industry. So at least on paper, seems like a very good match. (09:51): Why does this deal make sense for Altruist? For one, for Jason Wenk and his leadership team, this has to be the outcome you drew up, maybe even better. Founding a new custodian in 2018, selling it in 2026, eight years later for over $4 billion, that’s a pretty incredible return on time for this team. They deserve it all and built something special and really entered into a space where no one wanted to venture just given the market share of the major incumbents, but good for them and has to feel good to pull off this type of sale. I think the big thing too is the buyer is the story. Vanguard as a company, it’s investor owned. They’re not private equity owned. They’re not VC backed like Altruist was. So Altruist can get off of the fundraising treadmill. They don’t have to worry about fund life or a five-year hold period or an eventual sale to a strategic. (10:42): Now they can really just focus on the business at hand, having one of the most well-capitalized companies in the world as their capital backer and owner. And every advisor on a PE-backed platform knows the question hanging over every relationship, who owns this next? That’s a question they won’t have to answer anymore at all, and they can really just focus now going forward. I think this also gives Altruist a fortress balance sheet and a ton of capital to keep pushing and developing their Hazel AI platform, which was launched in September 2025. Hazel’s an AI tax planning tool, kind of AI superpower that really has taken the industry by storm and has started to be sold as a standalone product to RIAs. And from what I’ve seen, they’ve sold it to over 1600 new RIAs just in the first month alone for $60 a seat per month, and that’s available to folks if they custody at Altruist or not. (11:36): So this, I think, just gives them an ability to distribute their fintech solutions and certainly develop their custody platform in a way that maybe was challenging or not as possible before. They can also take a longer term view instead of having to worry about they raised a series F, whatever comes after F and an eventual sale, investors wanting to get a return on capital, they can now focus on building over the long term, which has been Vanguard’s strategy all along. I think too, this will give Altruist the ability to invest in new capabilities that they didn’t have before, whether it’s lending or whether it’s more on the product side. It takes a lot to be a custodian. It seems like a relatively straightforward business just holding assets, but there’s a lot of products, solutions, really requirements that everyday investors and RIA clients have, and I think this will just ratchet up Altruist’s ability to close some of the capability gaps that they’ve had since they launched and they’re very transparent about those. (12:33): What I’m most excited about this, just coming from my vantage point in the industry, is why should an advisor care? To me, there’s five things that advisors should really take notice of with this acquisition. First one’s competition. Every time a well-capitalized player shows up, especially in custody, advisors win. Schwab and Fidelity have fought Vanguard in the asset management space for decades, and more recently in financial advice. Now you’re adding custody against a firm that doesn’t need to be profitable the next quarter, and all of a sudden we very much have an arms race and some competition is good for pricing, for service, for innovation, and I think this is going to be only positives for clients across the country, having another competitive option and keeping the incumbents really on their toes. Another reason, the breakaway shortlist has changed. Objection I always heard about Altruist was, “The tech is great, the AI seems cool, but how do I explain the name Altruist to a 68-year-old client who’s leaving Merrill or UBS or Morgan Stanley?” (13:42): While someone may still get some objections because Vanguard may not have the same brand cache as Goldman Sachs or UBS Private Wealth or Merrill Private Wealth, that objection got a lot weaker today. Really, it’s tech-forward independence now without a brand trade-off. It’s a genuinely different offer in the market than it was before. Third, I think this is one that hasn’t been talked about much, but should be watched closely, potential for referrals. Schwab confirmed last week that it was taking the SAN or the Schwab Advisor Network client referral minimum from two million to five million. For anyone not aware, referrals from the retail branches of Schwab and Fidelity are one of the major organic growth funnels for many of the top RIAs in this country and have driven valuations to billions and billions of dollars for firms that are in this program. (14:36): I really do see this as being a potential new massive referral opportunity of Vanguard existing clients and customers to Altruist custody to RIAs at a time when Schwab is trying to keep more of those referrals from themselves, which is a very savvy strategy, but at the same time, probably creates a bit of an opening for Altruist and Vanguard to become a really good referral hub for clients, which is a major draw for signing up new RIAs as clients, for breakaway advisors, et cetera. (15:07): So more details need to come there. We don’t even know if they’re starting a referral channel, but I have to imagine that’s high in the punch list and will be a very compelling offering in the marketplace. Yeah, think about it. Vanguard is 50 million investors and a CEO who said multiple times that they don’t have enough advisors or humans to deliver this advice. So perfect. You now have a massive array of RIAs and more and more coming to the table who offer that advice and being able to still serve them, still keep the assets in-house, but do it in a way where Vanguard doesn’t have to scale up their advisor force. They now have advisors to refer to. Fourth is pricing. I think the Vanguard effect is going to be real here. When Vanguard started, and even to this day, they’ve been the one who’ve pushed down the expense ratio on mutual funds and ETFs. (15:56): It’s been a massive benefit to investors across this country. It’s been Altruist’s playbook all along too, more focused on the advisor, so offering amazing tech and a custody platform for virtually no cost to an advisor. So I would say whatever you’re paying for technology, for custody, and really anything else that Altruist and Vanguard might touch, I would expect it to go down potentially and just have more pressures on the incumbent firms to really sharpen their pencil or to get more creative on pricing and innovation. I think that the fifth thing to keep in mind is Schwab has long used its scale and positioning in the market to best competitors, whether it was going to $0 on tickets for equities and ETFs, et cetera, a number of years ago or a number of other strategies they’ve taken. Now you have a firm that has similar scale as Schwab, a reputation for playing the long game and being comfortable making less money in the process. (16:54): So again, massive benefit to the advisors to have another major player driving down costs and increasing innovation in the space. But this is not all positives. As with anything, there’s the good and the bad, and also some open questions. The biggest, I think, downside or potential thing to watch here, and certainly if you are a BDO at a custodian, this is the line you’re using, “Vanguard has its own advice business, personal advisor, digital advisor, and a CEO who stated that his goal is that an advisor is in every investor’s pocket.” So now you have the custodian that’s holding your client’s assets also running one of the largest advice operations in the country. We’ve heard this concern in the past about Schwab or Fidelity where you have RA custody and then these firms have massive retail distribution networks. So certainly Vanguard, I think, will be in the same lane. (17:46): And if you look at a Pershing or an LPL or Raymond James, it’s a little bit different because they don’t have their own channels in the same way that Schwab or Fidelity do. So certainly if you’re BNY Mellon in particular, which is a straight B2B custodian, this is a clear point of differentiation for Vanguard, Altruist and certainly versus the other custodians. Next one is Vanguard has said that Altruist will remain a standalone business. The brand will stay intact, the management team, et cetera. But in fairness, every acquirer says versions of the same thing. The real test is let’s wait two years, three years and see how converging roles or similar roles across the firm start to converge into one, and over time will they more Altruist brand and human capital into one structure. (18:36): Right now we don’t know, but I’m always a bit skeptical with acquisitions that you have the honeymoon period, takes time for the deals to close, and then what happens a couple of years down the line? Either as there’s new executives in charge, there’s turnover, or just there’s certain synergies that can be had, and the best way to do it is by combining operations and the like. (18:56): The next risk, I think it might sound a little bit mundane, but it’s culture and speed. Vanguard based in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Altruist in LA, very different cultures. Altruist as a fintech company has been superfast to market, building, breaking things, innovating. And Vanguard, I think they’ve been extremely innovative on pricing, on product development, but I’ve never heard amazing reviews about Vanguard’s technology. So does this convergence of cultures create an issue? Does it create more bureaucracy for Altruist trying to build stuff? Is there a cultural mismatch when it comes to speed of market and innovation? And I think the last thing to keep in mind or to watch is the talent drainage at Altruist post-closing. Yes, I was a FinTech company and custodian offering equity, lots of upside for people that have taken this journey with them. Vanguard notoriously is the opposite. They don’t offer equity to anyone and they offer their employees high base salaries and you have a culture of longevity within the firm. (20:00): So after the lockup period is done for, or the earn out period is done for any Altruist equity owners and many of their employees, does that cause some talent drainage where folks want to go onto the next big thing, think what will happen to all the amazing SpaceX employees a year from now when their IPO lockups are done? Does that lead them to another opportunity? All these are questions I don’t know, but trying to play devil’s advocate. I think the biggest potential negative is just the Vanguard advice business as a competitor, a conflict to RIA custody. Let me give you a couple of predictions before we wrap here. I think Schwab and Fidelity will respond fast, whether it’s on the AI front or because the pressure is really on. I don’t know, maybe the $5 million referral minimum that Schwab just announced, maybe that sunsets after a period of time. I have no idea. (20:53): I’m also excited to see, we’ll call it the tech face off between Altruist and Robinhood. Robinhood acquired TradePMR, which is on the Wells Fargo First Clearing platform and is in the process of launching an RIA custodian themselves. So now you have, I think, two pretty incredible tech-forward custodians really trying to gain market share, so that will be fun to watch. Could there be a threat in the RIA platform space? So RIA platforms meaning RIAs, we call them supportive versions of independence, where advisors can plug into, they get technology, compliance, operations, et cetera, and still own their business. Given the end-to-end tech stack that Altruist boasts, and they’ve also been in development of their own corporate RIA, does that become that much more of a competitive feature that could possibly become a solution in and of itself that takes a dent out of these RIA platforms playbook? (21:45): I don’t know, but I think it’s possible. Altruist Hazel AI, does that push even well beyond custody? There’s a ton of AI and fintechs popping up around the industry. Hazel has certainly taken a lot of headlines and attention. With Vanguard behind it now, does that push the price lower? Does it help their distribution? Maybe you picture this, if you have a Vanguard-owned product sitting in the daily workflow of a competitor’s advisors, so let’s say you’re a Morgan Stanley, you’re a Schwab advisor, et cetera, do you now have a Vanguard-owned product in Hazel as part of your workflow or your fintech stack? Could be interesting. I will call a referral channel for Vanguard or Altruist, we’ll say within the next year or two. I think it would be crazy if that didn’t happen and that will be a massive disruptor. And finally, my prediction is more breakaways landing in Altruist. They’ve started to crack that door, but now with the powerful brand and reputation behind them, the sky’s probably the limit. (22:44): So in closing, a guy, Jason Wenk, started a company in 2018 in Los Angeles because he thought independent advisors deserve better software at a lower price. Eight years later, one of the most respected financial institutions in the world paid $4 billion for it, and the reason is he was right in that bet. There are always innovators showing up from outside the establishment, and every time one succeeds, advisors end up with more options and more leverage and more negotiating power than they had the year before. It’s a consistent theme across the industry. So nothing changes tomorrow, deals take time, deals have a way of falling apart, but if you’re evaluating custodians, thinking about independence for the first time, wondering whether your current partner is going to keep earning your business, today is a good day to reopen that question. And if you’re an advisor, I think cheer this on and be excited. (23:42): And as a industry participant, I am very excited to see how this deal takes hold and how this pushes the rest of the industry to innovate and continue to be better. So that’s it for today. Thank you for hearing my ramblings, and I’ll see you next time. Mindy Diamond (24:02): As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibilities seriously and are dedicated to your clients, but are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms or could a better option exist? Should I Stay Or Should I Go? Is a book written with you in mind. It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and roadmap to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions and think critically and objectively, whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook.  

“The AI data center build-out is already the biggest infrastructure project, inflation-adjusted, that we've ever undertaken as a society.”  That's Sebastian Schaal, co-founder and Managing Director of Luminovo, an AI software company specializing in electronics supply chain management. I wanted to talk to Sebastian about how executives respond when key components are seeing 20X the demand of pre-2022 levels.   What You'll Discover In This Episode  How 20-year old electronics have become a hidden risk for aerospace and defense companies How AI data centers are disrupting your electronics supply chain The model VC's pushed him to build…and what he built instead Leadership lessons from building a team of 100+ Why Sebastian turned down more VC money (and who's funding him now)   About the Guest Sebastian Schaal is the Co-Founder and Managing Director of Luminovo, an AI software company that aims to turn electronics supply chain into a competitive advantage. He is also the Revenue department lead, overseeing and aligning activities across Growth, Sales, Customer Success and Revenue Operations. Connect with Sebastian on LinkedIn or sign up for the Luminovo newsletter.   About Your Host Craig Picken is an Executive Recruiter, writer, speaker, and ICF Trained Executive Coach. He is focused on recruiting senior-level leadership, sales, and operations executives in the aviation and aerospace industry. His clients include premier OEMs, aircraft operators, leasing/financial organizations, and Maintenance/Repair/Overhaul (MRO) providers, and since 2008, he has personally concluded more than 400 executive-level searches in a variety of disciplines. Craig is the ONLY industry executive recruiter who has professionally flown airplanes, sold airplanes, and successfully run a P&L in the aviation industry. His professional career started with a passion for airplanes. After eight years' experience as a decorated Naval Flight Officer – with more than 100 combat missions, 2,000 hours of flight time, and 325 aircraft carrier landings – Craig sought challenges in business aviation, where he spent more than 7 years in sales with both Gulfstream Aircraft and Bombardier Business Aircraft. Craig is also a sought-after industry speaker who has presented at Corporate Jet Investor, International Aviation Women's Association, and SOCAL Aviation Association.    Resources For more aerospace industry news & commentary: https://craigpicken.com/insights/.  To learn more about Craig Picken, visit https://craigpicken.com/.  

Chris is the Co-Founder and CEO of Drive Capital. Prior to Drive, Chris was a Partner at Sequoia Capital where he helped launch the firm's first growth fund. Chris left Sequoia in 2012 to start Drive in Ohio on a single bet: the best companies in America are getting built outside Silicon Valley (and almost nobody's funding them). Thirteen years later, Drive has handed back over $1 billion to its investors in a market where most funds can't return a dollar.We talk chasing $2B outcomes instead of $50B, when his lead investor pulled out the day he moved from SF to Columbus, why only 100 of 3,500 firms can raise right now, the welders quitting to drive DoorDash, and why America is the best emerging market on earth.Thanks to this episodes sponsors!Numeral: Sales tax on autopilot https://www.numeral.comFlex: Premium banking, 60-day credit, 0% APR https://home.flex.one/referral/bananacapitalAmplitude: AI analytics https://www.amplitude.comMerge: Every model, one API https://www.merge.dev/turnerMonaco: The revenue engine for startups https://www.monaco.com/Timestamps:(0:00) America is the best emerging market(8:13) Why this couldn't have happened pre-2006(10:48) Top lessons from 10 years at Sequoia(14:17) Why the "meeting factory" model fails(21:42) Searching for vacuums(24:51) Sequoia passed on a company 10 miles too far(29:37) Greece's GDP equals Detroit's(34:34) The biggest tech companies aren't in SF(40:28) 223 meetings to raise Fund 1(44:27) Turning one fund into a product catalog(48:47) The day his biggest LP pulled out(52:08) Fundraising is a persistence game(57:36) Returning $500M in a single week(59:56) Only 12 companies hit $50B in 20 years(1:01:29) Why Drive owns 30%, not 10%(1:05:03) Returns over logos, the carry math(1:10:00) Mindset of VC's outside SF(1:15:54) How AI unlocks boring, giant markets(1:19:22) Investing in catalysts, not sectors or geo(1:25:35) 3,500 firms raised, 100 survived(1:31:33) OpenAI won't eat every other company(1:37:46) Compete with yesterday's version of yourself(1:40:19) Small changes, compounding resultsReferencedDrive Capital: http://drivecapital.com/Follow ChrisTwitter: https://x.com/ChrisOlsenCMHLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cholsenFollow TurnerTwitter: https://twitter.com/TurnerNovakLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/turnernovakSubscribe to my newsletter to get every episode + the transcript in your inbox every week: https://www.thespl.it/

CVS Health operates one of healthcare's largest consumer platforms, with businesses spanning health insurance, pharmacy benefits, retail pharmacy, care delivery and digital channels. This creates a rare opportunity to understand the full journey people navigate as they seek care, fill prescriptions, manage coverage and work to stay healthy. The company's overarching goal is not simply to improve each touchpoint. It is to remove the fragmentation that forces patients to piece care together on their own across multiple channels and organizations.In this episode of Healthcare is Hard, Keith Figlioli talked to CVS Health's head of enterprise customer experience, insights and innovation, Sri Narasimhan, to learn how the company uses customer signals, AI, and agentic twins to make healthcare more proactive and consumer-centered.Sri brings an unusually broad background to this challenge. He worked in Bangladesh and India on tuberculosis control, HIV initiatives and public health during college, but then decided to branch out so he could ultimately bring a more diverse skillset back to the healthcare industry. He started an economic consulting firm before going to business school. Then he joined GE, where he learned about commercial functions and consumer value. After GE, he worked at the tech company Medallia, where he sharpened skills around speed of innovation, and then moved to Wells Fargo where he worked as head of customer experience for branch banking, learning how to operate in a highly regulated environment.In 2021, Sri joined CVS Health where his work now sits at the intersection of consumer strategy and AI. During this interview, Sri shared his vast knowledge and experience to discuss topics including:Navigating bureaucracy. Sri points out that patients do not benchmark healthcare against other health plans, pharmacies or health systems. They compare it with the simple experiences they have everywhere else. He says most people want answers to four questions: Is it covered? What will it cost? When can I get it? And can I trust the answer? Healthcare's tendency to bury those questions in process and bureaucracy is a major source of frustration that Sri is focused on addressing.AI versus primary care. Trust grows when people get something valuable, and Sri expects consumers to increasingly turn to AI for quick answers about symptoms, diagnoses and side effects as those tools become more useful and accurate. But for serious health issues, he believes the provider relationship will remain essential. AI may change the questions patients bring to clinicians – and which interactions require a clinician at all – but people will still want a trusted human when the stakes are high.Agentic twins revolutionizing consumer research. Sri calls this technology one of the most transformational capabilities he has seen because it allows CVS Health to simulate the reactions of roughly 150,000 individual consumers in minutes. Through consented interviews, behavioral data and other context, CVS Health built digital twins of actual consumers that simulate how they think and act. Instead of recruiting a new panel, running a focus group or launching a small pilot every time the company wants to test an idea, CVS can assemble the relevant population from its bank of agentic twins and pressure-test messages, choices and scenarios before going live. As Sri puts it, “I have 150,000 patients in the room with us."To hear Sri and Keith discuss these topics and more, listen to this episode of Healthcare is Hard: A Podcast for Insiders.

This Week In Startups is made possible by: Lightfield https://lightfield.app Northwest Registered Agent https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/twistdomain Rippling https://Rippling.ai/twist   Today's show: *Bill Gates dropped a 6,000 word warning: AI will be "the greatest equalizer ever invented, or the worst sort of injustice." The Microsoft icon has an AI agenda for the US: new national institutions, AI use taxes, and jobs legally reserved for humans only. Our VC roundtable guests — Sheel Mohnot (Better Tomorrow Ventures), Dave McClure (Practical Venture Capital), and Hussein Kanji — push back hard. Is taxing profits a better fix for AI taking jobs than taxing the tokens themselves? PLUS: Meta's $17B kids safety settlement… does it go far enough? Why does Stripe want OpenRouter? A peek at the VC's actual portfolio mark-ups. AND begun, the AI agent wars have. Our panel chooses between OpenClaw, Instinct, and Grok Bot. Guests Sheel Mohnot on X: https://x.com/pitdesi Better Tomorrow Ventures: https://www.btv.vc/ Dave McClure on X: https://x.com/davemcclure Practical Venture Capital: https://practicalvc.com/ Hussein Kanji on X: https://x.com/hkanji Hoxton Ventures: https://hoxtonventures.com/ Relevant Links GatesNotes: "The turbulent AI era is here": https://www.gatesnotes.com/a-turbulent-ai-era-and-critical-choices-to-make NPR: Meta settlement coverage: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/26/nx-s1-5944781/meta-settlement-child-safety-lawsuit TechCrunch: Stripe agrees to buy OpenRouter: https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/16/stripe-will-reportedly-acquire-ai-gateway-startup-openrouter-for-7b/ Skild AI S1 Demo: https://www.skild.ai/blogs/s1 Instinct AI agent (waitlist): https://instinct.co/ TechCrunch: Instinct coverage: https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/24/instincts-powerful-ai-assistant-is-raising-privacy-and-security-concerns/ CNBC: OpenAI CFO says IPO is coming in 2027: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/19/open-ai-ipo-timing-2027-friar.html Basis: https://www.getbasis.ai/ TaxGPT: https://www.taxgpt.com/ Cusp AI: https://cusp.ai/ Abacus: https://goabacus.co/ Micro1: https://www.micro1.ai/ Mottu: https://mottu.com.br/ EquityBee: https://equitybee.com/ Kiva: https://www.kiva.org/ Timestamps: 0:00 It's Hussein's first time on the VC Roundtable! 2:09 Gates says "turbulent era" for AI is here 8:56 Microloans, Kiva, and "universal basic income" 9:23 Thanks to our partner, Lightfield, the AI-native CRM that updates itself, so you never have to! Try it for free at https://lightfield.app 13:00 Why sole proprietorships may be AI's biggest beneficiary 20:29 Got a new business idea? Northwest helps you bring it to life. Get a free domain, email, phone number, and more, with no purchase required! Learn more at https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/twistdomain 21:00 Should the gov't take a stake in AI labs? 30:24 Thanks to our partners at Rippling! Head to https://Rippling.ai/twist to get the only AI built to give you full visibility across your startup and take complex actions across your entire business. 32:44 Meta's $17.1B settlement 45:14 Is anything still fundable outside of AI? 46:29 Stripe and SpaceX deals 55:54 Skild AI's pancake flipping demo 59:49 Sheel's Hottest Takes 1:04:37 Dave's Charts 1:09:07 Who loses money when there are no IPOs? 1:16:49 The Agent Wars heat up 1:24:56 Everyone's favorite investments   Subscribe to the TWiST500 newsletter: https://ticker.thisweekinstartups.com Check out the TWIST500: https://www.twist500.com Subscribe to This Week in Startups on Apple: https://rb.gy/v19fcp   Follow Lon: X: https://x.com/lons   Follow Jason: X: https://twitter.com/Jason LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasoncalacanis   Thank you to our partners: (0:00) PARTNER - AD BLURB (0:00) PARTNER - AD BLURB (0:00) PARTNER - AD BLURB Check out all our partner offers: https://partners.launch.co/   Great TWIST interviews: Will Guidara, Eoghan McCabe, Steve Huffman, Brian Chesky, Bob Moesta, Aaron Levie, Sophia Amoruso, Reid Hoffman, Frank Slootman, Billy McFarland   Check out Jason's suite of newsletters: https://substack.com/@calacanis   Follow TWiST: Twitter: https://twitter.com/TWiStartups YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thisweekin Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thisweekinstartups TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thisweekinstartups Substack: https://twistartups.substack.com

Produced by Foundersuite (for startups: www.foundersuite.com) and Fundingstack (for emerging manager VCs: www.fundingstack.com), "How I Raised It" goes behind the scenes with startup founders and investors who have raised capital. This episode is with with Matt Ober of Social Leverage, a San Diego-based venture capital fund that invests in FinTech and Vertcal AI startups. Learn more at https://socialleverage.com/. In this episode, Matt shares his journey from working at a quant hedge fund to becoming a VC, trends in FinTech and Vertical AI, tips for using Claude and MCPs for raising capital, how they use content to attract the best founders, advice for emerging VC managers, tips for founders, and more. How I Raised It is produced by Foundersuite, makers of software to raise capital and manage investor relations. Foundersuite's customers have raised over $21 Billion since 2016. If you are a startup, create a free account at www.foundersuite.com. If you are a VC, venture studio or investment banker, check out our new platform, www.fundingstack.com

This week on Swimming with Allocators, allocator Michael Wooten shares his journey from early fascination with investing to managing capital across multiple family offices and building a venture program in Silicon Valley. He explains how family offices differ based on principals' goals and control, why venture and growth equity should be treated as distinct risk buckets, and what he learned starting a venture effort from scratch. The conversation also covers trends in secondaries and SPVs, the challenges of liquidity and cyclicality in venture portfolios, the merits of generalist versus specialist strategies, and how LPs really diligence fund managers, emphasizing curiosity, communication, alignment, and not working with people who are difficult or misaligned. Also, Sidley's Michael Poldony explains how secondaries and tender offers have become a standard step on the path to IPOs, how strategic investors and secondary-only funds are reshaping late-stage liquidity, and why careful structuring, valuation awareness, and legal guidance are critical for both companies and allocators participating in these transactions. Highlights from this week's conversation include: Michael's Early Money Story and Buffett Inspiration (0:21) First Atlanta Family Office Role and Exposure to Alternatives (4:57) Control Dynamics at a Silicon Valley Family Office (7:28) Lessons From Building a Venture Program During 2020 (10:27) Curiosity, Tenacity, and Fit for a Career in Venture (13:33) Storytelling, Execution, and Being Differentiated but Underwritable (16:58) Secondaries as a Standard Step on the IPO Journey (21:59) Who Is Buying Growth Secondaries and Related Legal Considerations (24:49) Blended Valuations in Combined Primary and Secondary Rounds (27:56) Reconciling Capital-Efficient Startups With Mega AI Rounds (29:38) How Allocators Should Think About Venture's Role and Cyclicality (31:39) Pet Peeves About Manager Behavior and Treatment of LPs (37:16) Running Snowball Adventures SPVs and Ensuring LP Alignment (39:25) Final Thoughts and Episode Wrap-Up (41:07) Michael Wooten is the Founding Partner of Snowball Adventures, a private angel syndicate to invest in early-stage companies with adventurous founders tackling big, bold problems. With over fourteen years of experience in alternative investments, asset management, and entrepreneurship, I am a passionate and driven investor. I leverage my expertise and education to invest in and support innovative and impactful startups, such as Boardy, Function Health (via Getlabs acq.), CalypsoAI (acquired), Spoak Décor, Fellow Health, Nota AI, Solace Health, and Chooch AI. Motivated by insatiable curiosity, I bring a diverse perspective and a collaborative approach to my work and I enjoy continuously learning from and empowering others. Sidley Austin LLP is a premier global law firm with a dedicated Venture Funds practice, advising top venture capital firms, institutional investors, and private equity sponsors on fund formation, investment structuring, and regulatory compliance. With deep expertise across private markets, Sidley provides strategic legal counsel to help funds scale effectively. Learn more at sidley.com. Swimming with Allocators is a podcast that dives into the intriguing world of Venture Capital from an LP (Limited Partner) perspective. Hosts Alexa Binns and Earnest Sweat are seasoned professionals who have donned various hats in the VC ecosystem. Each episode, we explore where the future opportunities lie in the VC landscape with insights from top LPs on their investment strategies and industry experts shedding light on emerging trends and technologies.  The information provided on this podcast does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this podcast are for general informational purposes only. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode I sit down with Eleanor Warnock, a writer, journalist and communications expert based in London who has worked for The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times's Sifted, and the Reid Hoffman-backed AI company Every. She's currently an advisor to Bek Ventures, ranked the top-performing VC firm globally since 2010 by HEC-Dow Jones, and holds an MBA from INSEAD. Eleanor is about to launch her own venture, and this conversation ranges across the state of journalism's business model, the myth of the one-person billion-dollar AI company, and where AI and taste collide.We get into why she thinks journalism is heading toward a handful of consolidated giants and a long tail of one-person outlets, why Every's hybrid of media and consulting works, and why even she needed a lawyer to check the incorporation documents Claude wrote for her. We also dig into taste: why she thinks it's really about cultural status, why the tech world wants it and can't build it, and where in her own daily workflow she lets Claude in and where she keeps it firmly out.Enjoy the show.

In this episode, we sit down with Nadya Okamoto, serial entrepreneur and creator who founded PERIOD at 16, went on to build period care brand August, and is now Co-Founder and CMO of social app Pie.We discuss why every founder should become a creator, how building an audience can become a competitive advantage, why posting more can outperform perfect content, the unglamorous reality of building a startup, and why the next generation of companies will need to compete for attention.If you're interested in entrepreneurship, startups, content creation, social media, marketing, personal branding, or understanding how attention can become a business advantage, this episode is for you.This episode is supported by Sydecar, HEX, Wispr Flow, Granola, Beehiiv, KalshiSydecar: https://sydecar.io/partners/trailblazersbeehiiv: www.beehiiv.com/splash?utm_campaign=trailblazers-2026-Partnership&utm_medium=podcast&utm_source=trailblazers&utm_term=podcast-12&stripe_campaign_code=TRAILBLAZERS30 (or use code “trailblazers30” for 30% OFF)Granola: http://granola.ai/trailblazers*Granola is the official notetaker of Trailblazers! Check out the episode show notes here: https://notes.granola.ai/t/744dba26-26b1-4095-aee4-3d54531745fb-008umkv4Kalshi: http://Kalshi.com/r/trailblazersWispr Flow: https://ref.wisprflow.ai/trailblazersHEX: http://hex.ai/trailblazers

Erika Lucas spent years inside private equity and venture capital, the rooms that decide who gets funded in America. Then she left to build what goes around them. In this episode, she tells Saadia Khan exactly what investors say about founders once they've walked out. Erika was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and came to rural Oklahoma at 13 with her mother and sister, speaking no English. She went back. She built a career in Mexico, returned to the U.S., ran foreign direct investment for the State of Oklahoma, became a private equity partner—and then walked away to co-found StitchCrew, which has brought capital and networks to hundreds of founders the system overlooks. She also founded VEST, a peer network for women professionals, and VEST Her Ventures, a fund backing women-led companies in the care economy. Her TEDx talk, America's Trillion Dollar Blindspot, argues the money in this country is pointed the wrong way. She and Saadia get into the part most founder conversations skip: not how to pitch better, but who is on the other side of the table and why they keep writing checks to people who look like them. Erika's advice to founders is not what you'd expect from a former VC; she'd rather talk you out of raising venture at all. You can connect with Saadia on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠IG ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@itssaadiak⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Find Erika Lucas on IG at @erika_07 Email:saadia@immigrantlypod.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host & Producer: Saadia Khan I Content Writer: Saadia Khan I Editorial review: Shei Yu I Sound Designer & Editor: Lou Raskin I Immigrantly Theme Music: Simon Hutchinson | Other Music: Epidemic Sound Immigrantly Podcast is an Immigrantly Media Production. For advertising inquiries, contact us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠info@immigrantlypod.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BOYOT (Belong On Your Own Terms) ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠is the next step. It's our new app, designed to help you think through identity, culture, ambition, relationships, and the stories we carry with guided reflections, prompts, and frameworks developed over years of conversations on this show. It's thoughtful. It's challenging. And honestly, it's the kind of space many of us wish existed earlier in our lives. If you're ready to go deeper than the podcast, subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠BOYOT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and start the journey. Don't forget to subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Immigrantly Uninterrupted⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠for insightful podcasts. Follow us on social media for updates and behind-the-scenes content. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What does it actually take to win in venture capital?Harlem Capital co-founder and Managing Partner Henri Pierre-Jacques joins Maria to unpack a decade of lessons. They talk about how to identify exceptional founders, why the best VC deals take years to build, the growing importance of an investor's personal brand, and why founders should reference-check their VCs.Henri also shares Harlem Capital's approach to investment decisions, what it takes to make partner, how AI has changed the way he reflects and creates, and why he believes “winners want to be around winners.”

(0:00) Thank you to all participants of the Boardroom Governance Summit (Aug 26-27, 2026)  (0:16) Intro *Boardroom Governance YouTube Channel launch. (1:45) About the podcast sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel. (2:31) Start of interview.  (3:25) Origin Story of Marc Huffman (6:26) About OnBoard (10:35) AI Risks for SaaS and OnBoard (12:46) Directors Using AI in Shadows. His ideal board books. (17:05) Building a Better AI Policy (20:44) Agentic AI for Boards. Semantics search inside the board portal. (23:30) Recording Risks in Meetings (27:34) Improving Board Effectiveness (29:44) Public, Private, and Governance (32:50) The Private Markets Shift (37:37) AI and Board Dynamics. Empowering Independent Directors. (41:40) Semantic Search and Governance IQ Breakthrough (institutional memory). (44:15) Models, Costs, and Trust (47:26) Book that has greatly influenced his life: Shantaram, by Gregory David Roberts (2003) (48:17) His mentors (49:22) Quotes that he thinks of often or lives his life by "I'm a product of my own expectations" (49:43) An unusual habit or an absurd thing that he loves.  (50:35) The living person he most admires. Marc Huffman is the CEO of OnBoard, a global leader in digital board governance solutions, serving over 6,000 boards worldwide. You can follow Evan on social media at:Website: boardroom-governance.comX: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BoardroomGovernance__To support this podcast you can join as a subscriber of the Boardroom Governance Newsletter at https://evanepstein.substack.com/__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Jeff Mains sits down with Elie Bouzaglou, founder of Fish Tank, a video-first crowdfunding platform built for a generation that discovered entrepreneurship on their phone. Elie built an AI voice-call analysis tool as an internal sales tool at his web agency, only to have his team push him to bring it to market. After getting rejected by Republic, Wefunder, and every major crowdfunding platform, Elie didn't blame his product — he blamed the format. Pitch decks are boring, gatekept, and built for VCs, not consumers. His answer: a platform where founders pitch like content creators and everyday people can watch and actually invest, Shark Tank style. The conversation covers building in public, going "all in" on a risky content bet that proved his thesis before launch, why the next Mark Zuckerberg is more likely to be an ex-UGC creator than a programmer, and his "carefully reckless" framework for tackling the thing founders are most afraid of.Key Takeaways3:48 — How Elie's internal AI sales tool became a product because his team saw value he didn't.6:15 — Why the tool wasn't VC fundable, and the pivot toward crowdfunding.10:30 — The core insight: crowdfunding's real problem isn't quality, it's that discovery is boring.13:01 — Why people will binge-watch Shark Tank but can't invest in it — and how Fish Tank closes that gap.17:10 — The "pushing a car" metaphor: starting is the hardest part, momentum does the rest.19:46 — His trick for beating camera-shyness: film it and tell yourself you won't post it.28:54 — Why the next Zuckerberg probably won't be a programmer — it'll be an ex-UGC creator.36:42 — The "carefully reckless" framework: name the thing you're avoiding, write it down, do it.37:31 — The story of betting nearly his last dollar on a content shoot with a VC-turned-content-creator — and how it proved his thesis before launch.40:19 — Why investors are just people, and being seen with flaws beats not being seen at all.41:59 — On dealing with online hate: most of it comes from jealousy, not dislike.Tweetable Quotes"The worst possible case scenario is no one knows who you are. It's not bad PR — that's where you're at right now, and it can only get better." — Elie Bouzaglou"You have to be carefully reckless. What is the thing you are delaying the most? What is the thing you're most afraid of? And just do it." — Elie Bouzaglou"It's always easier to build than to start from zero." — Elie Bouzaglou"I believe the next Mark Zuckerberg will not be a programmer. He'll probably be an ex-UGC person." — Elie Bouzaglou"The greatest success is just on the other side of that fear." — Jeff Mains"When someone hates on you and takes time out of their day to comment, it's because they're jealous — not because they actually dislike what you're doing." — Elie BouzaglouSaaS Leadership LessonsShip it even if you don't see the value. Elie almost never brought his internal tool to market — his team had to convince him. Don't assume "anyone could build this" means no one wants it.Question the format, not just the product. When rejected by every platform, Elie didn't fix his pitch — he concluded the entire crowdfunding format was broken and built a new one.Momentum beats planning. His "pushing a car" philosophy: the hardest part is starting; perfect names, decks, and plans can wait.Break big fears into small, reversible actions. Film it without posting. Schedule it with the option to cancel. Small, low-stakes steps unlock big behavior changes.Distribution is a founder skill now, not a marketing afterthought. Building in public and mastering short-form content may matter more than technical pedigree for the next generation of founders.Bet asymmetrically on your scariest move. Spending nearly his last dollar on a content shoot was terrifying — but the asymmetric upside (VC access, proof of concept, investor DMs) made it the right kind of reckless.Guest Resourceselie@fishtank.vchttps://www.fishtank.vceliebouzaglou.comeliebouzaglou.com/linkshttps://www.linkedin.com/in/elie-bouzaglo/https://www.instagram.com/ftnk.elieEpisode 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

Bad startup advice usually comes from smart, successful, well-meaning people. That's exactly what makes it so hard to catch.A prototype-stage hardware founder was told by a reputable investor at a large VC firm never to raise less than $5 million, which implies a valuation around $20 million. That ask would have gotten her laughed out of every investor meeting I've ever sat in. The investors I actually work with would want to see $750,000 at $3 to $4 million pre-money.He wasn't running a scam. He was answering a question about a company that wasn't hers.Every piece of startup advice is aimed at a specific company, real or imagined. It assumes a stage, a level of capital intensity, an opportunity size, and something about what the founder actually wants. Advisors rarely state those assumptions out loud, and most aren't even aware of them. Your job isn't to decide whether the advice is good. It's to work out what company it was built for, and whether that's yours.In this episode I cover how that $20 million valuation would have wrecked her next round and burned her best investors, the handful of advisors genuinely worth running from, including success fees that are illegal in the US unless the person is a registered broker-dealer, and why advice from the most credible sources is the hardest to question.Then I get into where the same mismatch shows up outside fundraising, in process, in pricing, and in technology decisions. How much scrutiny a piece of advice deserves, scaled to how hard it would be to undo. What valuation methodologies are really used for, which is not what you'd hope. And the bias built into my own videos, stated plainly, so you can discount me appropriately.It comes down to two questions. Is this advice for you? And how hard would it be to undo?LinksBook a first call with me, one hour, $500, refundable if we're not a fit: https://api.leadconnectorhq.com/widget/bookings/first-council-call?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=show_notes&utm_campaign=ep134-advisorsFull write-up: https://ftb.bz/134BWatch the video version: https://ftb.bz/134VFree fundraising toolkit: https://ftb.bz/raiseNotesNo timestamps, no podcast link, per your instruction. Links go to blog and video only.Toolkit uses the generic ftb.bz/raise. Podcast volume doesn't justify a dedicated short link.Booking link carries utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=show_notes. Plenty of listeners never open show notes at all, so treat low numbers here as normal rather than as a problem with the copy.Some directories cap descriptions around 4,000 characters and strip formatting. This is well under, and it degrades fine to plain text.

Vc já entrou no nosso grupo?http://orelo.cc/diariodebordo

Send us Fan MailDanny Murawinski built Exit Built from a laptop, sold equity to a trade association instead of a VC, then hired his own replacement as CEO. In this episode he walks through the mindset behind two companies, the hardest year of his life, and how he's building advertising audiences at scale with his new company, Allora Labs.What You'll Learn:How Danny landed a defensible company valuation without a "magic formula"Why he turned down five acquisition offers before taking the right investmentThe moment that led him to hire a CEO and fire himself from day-to-day operationsWhat Allora Labs actually does with privacy-safe advertising audiencesThe rock-bottom story behind his "extreme ownership" mindsetAbout Danny: Danny Murawinski is the founder of Exit Built and founder/CEO of Allora Labs, building privacy-compliant advertising audiences for brands across Meta, LinkedIn, X, and Connected TV. (Bio assembled from transcript + public sources — flagged below, please confirm.)Links:Exit Built: https://exitbuilt.com/Allora Labs: https://alloralab.com/Palm Harbor Local newsletter: [link]Enjoyed this one? Subscribe, leave a review, and share it with someone building something hard right now.Show sponsored by Valley Bank — www.valley.comStroll through the laid-back streets of the Palm Harbor community with this informative podcast, proudly brought to you by Donnie Hathaway with The Hathaway Group, your trusted guide and local expert in navigating the diverse and ever-changing property landscape of Palm Harbor. Work with me + FREE Resources Would you like help buying a home in Palm Harbor? - Buyer ConsultationWould you like help selling your house in Palm Harbor? - Seller Marketing ConsultationDownload our free buyer's guide today - Buyer's Guide

WATCH 'The Dick & Paul Show' on YouTube: https://youtu.be/LtLBhBp5T40 This episode is sponsored by Fidelity Investments and the all-new Fidelity Trader+ platform. Try Fidelity's most powerful trading experience yet: https://Fidelity.com/TraderPlus Fidelity Investments and MRKT Call are not affiliated. Views, opinions, products, services, and strategies discussed are not endorsed or promoted by Fidelity Investments. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Member NYSE, SIPC. Dan Nathan sits down with Paul Costolo, former CEO of Twitter and current VC. They start with Dick's early comedy days (Second City alongside Steve Carell, two SNL auditions that didn't pan out) and his stint writing for HBO's Silicon Valley, before diving into his path from founding FeedBurner to running Twitter through its IPO — including candid stories about the culture shift from private to public company life, and a surreal late-night run-in with Jack Dorsey in Paris in the middle of Elon Musk's takeover drama. From there they get into Dick's venture firm, 01 Advisors, and his thesis on investing in the AI "enablement layer" (the infrastructure sitting above the models) rather than chasing the flashiest apps. Dick shares his read on today's eye-popping valuations — including Stripe's $7 billion acquisition of OpenRouter and a leaked investor letter claiming "the singularity happened on New Year's Day" — and gives his predictions for the coming wave of AI IPOs, arguing Anthropic and SpaceX are well positioned while OpenAI could face a tougher road given its executive turnover and messaging challenges. They close by talking about prediction markets (and the striking gap between how well people think they're doing on platforms like Kalshi versus reality), before wrapping up with a plug for Dick's own podcast, the Dick and Paul Show. —FOLLOW USYouTube: @RiskReversalMediaInstagram: @riskreversalmediaTwitter: @RiskReversalLinkedIn: RiskReversal Media The financial opinions expressed in Risk Reversal content are for information purposes only. The opinions expressed by the hosts and participants are not an attempt to influence specific trading behavior, investments, or strategies. Past performance does not necessarily predict future outcomes. No specific results or profits are assured when relying on Risk Reversal. Before making any investment or trade, evaluate its suitability for your circumstances and consider consulting your own financial or investment advisor. The financial products discussed in Risk Reversal carry a high level of risk and may not be appropriate for many investors. If you have uncertainties, it's advisable to seek professional advice. Remember that trading involves a risk to your capital, so only invest money that you can afford to lose. Derivatives are not suitable for all investors and involve the risk of losing more than the amount originally deposited and any profit you might have made. This communication is not a recommendation or offer to buy, sell or retain any specific investment or service.

We talk a lot on this show about root causes...what you eat, what you're exposed to, what you're healing inside of. This episode is about the one almost nobody checks: the air in your own home. Ariana Thacker is a chemical engineer and venture capitalist who, by her own description, was a highly functional human — daily boot camp, dialed-in diet, running a VC firm solo. Within months of moving into a new apartment, she was rereading simple emails just to process them, losing clumps of hair, and getting winded on the stairs. She saw more than a dozen providers — immunologists, allergists, pulmonologists, neurologists, PCPs — and none of them ran the right test. Most didn't believe mold could cause a whole-body inflammatory response at all. It took a Shoemaker-certified physician to name it: CIRS, chronic inflammatory response syndrome. She had one of the "dreaded" HLA haplotypes — part of the roughly 24% of the U.S. population that can't clear biotoxins on its own. She got better. Then she built the road she'd just clawed her way down. Ariana is the founder and CEO of MoldCo, a virtual clinic that answers three questions: Am I being exposed? Is mold making me sick? How do I get better? — with a $199 home test and a lab panel that starts at $56, roughly a tenth the cost of what most people pay to guess. Jen shares her own story too: a mold inspection that came back clean, and the leak found years later behind the living room wall by the family who bought the house. In this episode Why "highly functional" doesn't protect you — and how fast the symptoms started The 24% with a genetic susceptibility to mold, and what HLA haplotypes actually mean What CIRS is, and why ~80% of cases trace back to a water-damaged building Why the urinary mycotoxin test may be sending people down the wrong path — and the inflammatory markers (MMP9, MSH, TGF beta-1, C4A) that matter more How to hire a mold inspector who's actually qualified — the certifications to ask for and the 70-page report you should expect Why mold grows within 24–48 hours of water intrusion, and why new builds can be worse, not better The "canary effect": why one person in a house gets sick and nobody else does Prescription binders vs. natural binders — and why the natural route can take ten times longer Do air purifiers actually help? Moldy coffee and protein powder: is ingested mold the real threat, or is it what you're breathing? The environmental red flags to walk your own house for this week If you take one action Look up Shoemaker biotoxin symptom clusters (S-H-O-E-M-A-K-E-R). If a lot of those boxes light up for you — you only need one symptom per box to count — that's a strong signal to investigate your environment. Then walk your home for: that earthy, musty odor (especially in a basement), visible mold, peeling or cracking paint, warped flooring, dust on your HVAC vents, and indoor humidity consistently above 60%. Connect with Ariana MoldCo — moldco.com Instagram — @themoldcompany LinkedIn — in/arianadthacker X — @m0ldilocks

Story of the Week (DR):L3Harris ousts CEO after investigation into conduct MML3Harris Technologies, the company that overhauled a Qatari plane now used as Air Force One, has replaced Christopher Kubasik as chairman and chief executive after an investigation determined he violated the defense contractor's code of conduct.Kubasik's alleged conduct didn't involve and has no impact on the Melbourne, Fla., company's financial reporting, controls, customer relationships or operational performance, L3Harris said Monday.The company didn't give details on when it received a report of the potential violation. With the aid of independent counsel, the board determined that Kubasik's removal would be in the company's best interest, L3Harris said. He will be allowed to retain and exercise some previously vested stock options but won't receive severance payments, benefits or accelerated stock-based awards.L3Harris Technologies Appoints Sam Mehta, Proven Aerospace and Defense Executive, as President and Chief Executive Officer“The Board determined that the Executive engaged in conduct that was not consistent with the values of the Company as outlined in its Code of Conduct.”Kubasik will still hold onto some of his options that can net him stock worth about $23 million, as well as more than 200,000 shares of stock in L3Harris that he already owns, valued at nearly $57 million. L3Harris has paid Kubasik compensation valued at $66.3 million during the past three years, including $25.6 million in fiscal 2025.The separation disclosure says the L3Harris board decided to reach a deal with Kubasik to get him to leave rather than trying to fire him for cause. Kubasik did not admit to any violation of the company code of conduct, and the deal expressively forbids any of the parties or their representatives from making public statements “inconsistent” with Monday's disclosure.AND THIS:Women at L3Harris Shared Concerns About CEO's Behavior Years Before OusterIt was a warning that was shared among women who worked for Chris Kubasik: Avoid being alone with the executive and be careful on the corporate jet.Multiple women at defense contractor L3Harris Technologies LHX had raised concerns about Kubasik's behavior, including a formal complaint from one woman to human resources that was made around 2023, according to people familiar with the matter. The employee accused the CEO of sexual harassment, the people said.Kubasik stayed on in his role. The woman left L3Harris. Not all L3Harris board members were briefed on the 2023 complaint and it is unclearOusted L3Harris CEO was previously forced out of Lockheed Martin jobChristopher Kubasik's ouster as the L3Harris CEO was not the first time he was forced out of a company amid an allegation of misconduct.In 2012, Kubasik was set to become the CEO of Lockheed Martin when he was forced to resign after an ethics investigation confirmed that he had a close personal relationship with a subordinate employee.Why Do Boards Keep Giving Misbehaving CEOs Second Chances?L3Harris Technologies' LHX chief executive is out because of misconduct allegations, and it isn't the first time: More than a decade ago, Christopher Kubasik resigned from Lockheed Martin because he was accused of having a relationship with a subordinate.The Crucial Moment That Companies Miss After They Oust a CEOIt matters how a company responds to a scandal once it's caught in one, most blow the moment by choosing secrecy over transparency. It's an opportunity to reset the culture that led to the breach in the first place, but instead “your PR team and your legal team tell you ‘Don't dig into these things—it's not good for the company,' so you silence all the debates.”.Meta faces a $1.4 trillion threat that could mean ‘turning in the keys and walking away'—but the stakes of the case reach across techThe trial involves a coalition of 29 state attorneys general in a unified case against Meta that was brought in 2023, and will be argued by lawyers representing California, Colorado, New Jersey and Kentucky. The stakes are enormous as leading government officials across the country push for Meta to be held accountable for allegedly violating federal and state laws, including the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, and various consumer protection statutes.States accuse Meta of targeting children for Facebook, Instagram addiction: 'The young ones are the best ones'Meta whistleblower told jury the company took a 'don't ask, don't tell' approach to kids' safety‘Harvest their data and hide the truth from the public': Four states seek billions from Meta over child safety practicesSEC says it will stop responding to no-action requests ‘entirely'The Securities and Exchange Commission plans to stop responding to no-action requests “entirely … effective immediately,” the agency said in a statement Friday.The decision comes after the SEC sat out the bulk of the no-action process during the 2025-26 proxy season. Investor advocates have since sued the agency, alleging the change violates the Administrative Procedure Act.AI data center outrage is showing up everywhere from ads to electionsAI data center outrage is showing up everywhere from ads to electionsGOP Begs AI Firms to Fix Data Centers' “Toxic Brand” to Help Midterm Chances As A.I. Data Centers Spread, Pressure Mounts to Share ProfitsThe Data Center Industry's PR Blitz Is BackfiringData center backlash echoes fossil-fuel politicsMajor data center bills advance in California despite industry pushbackThe ‘Country Hicks' Who Refused $26 Million from an AI Data Center Bad news for Jason Kelce: Postal Service rules say you shouldn't mail pee to data centersPoliticians Who Once Championed Data Centers Are Now Bashing ThemPennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro cracks down on data centers, says speculators are 'scaring our communities'Data centers are using more electricity than anyone predicted. What happens next?Trump oblivious to voter fury about data centers, saying ‘the jobs are enormous and the money paid, the taxes paid, are just enormous'Politicians Turn Against Data Centers as Anger Over AI SpreadsAmazon is buying rare books and destroying them to train its AI modelsThe team's logo features a dinosaur holding a book.Data center hysteria is the new woke | OpinionBring back the corporate death penaltyMore formally known as judicial dissolution, the corporate death penalty basically happens when the government is so pissed off by the corruption or damage a corporation causes that it yanks away their charter.Andreessen Horowitz Focus of DOJ Probe Over Board DirectorsVenture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz is the focus of a Justice Department antitrust probe over whether its investment partners are improperly serving on the boards of competing artificial intelligence companies, according to people familiar with the matter.The companies at issue include Databricks Inc., one of the most valuable privately held technology companies in the world, and Fivetran Inc., both backed by the VC firm, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing a confidential matter. Andreessen Horowitz co-founder Ben Horowitz serves on the board of Databricks, and partner Martin Casado is a board member of Fivetran. Both companies help businesses collect, organize and analyze massive troves of data.Goodliest of the Week (MM/DR):MacKenzie Scott gave California public education $461 million—and let the recipients decide how to spend every dollarMM: Andreessen Horowitz Focus of DOJ Probe Over Board Directors DRAssholiest of the Week (MM):Bill Brown and Robert Millard DRNever accountable for anything directorsL3Harris ousts CEO after investigation into conductHistory lesson:Kubasik hired in 2015 after Lockheed disaster firing, hired as COO and PresidentPresiding CEO: Michael Strianese, Chair from 2008, CEO from 2006Board: Claude Canizares (71, MIT physics professor, 2003)Thomas Corcoran (72, Carlyle, consulting, 1997)Ann Dunwoody (64, only woman, US Army Gen, 2013)Lewis Kramer (69, EY accountant, 2009)Robert Millard (66, MIT Chair, Lehman until 2008 collapse, LID, 1997)Lloyd Newton (74, only PoC - token black guy - US Air Force General, 2012)Vincent Pagano, Jr (66, lawyer, Simpson Thacher, chair of nom, 2013)Hugh Shelton (75, US Army Gen, 2011), Arthure Simon (85, accountant, 2001)8 white men, 1 woman, 1 black dude2018, Kubasik named CEO of L3 TechnologiesMichael Strianese retires and Kubasik takes overSame exact board minus Strianese2019, L3 and Harris merge to be L3HarrisKubasik added to L3Harris board, named COO and President of the company under Bill Brown, CEO and ChairSurviving the board merger:Thomas CorcoranRobert Millard - LID, nom memberLloyd Newton - chair of nomLewis KramerAdjacent - Roger Fradin of Carlyle on board, Corcoran also of CarlyleJune 2021, Kubasik becomes CEO and Bill Brown moves to exec chair (obviously)Board:Sallie BaileyBill BrownPeter ChiarelliThomas CorcoranThomas Dattilo (nom) - ex tire CEORober GradinHarry HarrisLewis Hay III (nom) - lawyer, ex CEo of NextEraLewis KramerRita LanRobert Millard (nom) - MIT Chair, LehmanLloyd Newton (nom chair) - generalSo given that the CEOs choose their successors, the nom committees approve them, the rest of the board rubber stamps it… we can thank:Michael Strianese - hires Kubasik, names him CEO at L3, despite Lockheed problemsNom approval: Ann Dunwoody (64, only woman, US Army Gen, 2013), Vincent Pagano, Jr (66, lawyer, Simpson Thacher, chair of nom, 2013), Hugh Shelton (75, US Army Gen, 2011) - a nom committee composed of the ONLY woman, two generals and a lawyer - all of whom are the LOWEST TENURED ON THE BOARD at the timeThen Bill Brown - names Kubasik CEO of combined L3Harris, one year of babysitting as exec chairNom approval: Thomas Dattilo (nom) - ex tire CEO, Robert Millard (nom) - MIT Chair, Lehman, Lloyd Newton (nom chair) - generalFamiliar names: Millard and Newton - see Kubasik all the way throughAnd the CEOs and directors can keep failing… Bill Brown on the Becton Dickinson boardRobert Millard on the Green Dot Corp (nom!), iHeartMedia, Evercore (nom!) boardsBrought on to iHeart board just 3 years after an exec there went on a racial slur rant, the company was sued for gender and wage discrimination, and a radio host of the companies were accused of severe harassment - not sure what will change?Dario Amodei“Public benefit corporation” Anthropic: Anthropic Prepares Supervoting Power for Founders as it Readies for Mega-IPOBoard: Dario Amodei, Daniela Amodei (President, Dario's sister), Yasmin Razavi (VC, crypto and prediction market investor), Reed Hastings (Netflix), Chris Liddell (ex Trump WH Deputy Secretary), and Vas Narasimhan (Novartis) - zero “public benefit” (or even public safety) peoplePublic Benefit Corporation: “A benefit corporation's directors and officers operate the business with the same authority and behavior as in a traditional corporation, but are required to consider the impact of their decisions not only on shareholders but also on employees, customers, the community, and the local and global environment”What is the impact of supervoting shares? AI on society? AI on the environment? Who on this board is even remotely qualified to answer those questions?Paul AtkinsExhausting and perpetual gaslightingSEC says it will stop responding to no-action requests ‘entirely'In order to focus Division resources on the review of Securities Act and Exchange Act filings, including those reviews that are statutorily required, for the protection of investors and facilitation of capital formation, and in light of the extensive body of guidance from the Commission and the staff available to both companies and proponents on Rule 14a-8, the Division has determined to discontinue responding to Rule 14a-8 no-action requests entirely, including those submitted under Rule 14a-8(i)(1),[2] effective immediately, unless and until the Division announces otherwise. It also will no longer respond to notices filed under Rule 14a-8(j) with a letter indicating that it will not object if a company omits a proposal from its proxy materials.From the 1934 House Report about the importance of Rule 14a-8: “Fair corporate suffrage is an important right that should attach to every equity security bought on a public exchange.”“Managements of properties owned by the investing public should not be permitted to perpetuate themselves by the misuse of corporate proxies. Insiders having little or no substantial interest in the properties they manage have often retained their control without an adequate disclosure of their interest and without an adequate explanation of the management policies they intend to pursue. Insiders have at times solicited proxies without fairly informing the stockholders of the purposes for which the proxies are to be used and have used such proxies to take from the stockholders for their own selfish advantage valuable property rights. Inasmuch as only the exchanges make it possible for securities to be widely distributed among the investing public, it follows as a corollary that the use of the exchanges should involve a corresponding duty of according to shareholders fair suffrage. For this reason the proposed bill gives the . . . Commission power to control the conditions under which proxies may be solicited with a view to preventing the recurrence of abuses which have frustrated the free exercise of the voting rights of stockholders.Investors Slam SEC Plan to Remove Best-Price RuleAtkins also is listening to the crypto bros who want to offer “tokenized securities” off exchanges and is hoping to eliminate a really basic rule that says “investors are entitled to the best price available for stocks they buy”Separately, DOJ Withdraws Antitrust Guidance for Proxy Advisory Industry - no antitrust protections for ISS (good!) but still can't do anything about the socialist NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA (bad!)Headliniest of the WeekDR: Popular breakfast chain closes half its restaurantsDR: The man leading Trump's RTO charge for government workers says he filmed a video in front of a blank wall to avoid work-from-home suspicionOffice of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Scott Kupor, the key driver of President Donald Trump's return-to-office agenda, admitted in a hot mic moment that he intentionally filmed a video in front of a blank wall while he was working from home so he wouldn't get blowback over working at home.“I was in my bedroom, but I was trying to find—because I knew someone was going to give me shit if like, they knew, ‘You were out of the office.' …I was trying to find something that was not recognizable as being in my house, basically. So I was just trying to find a plain corner with a white wall, which was not that easy to find.”Kupor was the first employee hired by Andreessen and Horowitz's venture capital firm, Andreessen Horowitz.MM: Flock Says It's “Taking a Break” From Responding to Media RequestsMM: Eric Schmidt is selling his superyachtWho is this headline for? Billionaire yacht buyers? Poor people who hate billionaires with yachts?Who Won the Week?DR: The women at L3Harris Shared Concerns About CEO's Behavior Years Before OusterMM: Joshua Ramer, the CEO at PeopleReturn (one of the last vestiges of diversity data in the US), whose newsletter today did the most Free Float thing I've seen anyone other than us do: they tracked a single Getty Image across SIX different company reportsThe image was called 1325876463 “Young Boy Leaping Into Father Arms In Playground”, mostly for sustainability reports because it's brown peopleThey found it in Danaher, Crown Castle, TD, Capital One, CSL Plasma, and Toyota EuropePredictionsDR: The meritocro-mano-sphere-o hires Christopher Kubasik again without any push back from anything or anyoneMM: We decide that, since everyone is trying to make companies immune from climate change lawsuits, that we just make CEOs personally immune for any behavior

Dan Michelini, VP of Sales at Acrisure, joins me to discuss his unique path into the industry. Making a massive career pivot at age 37, Dan transitioned from tech consulting and venture capital into insurance - starting with 100 cold calls a day and driving home in tears before finally catching his big break. We discuss how he applies Ryan Holiday's teachings on Stoicism to his daily leadership, the vital difference between a sales manager and a sales coach, and a brilliant case study on how a 24-year-old producer stole a marquee account from a 10-year veteran by selling his "inexperience." Dan also pulls back the curtain on the M&A landscape, sharing what made his former agency an attractive acquisition for Acrisure and what agency owners need to know about selling in 2026.▶▶ Sign Up For Your Free Discovery Callhttps://completegameu.com/request-a-callTimestamped Outline(00:00) Introduction: Welcome Dan Michelini(01:26) A Career Pivot at 37: From Tech Startups and VC to Insurance Sales(05:06) College Football Chaos: Notre Dame, Luke Fickell, and the NIL Era(08:52) The Daily Stoic: How Ryan Holiday's Philosophy Shapes Dan's Leadership(11:45) Calm Amidst the Chaos: Why Producers Must Avoid Extreme Highs and Lows(12:40) Case Study: How a Young Producer Beat a 10-Year Veteran by Selling Hunger(17:40) The 100 Cold Call Grind: Driving Home in Tears and Finding the Breakthrough(21:06) The Ripple Effect: How One Small Deal Led to Millions in Revenue Over 20 Years(25:56) Advice for New Producers: Bring Infectious Energy and Listen More Than You Talk(28:51) Sales Manager vs. Sales Coach: The Power of Servant Leadership(33:29) Hoops History: Playing for a Young Gregg Popovich at Pomona College(36:00) The Acrisure Acquisition: Why Greg Williams' Pitch Stood Out in 2017(41:42) Advice for Sellers: Navigating Valuations and Protecting Your People(43:59) Dan's Lightning Round: Wordle, MapTap, 175-Degree Saunas, and Jack ReacherCONNECT WITH ANDY NEARY

In this episode of Tank Talks, host Matt Cohen sits down with Karl Holmqvist, co-founder and CEO of Lastwall, a FedRAMP-certified identity security platform built for the highest-risk use cases. Karl has been deep in cybersecurity since the 1990s, with early experience building critical infrastructure, including Canada's first high-speed mobile data network, and a recent focus on identity security at the forefront of making systems quantum-resilient. In this conversation, they explore the evolution of Lastwall from early behavioral biometrics and cognitive signals to today's hybrid post-quantum cryptography.They also dig into the journey to FedRAMP approval and what it really takes to sell to the hardest customers on the planet, from the DOD's Innovation Unit to critical infrastructure operators globally. Karl shares his view on why hybrid cryptography is the only responsible path right now, the magnified risk of the AI agent era, and his strongly held belief that when it comes to quantum resiliency, you're either going to be too early or too late.Whether you're a founder navigating a path into regulated markets, a security leader thinking about the agentic AI era, or just curious about what it takes to protect critical infrastructure, Karl delivers a grounded, technical, and occasionally unsettling look at where identity security is headed.–A big thanks to our sponsor, Moomoo CanadaThis is the kind of tooling that used to live on a Bloomberg terminal, but now it is on your phone, just a few taps away. They offer real-time data, full options chains, and an AI assistant that actually explains trading strategies.Moomoo is the perfect place for people who want to take their money seriously. Open an account today at moomoo.caGrowing Up in Dubai During the Gulf War (03:50)* Karl's childhood in Dubai as an expat during the Gulf War* Visiting the USS Nimitz and seeing 5,000 people living on an aircraft carrier* How jets overhead and allied ships shaped his early view of technology and defense* The BBS era and the thrill of finding information that wasn't available to everyoneFrom Mobile Data Skepticism to Building Canada's First High-Speed Network (05:31)* Why people thought mobile internet was “the stupidest thing” in the early 2000s* Building a data-only carrier when no one believed you'd want internet everywhere* The Nokia Communicator as his favorite tech gadget and early glimpse of mobile data* Connecting critical infrastructure and discovering default credentials left wide openThe Wake-Up Call: Wastewater Plants and Unsecured Dams (12:58)* Finding a wastewater flow control valve dangling on the internet with admin/admin credentials* The “air-gapped” power plant where an engineer plugged his BlackBerry in to charge* How Shodan and friends revealed dams and power facilities publicly accessible* The founding of Lastwall: “Hackers will be everywhere. We've got to do something.”From Behavioral Biometrics to Quantum Resilience (19:11)* Why 85% of hacks still use valid stolen credentials, the same as the 1990s* Early experiments with keyboard dynamics, mouse movements, and cognitive biometrics* Tracking Peter Shor's algorithm since university and the IBM factorization of 15 in 2001* The 2017 to 2018 decision to embed quantum resiliency natively into LastwallSelling to the Pentagon: DIU and the “Hard Mode First” Strategy (26:07)* Landing the first major deployment with the U.S. Department of Defense Innovation Unit* How DIU pioneered procurement that matches innovation cycles, months instead of years* The advice from Carbon Black founders: build the regulated stack first* Why defense tech used to shut VC doors and how times have changedFedRAMP, Canada, and the Case for Harmonization (33:25)* FedRAMP as the gold standard: do compliance once, reuse everywhere* The Canadian challenge: every agency doing its own security review* Why Canada should base its program on NIST 800 and harmonize with the U.S.* The reality of the integrated North American power grid and shared defenseAI Agents and the Blast Radius of Credential Theft (37:44)* Why 50 to 100 agents per human in 2 to 3 years will magnify damage exponentially* The OpenClaw lesson: agents do what agents do, not what you expect* The “YOLO” approach to AI deployment and why enterprises aren't calling enough* Advice for founders: sandbox first, don't connect your whole drive, go slowlyThe $60M Series A Extension and the Path Forward (43:13)* Raising BDC Capital's Strong North Fund led by Major General (Ret.) Peter Dawe* The milestone of FedRAMP certification and opening the floodgates to U.S. agencies* Deploying in disconnected environments: field containers for critical infrastructure* Why defense is ultimately about protecting the economyAbout Karl HolmqvistKarl Holmqvist is co-founder and CEO of Lastwall, an identity-as-a-service platform built on Zero Trust principles and public key infrastructure, hardened with post-quantum cryptographic resilience. Lastwall serves the U.S. Department of Defense and a growing number of civilian government agencies and critical infrastructure operators. Karl has been a cybersecurity enthusiast since the 1990s, with a background spanning telecommunications infrastructure (including building one of Canada's first high-speed mobile data networks), renewable energy infrastructure across the Middle East, North Africa, and Southern Europe, and international investing. He studied at Mount Allison University and is based in Vancouver, BC.Connect with Karl Holmqvist on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karlholmqvist/Visit Lastwall's website: https://www.lastwall.com/Connect with Matt Cohen on LinkedIn: https://ca.linkedin.com/in/matt-cohen1Visit the Ripple Ventures website: https://www.rippleventures.com/ This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tanktalks.substack.com

Vic Levitin is a serial founder who built companies in Israel for two decades before fleeing the war with his young family to the island of Koh Samui, Thailand. His first SaaS company, CrazyLister, grew out of his own e-commerce business where he needed a simple way for eBay sellers to build professional listings without knowing HTML. CrazyLister raised about $700K, then a similar second round, and grew to nearly $2M ARR before stalling. Today it runs profitably at roughly $1M ARR. Vic later spent four years co-founding Diptera.ai, a deep-tech venture using a larval-stage breakthrough to suppress malaria-carrying mosquitoes, now backed by the Gates Foundation. From Thailand, Vic now runs an AI-powered venture studio built on one rule: no code gets written until he proves he can generate demand. He partners with domain experts and influencers who already own trusting audiences, which is a model that took his AI-influencer platform to $90K MRR in 18 months, now extending to smaller niches like dog trainers. Key Takeaways Distribution First: Prove you can generate demand and revenue before a single line of code is written. Repeat vs. First: First-time founders obsess about product; repeat founders obsess about distribution. Partner for Reach: Bring on experts and influencers who already own a trusting audience. Micro-Niches Win: AI makes it viable to build dedicated apps for tiny verticals like dog trainers. Time to Money: Chase the fastest path to the first $100 in MRR to make everything real. Quote from Vic Levitin, Founder of CrazyLister "My technical co-founder Yair could build anything, even before AI came along. But we have an agreement, and it's a simple one. "He doesn't write a single line of code — whether from his own brain or with AI — before I prove to both of us that I can generate demand and revenue for whatever we're building. "That agreement formed the way we build now. We're a venture studio, and we solve distribution first by partnering with domain experts who already have trusting audiences." Links Vic Levitin on LinkedIn Crazy Lister on LinkedIn Crazy Lister website Diptera.ai (prior venture) Podcast Sponsor – Vista Point Advisors This podcast is sponsored by Vista Point Advisors, a leading investment bank for founder-led software, AI, and internet companies. Vista Point works exclusively on the sell side, providing unconflicted M&A and capital raising advice to help founders maximize business value, evaluate their options, and realize ideal outcomes.   The Practical Founders Podcast Tune into the Practical Founders Podcast for weekly in-depth interviews with founders who have built valuable software companies without big funding. Subscribe to the Practical Founders Podcast using your favorite podcast app or view on our YouTube channel. Get the weekly Practical Founders newsletter and podcast updates at practicalfounders.com. Practical Founders CEO Peer Groups Be part of a committed and confidential group of practical founders creating valuable software companies without big VC funding.  A Practical Founders Peer Group is a committed and confidential group of founders/CEOs who want to help you succeed on your terms. Each Practical Founders Peer Group is personally curated and moderated by Greg Head.

Ari Paparo and guest co-host Paul Knegten sit down with Jack Raines, author of Young Money, to discuss how viral LinkedIn posts, humor, and attention-driven marketing helped him build a 61,000-subscriber newsletter, land a book deal, and create a personal brand. The episode also covers OpenAI, WPP, Walmart Connect, Taboola, Google's AI advertising strategy, LiveRamp, and Higgsfield. Takeaways: Jack Raines turned provocative LinkedIn posts into a subscriber acquisition engine for his newsletter. Authentic personality and calculated controversy can generate attention, but the product still needs to deliver. Free content can create indirect value through book sales, consulting opportunities, and deal flow. Making a product or brand easy and fun to share can create an organic marketing flywheel. The episode also explores major developments across AI, retail media, ad tech, and the open web. Chapters:00:00 Introduction with Ari Paparo and Paul Knegten02:20 Meet Jack Raines, Author of Young Money04:02 Turning LinkedIn Trolling Into a Growth Strategy07:23 The Viral Hotel Breakfast Post10:32 Is Shitposting a Real Marketing Strategy?13:16 Knowing Where to Draw the Line14:38 From Viral Posts to Newsletter, VC, and a Book Deal18:00 Writing and Marketing Young Money24:23 Building Buzz Around a Book Launch27:03 The Marketing Lessons Behind Jack's Strategy29:17 What Brands Can Learn From Internet Personalities31:47 OpenAI Leadership Shakeup33:55 WPP Rebate Fraud Allegations37:31 Walmart Connect's Advertising Growth40:55 Teads, Taboola, and NBCUniversal44:56 Are Ad Networks Making a Comeback?45:01 Google's AI-Powered Advertising Strategy47:44 LiveRamp Deal and Executive Pay51:47 Higgsfield and the Future of AI Video Advertising54:04 Closing Guests: Ari Paparo, Jack Raines, Paul Knegten Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In This Episode Of Business Lunch: We tackle a question every founder faces: do you build your business for cash flow now or for a big exit later, and can one company really do both? They dig into why bootstrapped owners have far more options than funded ones, how cash left sitting in a company quietly turns into bloat, and how to pay yourself regular distributions without hurting a future sale.Chapters:0:00 Cold open0:36 Welcome and where this question came from0:55 Can one business deliver both cash flow and a big exit1:57 The path VC funding locks you into3:45 Why bootstrapped owners have more flexibility9:19 How cash left in the company creates bloat11:35 The cash flow waterfall and budgeting for distributions12:34 How VC backing changes the exit itself14:06 Building reserves for refunds and emergencies16:20 Regular distributions or waiting for the big exit18:54 Wrap upListen to Business Lunch:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/business-lunch/id1442654104Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0iWSA89TaD263zhXETdSvZConnect with Roland Frasier:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rolandfrasier/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rolandfrasier/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@rolandfrasierFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/RolandFrasierPage/Everything else: https://msha.ke/rolandfrasier/Connect with Ryan Deiss:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ryandeiss/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryandeiss/X: https://x.com/ryandeissSite: https://www.scalable.co

In this episode of Better Call Daddy, host Reena Friedman Watts sits down with Kiko Zang, business executive, tech founder, and opinion leader building human-centric consumer products. Kiko is the Founder & CEO of Chomp, a social game that rewards honesty instead of punishing it and she's on a mission to fix what she calls the "performative internet." Kiko opens up about her path from boarding school in China to New Zealand and the United States, the anti-authoritarian streak she carried as a kid, and the long road to understanding her own identity across cultures. The conversation gets candid as she discusses her experience with open relationships and how it reshaped her views on love, trust, kindness, and loyalty then turns to the bigger picture: why social media rewards performance over authenticity, why women in particular self-censor online, and why honest human belief may be the scarcest, most valuable data in the age of AI. Kiko also shares her founder journey from COO at Orca (one of Solana's largest decentralized exchanges, where she helped raise $19M and grow the platform to $1B+ in 24-hour trading volume) to building Chomp, which drew 50,000 beta users sharing millions of honest answers and raised $3.6M from backers including BlueYard, JSquare, and Accomplice placing her among the 2% of female-led startups to raise venture capital. Chomp launches on iOS in 2026. Equal parts personal memoir and founder story, this episode covers identity, relationships, resilience, the loneliness epidemic, the funding gap for female founders, and what it takes to build something real in a "dead internet" full of bots and AI slop. Keywords: Kiko Zang, boarding school identity, open relationships podcast, cultural identity, female tech founder, women in venture capital, social media and authenticity, dead internet theory, Chomp app, Solana Orca DEX, honest opinions app, read the room, loneliness epidemic, Better Call Daddy podcast, Reena Friedman Watts

1956 年夏天，一群年轻研究者聚在美国东北部的达特茅斯学院，他们原本想用几周时间，解决「如何创造一台思考机器」的问题，但聚会很快丢掉了日程表：有人只来几天，教室里最多的时候只有八个人，最后也没有形成明确共识。这样一场看似松散、甚至没有明确成果的聚会，为什么后来被公认为为「人工智能」（ Artificial Intelligence ）的起点？ 在持续约八周的讨论中，符号主义、神经网络与概率推理等日后彼此竞争了几十年的方向同时留下了种子。参与者带走的，或许并不是关于人工智能的统一答案，而是在碰撞中被激发之后，沿着不同道路继续探索的动力。 这一期节目，我们邀请清华大学经济管理学院教授、曾任清华大学副校长和教务长的杨斌，从七十年前的「达特茅斯的夏天」出发，讨论他所说的「慢聚漫奏」：为什么原始创新常常生长在学科边缘、非主流人群和不追求即时产出的时间里？当 AI 的发展越来越强调速度、效率与确定性，我们还能否为那些尚未被看见的可能性，留一点空间？ 本期人物 杨斌，清华大学校务委员会副主任，经济管理学院教授、领导力研究中心主任，清华大学可持续社会价值研究院院长 徐涛，声动活泼联合创始人 主要话题 [02:52]「达夏」的起点：1955年，麦卡锡等人发起一场「慢聚漫奏」 [10:42] 研讨会变「流水席」：关于AI，没有明确共识，但有很多可能性 [14:44] 符号主义、神经网络与概率推理，当年埋下了哪些AI种子？ [20:15] 远离主流：达特茅斯如何成为容纳异质想法的「边域」？ [23:10] 从芝加哥大学到早期硅谷，人类群星闪耀因何而闪耀？ [31:55] 心理安全、智力密度与价值共识：一场「慢聚漫奏」需要什么条件？ [36:31] 涌现与效率的张力：创新能被组织自上而下地「培养」吗？ [44:19] 与其「容错」，不如容纳差异：怎样让创新想法免于被扼杀？ [45:25] 攀岩界的「达夏」：一群主流之外的人，如何开创现代攀岩生活方式？ [54:42] 教育界的「达夏」：怎样为不同的个体成长留出空间？ [58:01] AI 冲击下的大学：人才培养、科研与成果转化的三重挑战 [01:10:54] 拥抱多元：创造我们自己的「达夏」时刻 延伸解读 John McCarthy、Marvin Minsky、Nathaniel Rochester、Claude Shannon，1955： A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence Ray Solomonoff 档案整理： Ray Solomonoff and the Dartmouth Summer 也可以在小红书账号「徐涛-声东击西」看到更多相关内容和幕后 给声东击西投稿 「声东击西」一直在寻找来自不同社会和群体的真实声音。我们曾经采访过为特朗普竞选生产 MAGA 帽子的中国制造商、记录过七位在美国大选中经历起伏的华人个体，也讲述了委内瑞拉青年的故事。 如果你也有一些特别的经历、观察或想法，不论是亲身体验的故事，还是你在某个行业、社区中的所见所闻，都欢迎你向我们投稿。 你的声音可能出现在未来的节目当中，我们非常期待你的分享！ 投稿入口 加入我们 声动活泼团队目前正在招聘内容监制、商业运营经理、商业发展经理和实习生，如果你也对播客行业的内容制作和商务运营感兴趣，欢迎投递！ 详情点击招聘入口：加入声动活泼（在招职位速览） 幕后制作 后期：赛德 运营：George 设计：饭团 实习编辑：翔宇、怡然 商务合作 声动活泼商业化小队，点击链接可直达商务会客厅，也可发送邮件至 business@shengfm.cn 联系我们。 关于声动活泼 「用声音碰撞世界」，声动活泼致力于为人们提供源源不断的思考养料。 我们还有这些播客：声东击西、What's Next｜科技早知道、商业WHY酱、跳进兔子洞&跳进兔子洞第三季、吃喝玩乐了不起、不止金钱、泡腾 VC、反潮流俱乐部 欢迎在即刻、微博等社交媒体上与我们互动，搜索声动活泼即可找到我们。 也欢迎你写邮件和我们联系，邮箱地址是：ting@sheng.fm 获取更多和声动活泼有关的讯息，你也可以扫码添加声小音，在节目之外和我们保持联系！ Special Guest: 杨斌.

John Block is the Co-Founder and CEO of Unity Partners. He launched the firm in 2022 after nearly a decade as a Partner at HGGC, where he sat on the boards of more than ten services and software companies. A St. Louis native, John is a self-described grinder who runs most mornings and throws an annual paella party for the whole team.Topics:Employee Purpose PlansNarrowing a Five-Year PlanBuy-and-Build vs. Slap-and-Sell IntegrationThe 1% Better Model in Diligence and Ops...and so much more.Top TakeawaysBig five-year goals require a narrow year-one plan. Unity maps a five-year "passion for excellence" plan, usually five goals across growth, tech, and market positioning. Before the investment closes, Unity works with the leadership team to choose the 2–3 priorities that matter most in year one. Three priorities beat five because a founder chasing everything at once accomplishes nothing well. As John puts it, they got "manic about getting focused" after learning the hard way.Employee equity only works with an ownership culture behind it. Unity ties its employee ownership plans to a clear return objective, then communicates progress openly along the way. For companies without a defined exit, John suggests adapting the same model around a three-year revenue or earnings goal with a bonus pool accrued against it. Repeatability comes from a consistent framework, not an identical playbook. John describes Unity's model as closer to building custom homes than identical row houses: there is a common blueprint and framework, but execution changes by company. The practical implication is to standardize the process for building the plan without assuming every portfolio company needs the same plan.About Unity PartnersUnity Partners is a Dallas-based private equity firm focused on the lower middle market. The firm makes control investments in large, fragmented services industries, essential and recurring businesses across both field- and office-based services. Since launching in 2022, Unity has built eight platforms and invests out of a fund of roughly $330M. Its philosophy runs on the idea of “Building Better Together.”Investors & Operators is brought to you by 51 Labs51 Labs is a marketing agency for the lower middle market. We offer full-service digital marketing for PE, portfolio companies, IB, VC, hedge funds.Brand Identity, Marketing Strategy, Marketing & AGM Video, LinkedIn Strategy & Execution, Web Design & Development, Growth Support & more400+ videos100+ projects#1 content creator on LinkedIn in the lower middle market

S5:E265 David and Paul discuss a significant milestone notched by VentureSouth, an Angel Group focused on the Southeastern Startup Ecosystem. They reached the $100M threshold of deployed capital, joining just 10 other North American Angel Groups that have reached that milestone. In the VC world, only 10% of VC funds are in this club. We'll be discussing what this means, how VS achieved that goal and review the other 10 Angel Groups that have reached the $100M threshold. (recorded 8.14.26)Support the showFollow David on X at https://x.com/DGRollingSouthConnect On LinkedIn with David at https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidgrisell/Follow Paul on X at https://x.com/PalmettoAngelConnect On LinkedIn with Paul athttps://www.linkedin.com/in/paulclarkprivateequity/We invite your feedback and suggestions at www.ventureinthesouth.com or email david@ventureinthesouth.com.

Live August 18, 2026  | Yaron Brook Show(Season 12 - Episode 138)Tariffs; Meta; ABC; Russia; Economy; China AI; Publishing; Antitrust; Achievements| Yaron Brook ShowWatch Now: https://www.youtube.com/live/_8rd9pSE4r0"Trump just used a Great Depression-era tariff law to tax our closest ally 50% — on the trade deal he negotiated himself. Is economic self-harm now the plan?"Trump just invoked Smoot-Hawley-era authority to hit Canada with 50% tariffs — an ally, not an enemy, retaliating against tariffs we started. Nobody wins. Everybody pays.Today: Meta faces a $1 trillion lawsuit trying to make it liable for your kid's phone habits. ABC sues the FCC and I'm fully on their side. A Russian court just gave an opposition politician 11 years for a tweet — still think Putin's the good guy? The debt hit $40 trillion early, 30-year yields are at 2007 levels, and nobody in DC will say "spending cuts." Plus China's AI, a wild antitrust probe into a16z, and the best-hidden good news of the year: crime and even NYC rats are falling.Timestamps: 1:50 – Trump's 50% Canada tariffs: has a tariff threat ever worked? 9:54 – Should Canada just quit negotiating and go free trade? 13:08 – Meta's $1 trillion lawsuit: who's really responsible for kids' phones? 21:54 – ABC vs. FCC: is Carr running a First Amendment shakedown? 24:47 – Russia jails a politician for 11 years over a tweet 35:15 – Debt hits $40T early — what happens when interest beats the Pentagon budget? 50:24 – Only 13% of fund managers beat the market — so why pay them? 1:00:48 – DOJ antitrust probe hits Trump's own VC allies 1:06:56 – Crime is at generational lows — so why does everyone think it's chaos?

In this episode, we sit down with Marshall Sandman, founder and Managing Partner of Animal Capital, a seed-stage venture firm whose first fund backed four unicorns and ranked in the top 1% of its vintage.We discuss how Marshall built a venture firm backed by some of the world's most recognizable celebrities and entrepreneurs, the reality of raising a fund in a down market, why most founders should bootstrap instead of raising venture capital, what separates venture capitalists from asset managers, and why he believes today's AI market is overhyped.If you're interested in venture capital, startups, fundraising, investing, AI, or understanding how top-performing venture firms are built, this episode is for you.This episode is supported by Sydecar, HEX, Wispr Flow, Granola, Beehiiv, KalshiSydecar: https://sydecar.io/partners/trailblazersbeehiiv: https://www.beehiiv.com/splash?utm_campaign=trailblazers-2026-Partnership&utm_medium=podcast&utm_source=trailblazers&utm_term=podcast-11&stripe_campaign_code=TRAILBLAZERS30 (or use code “trailblazers30” for 30% OFF)Granola: http://granola.ai/trailblazers *Granola is the official notetaker of Trailblazers. Check out the episode shownotes here: https://notes.granola.ai/t/dff2aba0-4c29-498b-a4e0-2afd6b66c6e1-00b881l8Kalshi: http://Kalshi.com/r/trailblazersWispr Flow: https://ref.wisprflow.ai/trailblazersHEX: http://hex.ai/trailblazers

Most founders think you need a $250,000 VC check to get funded, but angel investors will write you a check for $5,000, actually get to know you, and stick around as a mentor long after the money lands.In this episode, Chris, the new director of 412 Angels, explains the real difference between angel investors and VCs, why founders should start building investor relationships long before they need the money, the most overrated (and underrated) traits he sees in early-stage founders, and what's next for 412 Angels — including plans to launch a fund and lead their own deals.In this episode:✅ The real difference between angel investors and venture capital✅ When founders should start reaching out to investors (hint: earlier than you think)✅ Where to actually meet investors in Northwest Arkansas✅ The most overrated trait in early-stage founders✅ Chris's advice to his younger, first-time-founder self⏱️ CHAPTERS00:00 – Why 90% of a founder's job is networking 00:21 – Meet Chris Ehrhardt, back after 10 years01:24 – From Germany to Arkansas: Chris's origin story 02:23 – Building a startup and moving to Canada on a startup visa 05:22 – What is 412 Angels? 06:28 – Why keeping funding local matters for founders 08:20 – Angel investors vs. venture capitalists 10:24 – When founders should start talking to investors 11:51 – Where to actually meet investors in NWA 14:21 – The most overrated trait in early-stage founders 15:36 – The most underrated trait: coachability 18:09 – How 412 Angels pays it forward 19:50 – What's next for 412 Angels 22:53 – Advice to his younger self 25:26 – Where to find Chris and 412 Angels—Connect with Chris & 412 Angels

Grace Belangia didn't build her startup ecosystem in Silicon Valley. She built it in Augusta, Georgia, a city with medical, military, and energy communities but no established tech community. On Getting Rich Together, host Syama Bunten talks with the cofounder and executive board member of Make Startups about her path from writing angel checks on her own to becoming an LP in a VC fund. Grace traces her money instincts back to her mother, an immigrant who taught her that saving and investing are two different things. That lesson followed her into a research role at a private equity firm in her twenties, where she saw firsthand how the investment world worked and started learning how capital actually moves. She talks through how she learned to angel invest through Pipeline Angels, what it took to learn the space through a six-month investing cohort, and why she eventually expanded from direct angel investing into funds run by managers she trusts. She also explains economic mobility through entrepreneurship and the philosophy she calls reserve and deploy. If angel investing for women feels out of reach, or you're curious about what it takes to become an LP in a venture capital fund, this conversation lays out the real path Grace took. Press play, then find a salon near you or grab a seat at the Wealth Catalyst Summit in San Francisco on October 16 at wealthcatalyst.com.   Episode Breakdown: 00:00 Grace Belangia's Childhood in LA and Palo Alto 05:12 High School Years and Early Community Building 07:43 College, Political Science, and Career Uncertainty 10:49 Learning Finance Inside a Private Equity Research Desk 14:44 Marriage, the Navy, and the Move to Georgia 20:10 Founding a Startup Ecosystem in Augusta 23:07 Learning to Angel Invest Through Pipeline Angels 29:20 How Grace Became an LP in a VC Fund 33:39 Reserve and Deploy, Grace's Investing Philosophy 38:04 Economic Mobility, Legacy, and Building the Bridge   Find more from Syama Bunten: Your money story may be shaping your financial life more than you realize. After hundreds of conversations with women at all stages of their financial lives, Syama distilled the questions that helped her understand her own patterns into The Money Story Reset, a free guide featuring five guided reflections and personal stories from her journey. Download The Money Story Reset and begin uncovering the beliefs behind your financial decisions.   Attend a Salon near you: wealthcatalyst.com/salons Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/syama.co/ Join Syama's Substack: https://thewealthcatalystwithsyama.substack.com/ Website: https://wealthcatalyst.com Download Syama's Free Resources: https://wealthcatalyst.com/resources Wealth Catalyst Summit: https://wealthcatalyst.com/summits Speaking: https://syamabunten.com Big Delta Capital: www.bigdeltacapital.com Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm  

Ian Silber is the head of product design at OpenAI, where he has led the design of ChatGPT, Codex, and all of OpenAI's product experience for the past three years. Before OpenAI, he was at Artifact, the AI-powered news app built by the founders of Instagram. Prior to that, he spent eight years at Instagram, where he worked on products including Reels. Ian is one of the most consequential designers working in AI today, and he takes us inside how OpenAI designs ChatGPT, Codex, and the future of how we will interact with AI.In our in-depth conversation, we discuss:1. Why Ian believes this is the best time in history to be a product designer2. Why engineers 10x'd with AI but design teams haven't3. What OpenAI looks for when hiring designers4. “Just do less”: Ian's counterintuitive advice to his designers5. The future of ChatGPT as a super app6. Where humans still win: user understanding, invention, and point of view—Brought to you by:WorkOS—Make your app enterprise-ready, with SSO, SCIM, RBAC, and moreMercury—Radically different banking, now with Command—Where to find Ian Silber:• X: https://x.com/iansilber• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/iansilber• Website: https://iansilber.com—Where to find Lenny:• Newsletter: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com• X: https://twitter.com/lennysan• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennyrachitsky/—In this episode, we cover:(00:00) Introduction to Ian Silber(02:14) Why designers in general feel anxious about AI(09:01) What makes specific designers thrive in the AI era(13:41) Why Ian says it's the best time in history to be a designer(17:13) How product roles are converging(22:24) Can AI design great products?(23:54) Where human judgment still matters(27:34) What Ian looks for when hiring designers(30:20) Why systems thinking matters(32:53) Balancing speed and craft(38:05) Designing for vastly different audiences(41:57) Solving the blank-box problem(43:31) How ChatGPT is evolving beyond chat(46:07) The vision for Codex(49:07) What Ian wishes he knew on day one(51:40) Why humility matters in AI(53:41) Advice for designers who are feeling overwhelmed(55:16) AI corner(57:43) Failure corner(01:00:45) Lightning round and final thoughts(01:05:52) Lessons from Groupon—Referenced:• OpenAI: https://openai.com• How tech workers are feeling in 2026: a workforce splitting in two: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/how-tech-workers-are-feeling-in-2026• Marc Andreessen: The real AI boom hasn't even started yet: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/marc-andreessen-the-real-ai-boom• 3 Spiderman Pointing meme template: https://www.kapwing.com/explore/3-spiderman-pointing-meme-template• OpenAI Codex lead on the new shape of product work | Andrew Ambrosino: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/openai-codex-lead-on-the-new-shape• Notion: https://www.notion.com• The design process is dead. Here's what's replacing it. | Jenny Wen (head of design at Claude): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/the-design-process-is-dead• Joel Lewenstein on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joel-lewenstein• Anthropic's CPO on what comes next | Mike Krieger (co-founder of Instagram): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/anthropics-cpo-heres-what-comes-next• ChatGPT Work: https://openai.com/chatgpt-work• OpenAI's CPO on how AI changes must-have skills, moats, coding, startup playbooks, more | Kevin Weil (CPO at OpenAI, ex-Instagram, Twitter): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/kevin-weil-open-ai• Please Stop the AI Confidence Theater: https://www.elenaverna.com/p/please-stop-the-ai-confidence-theater• The new AI growth playbook for 2026: How Lovable hit $200M ARR in one year | Elena Verna (Head of Growth): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/the-new-ai-growth-playbook-for-2026-elena-verna• Maybe Happy Ending: https://www.maybehappyending.com• The Invite: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14173636• Rivian: https://rivian.com• Waymo: https://waymo.com• Groupon: https://www.groupon.com• How a VC and a tech founder used AI to launch a brick-and-mortar business in their spare time | Andrew Mason (CEO of Descript) and Nabeel Hyatt (General Partner at Spark Capital): https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/how-a-vc-and-a-tech-founder-used• Andrew Mason on X: https://x.com/andrewmason• Kevin Systrom on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinsystrom• Sam Altman on X: https://x.com/sama—Recommended book:• The Design of Everyday Things: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465050654—Production and marketing by https://penname.co/. For inquiries about sponsoring the podcast, email podcast@lennyrachitsky.com.—Lenny may be an investor in the companies discussed. To hear more, visit www.lennysnewsletter.com

Airbnb stock had its best day ever Friday… because of car rentals, luggage storage, & Gigagedon.Robinhood is IPO-ing a VC fund with Y Combinator companies… it's super seedy (in a good way).Boxed wine sales rose 144% in the last 12 months… Luxury labels are slapping-the-bag.Plus, LinkedIn wants you to snitch on your buddies using AI… it's an Anti-Slop Button.$ABNB $HOOD $STZGrab your Tickets to the IPO Tour: Our In-Person OfferingSan Francisco 9/23: https://www.ticketmaster.com/event/1C0064AFB5F688BDBoston 10/14: https://tickets.citywinery.com/event/tboy-the-ipo-tour-in-person-offering-8cdhupSeattle 11/4 (21+): https://www.axs.com/events/1446394/the-best-one-yet-ticketsNEWSLETTER:https://tboypod.com/newsletter OUR 2ND SHOW:Want more business storytelling from us? Check our weekly deepdive show, The Best Idea Yet: The untold origin story of the products you're obsessed with. Listen for free to The Best Idea Yet: https://wondery.com/links/the-best-idea-yet/NEW LISTENERSFill out our 2 minute survey: https://qualtricsxm88y5r986q.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dp1FDYiJgt6lHy6GET ON THE POD: Submit a shoutout or fact: https://tboypod.com/shoutouts SOCIALS:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tboypod TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tboypodYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@tboypod Linkedin (Nick): https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-martell/Linkedin (Jack): https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-crivici-kramer/Anything else: https://tboypod.com/ About Us: The daily pop-biz news show making today's top stories your business. Formerly known as Robinhood Snacks, The Best One Yet is hosted by Jack Crivici-Kramer & Nick Martell. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.