NEWSMAX

Yeah. Now we can. I love it. Now we can have a conversation. Champagne. Cheers. Cheers. We have. We have happy dad. Nobody's joined. Nobody's joined. Drinking champagne ever on the show. Despite joining, drinking champagne. I'm gonna have a happy dad from the Nelk board. From a really long. A really long day. So that's my last thing before the big party starts, so. Well, well, congratulations. Amazing. And you're live. Live from the nasdaq. How's. How's the day? How's the day been? And, yeah, maybe kind of back up a little bit and actually introduce yourself. I think people can probably tell what you're up to, but. Yeah, sure. So my name is Elan Twig. I clearly like champagnes. I'm the CTO and co founder. Co founder.

What are the other like? I think there needs to be some pretty hard conversations on robotics, right? Yeah. So what do you think about Unitree just selling humanoids on Walmart.com we were thinking about buying one here because, because I've been very vocal over the last year, as long as we've been doing the show that, you know, I think it's super disappointing that we let you know, like GoPro should have been the dominant American drone company and there's a longer list of companies that could have made great products in that space. Maybe people would have to pay slightly more. But we just let DJI flood and from, from what we know, DJI was just willing to lose money for a very, very, very, very long period of time in order to just take market share. And so when I think about humanoids and you know, I don't, I'm not going to put a Unitree robot in my home. But if they're the cheapest and if they're at kind of the leading edge right now, there's a scenario where we just let them flood the United States with humanoid robots and maybe they're adding value at home or in factories in different settings. But then it's just obviously like you just watch any sci fi movie and you can understand the potential national security risk of allowing robots that can be teleoperated to just proliferate all over the country. And so it just feels like hopefully that comes up at some point in some of these discussions of just hey, maybe we make the call to not allow this to happen like it did with drones. Yeah, I think we just have to have kind of class based regulations on these things that says anything that fits these parameters. A robot in your home that's capable, that has equipment and audio. Yeah. And can, has mapping technology and maybe has some kind of appendage. I don't know. You could figure out a way to do it like just, just cannot be sold in the United States if it involves, if it's from a Chinese company or Chinese, Russian, North Korean. Right. Like the broader set of actors. The only category of, of items that we've done that for as a class is vehicles. But I think that needs to be, you know, we need to think about, we have the tools to do it and we need to think about what are the areas where that pose kind of similar risks. And you're worried that we'll wait until there's a robot uprising to, to do, to do something like this. I mean, you said earlier like the US is really good at reacting in a crisis. And I just hope at some point if I'm.

In Washington around like Blackwell specifically. So there is the question of whether or not we should ship them. But actually the more pertinent question is there's a piece of legislation called the Gain AI act that's moving on the Hill that actually the Senate passed as part of the ndaa the must pass annual defense bill and is being debated with the House right now. And it's sponsored by Senator Banks. And basically it says he's a Republican from, from Indiana. And basically it says, look, we're not going to weigh in on the question of whether or not we should ship chips to China. That's a separate question. But regardless of where you are on that, American companies should get priority access before Chinese companies. And it basically requires before shipping any chips to China that are controlled and authorized, it requires American buyers to get right of first refusal, which I think is a, from my perspective is a pretty logical approach. Whether or not you support or oppose AI chip exports to China, saying that America should have them first is logical. It also does one other thing. The most recent text which exempts trusted U.S. exports to trusted U.S. persons to anywhere other than China from license requirements. The reason this is important is actually there's a lot of pending deals in the Middle east right now from U.S. data centers that are trying to make billions of dollars of deals in the Middle east those are subject to license requirements. There is a lot of negotiations on whether or not those can go and they've been held up for a long time. But this would say as long as the government certifies them as a trusted US person and they're subject to a couple standard restrictions like they keep 50% of their computing power in the US then they can go without US government approval. So really basically trying to prioritize US customers in any decisions vis a vis Chinese companies and also US companies vis a vis any decisions on the international AI buildout, do you think Jensen will be happy with that?

Laughing. I'm laughing at you. It just seems totally unserious. Yeah, I think it is easier to do these types of things before there are huge market impacts. So part of the reason that the cars move was doable was because first of all industry was very supportive. We had Detroit banging down the door, being like, we're going to get killed by the Chinese in the same way they are with tariffs. But second of all, the market penetration of all the Chinese car companies was very close to zero, partly because we had such significant tariffs, although those were going to become muted in effect. So if you have an area where it's still pretty nascent, it's doable. And humanoids, humanoids are perfect. Like the second once you have a million Americans that have spent 20 grand on a humanoid and they're like, I'm not. That's right. Like I want to buy the next version. I like this one. You know, it's not like we've now seen the Chinese can build hit consumer products. There was a long time where people didn't believe that was true. But clearly with TikTok and DJI, like it's no longer a debate. And DJI is a great example because you know, DJI, it's a much more complicated to do this for UAVs right now because DJI is everywhere. Also all sorts of like state and local and municipal governments, even the federal government still uses DJI drones. They're just, they have such dominance that like even if we did do it, we would have to do some kind of mitigation steps even to implement it if we did it today, which maybe we should, but it just, it's massively complicated. Whereas if you do it nascently, it's just, you could just kind of cut off the appendage. Yeah. I, anybody that, that disagrees about the national security risk here and the potential downsides, like you can't believe that, like if you believe that Israel was able to run like a decade long operation to get pagers like sold into the right group of people that they could then carry out this, you know, coordinated action and then you think it's safe to just let robots from an adversarial nation flood our country. Like I don't know what to do. I think you're just, you're lost. Blissful. And they won't let us develop the domestic robot industry unless we do something like that too. Right. Like they will consistently undercut us and we'll never, our companies will never get mature enough where they'll be able to benefit from the economies of scale where they can even remotely compete with the Chinese, they're going to be 100% off. We were having this debate before you. Not debate really, but before you got on. It's like I.

Know, out of the meeting in South Korea. Yeah. So I think basically the deal was sort of a freeze for freeze. They agreed to freeze implementation of their massive escalation rule. We agreed to freeze, escalate. We agreed to freeze our affiliates rule. So I think you think of it as largely it locks in the status quo for the duration of the deal. There was various other things that it resolves that are recently created issues. The Chinese agreed to buy soybeans, we reserve resolve Rare Earth access, etc. Etc. It did. It did not. You know, we avoided some of the worst case outcomes. There was no agreement to send, you know, our votes to advance chips to China. There was no, we didn't accept like a Trojan horse package to like, hey, we're going to build a bunch of, you know, Catl and BYD factories in the United States which would have been very bad for us battery and you know, auto industry in the longer term. But I think China really does feel emboldened right now because they kind of punched us in the face. The rarest rule in our are, you know, what happened was we both de escalated a little bit. We'll see what happens going forward. But the status quo to a degree benefits China. They're trying to buy time, they're trying to circumvent our controls. And if we're not willing to kind of continue to engage in this, in this kind of technology protection effort, then every day the Chinese get a little better at working around our controls. So what, what can you say about or what do you, what's your read on the actual dynamics.

Jensen Wong and all the folks over at Nvidia for powering this AI revolution. Absolutely crushing. Pull up this video of the Snowflake CRO doing a little street interview. Excuse me, sir. How old were you when you became a millionaire? This guy. Yes, sir. I've just been getting your Instagram feed. How old were you when you became a millionaire? Oh, boy. Four years ago. Okay. Yeah. Wait, so who is this guy again? He's the. He's the. The CRO of. Of Snowflake, which, like, Snowflakes, been, like, $100 billion company for a while. Right? Snowflake Market cap. I thought it went out, like, years ago. I mean, maybe he wasn't liquid. It's a $91 billion market cap company, and it's down to, like, okay, so higher. So there's. This was the. The line that people were most confused about because I don't. I don't want to. I don't want to, like, try to guess this guy's age to, you know, I won't pretend to know exactly, but I. I assume he's in his 40s, maybe his 50s. Yeah. He was at VMware for 10 years as the vice president of US enterprise sales and then the Senior Vice President, General Manager of Americas. Yeah. And so. And he was also the president of Broadcom from November of 2023 till now. Yeah. It seems like an absolute dog. And became the CRO at Snowflake this year. But still, everyone, I think, is shocked of, like, how he didn't possibly pull together a million dollars by somewhere 25. Years in enterprise technology. That's what it says. 25 years. Like, what is he spending his money on? He must be just, like, obsessed with buying, depreciating cars. That could be it. Maybe he gets a new Bentley Continental GT every year like clockwork. Maybe he's the one that's buying all the Lamborghini. Maybe he's buying multiple. Maybe he doesn't like to drive the same car twice. Yeah, right. That must be. Maybe he gets a fresh car. That must be it. I don't like to drive cars with more than 20 miles on the odometer. Yeah. So I'm just going to cycle it out. I'll take the lot. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Every 20 miles. They say once you drive it off the lot, you lose half the value. Well, it's. It's the price I'm willing to pay. Yeah. Because I got to keep my net worth under. I got to keep it in six figs to inspire. Clearly, it worked. It clearly inspired him to grind harder. He's a CRO at Snowflake. It's incredible. No, this must be. This must be some sort of he. He misspoke, because that. Okay, let's. Let's play the. Play the rest of it. This does not make sense. G, what are you doing? Tech CRO for Snowflake. Did you guys just go public? We went public.

He's doing his best. Did you want to do the virality equals taste one? No, I want to do Maytobs says, I keep getting ads for cocaine on Facebook. Oh, yes. Just using linktree as a cloaking page. Kind of surprised this works. And to that I would say, how do you think who's going to pay for the Capex? Right? Oh, okay, I see you're bringing it back to where we started the show with meta earnings. If you see this, you got to assume, you know, the, you know, whoever's running that ad advertising cocaine, they gotta pay a pretty penny. They gotta pay in their Facebook ads manager. This is so funny. There's a reply here from this guy, Zach, what data does Meta have on you? And Metab says, I was in LA for a day. I guess this was a thing. This was a thing on Facebook of people advertising drugs. And it is a game of whack a mole, back and forth, trying to catch people. The lingo will change. And the way people are kind of dog whistling to each other that they have something illegal that they're selling. It's a huge game of cat and mouse that the meta team is kind of constantly working on. And you see those same kind of like breathless, panicked news articles about like, is Facebook like a hotbed for, I guess, cocaine in this case or something else? And, you know, a variety of different adult content or whatever and it's always this like dance of like, how much do they, how much are they going to invest in trust and safety? How many people are going to be in the loop? How much AI are they going to throw at it? How are they going to have false positives? Because what if you're just posting a meme about Tony, Not Tony Soprano, Tony Montana. Yeah, our favorite song that we used in our, in our launch video. If we post that, there's obviously a reference to illicit substances in there. Do you want that to be flagged? No, obviously not. And so it's a constant dance. But very funny that someone actually slipped this through the Facebook's ad review team. I have a funny story about the Facebook ad review team. There was a time when you could straight up, there were companies that would basically go and find the individual ad manager who would approve, who would have admin access to the Facebook side of the ad manager. And the company would go and put up an ad and try and get it approved and it would get shut down and the ad would be like, Harvard scientists created this limitless pill that's used by Johnny Depp. It was always Johnny Depp, but it was always Harvard scientists, and it would be a picture of Johnny Depp looking great, and then Harvard scientists, and it would link you to some scammy website that would sell you basically some fake nootropic or fake supplement. And these ads were against terms of service. Like, it's straight up snake oil. It's not even like, there's no thesis of like, oh, it's actually good for you. It's just completely fake. But they realized that it would convert and it would be very high margin. And so what they would do is they would go to the Facebook ad manager people and they would try and bribe them and say, hey, if you go in and you approve my ad, I'll put $100 million of ad spend behind it and generate $200 million in revenue. And if I can get that ad approved, if you, as just the individual ad manager can go and tweak the back end. And so there's like a constant war even inside the organization to make sure that nothing illicit is out. I heard something interesting recently that there's a health influencer and people make AI videos of them just promoting random supplements on YouTube. So they'll make an AI video, they'll post the video, and in the description, they'll put links out to products. Okay. And.

Low latency live video surfing infrastructure. If we hadn't, we probably would have built it in a week. Yeah. And it was not very good, but, like, good enough to get good enough. And the product was so clearly had product market fit. Yeah. I'm not entertaining, as you guys can tell. And I did the first live stream because we. We got to make sure it works. And I sold $5,000 worth of Funko Pops in two hours. Wow. And so you're, like, unentertaining human being sells that much. Basically dropped everything the next day. And we're like, we don't know what this is, but this is really fun. This is it. Drop everything. We're all in. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And $5,000 doesn't sound like a huge.

Selling on whatnot. Yeah. So what we. Well, the first, the actual real initial example is we were following. I was following a seller on Instagram, and I tapped into their Instagram Live, and they were trying to hold auctions in the comments. And the latency on Instagram Live video, at least at that time, was like 30 plus seconds. So they basically have, like, put up the item, run a clock, and then once the clock stopped, they'd start taking the bids in the comments. And I invited my co founder in, and we got into a bidding war, and it was just, like, really fun. We're like, why is no one built, but sort of broken? Yeah. Why has no one built mobile video auctions? Just sort of felt obvious. People don't realize unless you've bid on an online auction, you have no idea.

The whole, I don't know, the slop, it doesn't seem, I don't know, it's tricky. So Zuck is certainly, I don't think, gonna take his foot off the gas yet. No way. The vibes will have to get about 10 times more. There's new Reality Labs hardware shipping every year. There was massive pushback and the stock sold off by like 50%. It was really, really rough for a while. Didn't it trade down to something like. Yeah, like $300 a share or something? No, I think it was, I mean. So, yeah, look at the five year chart. At the bottom of 2022, it was $90 a share. That's what I'm saying. Rough. And it was up at 300. So it traded from almost 400 to 90, which is down 70%. Like, that is an insane drawdown. And then it just built right back up and it was bigger than ever. And so, I don't know, I feel like people might be filling out apology forms for him at some point. Even though it looks rough right now, just something's going to wind up clicking and also the core business is just going to keep ripping. So you just get so many more shots on goal. It's just an endless, an endless, you know, stream of shots on goal when you have a cash machine like the family of apps. Yeah. Also, the stock's up 20% in the last six months. Even, even, you know, factoring in this 10% drawdown, I don't know. I think, I think investing in AI is not the craziest thing you could do in 2025 as a hyperscaler CEO. Anyway, Polymarket has some OpenAI IPO market up already, so no IPO by December.

Just sort of like blinders on, we got to deliver. But yeah, unless you knew us, you would have sort of been a fool to invest. How did the Logan Paul investment come around then? I think we got introduced to him through Andreessen. So Andreessen did our Series A and then helped, you know, get us connected and he was really into Pokemon cards at that point in time and so it was sort of like a natural fit. He's, you know, been on the platform a handful of times and so it was a good add on. Investor you. Yeah, I was reviewing his post talking about the investment and I was like that makes so much sense because he's been so immersed with even early stage. Like vine was so primordial in terms of like what TikTok became. He's been so early to all these platforms. Makes sense that he could see the vision better than a lot of other people. How international is the business today? I think we're in nine countries now, so I think we got into.

That one to one plus trillion dollar range. Yeah. Let's go to some timelines. Suspended Cap says makes no sense what the F meta is spending all this money on. You've spent 70 billion on reality labs to make the Ray Ban vision. Are you serious? And people are critical of Apple and their hardware efforts. Give me a break. And investor Nick says investors need to punish Zuck like they did in 2022. And suspended. He won't blink this time. This is too big. He's effed. I don't know. He does have one of the biggest cash machines in the entire world. In the entire history of business. There's a lot of cash. And there's. It's worth remembering the debate between Eric Schmidt and Peter Thiel, where Peter Thiel sat down with Eric Schmidt, I believe at a Wired conference, maybe it was Forbes. And they debated what big tech companies should do with all the cash they're generating. Before we continue, before I finish this thought, let me tell you about figma.com, think bigger, build faster. Figma helps design development teams, build great products together, get started for free. I can't believe you interrupted your own thought. And so I was listening to Sharp China with Bill Bishop last night and his dog came in and he mentioned the farmer's dog, which is like the brand of dog food that he feeds the dog. And he was like, this isn't like TVPN. We are doing 25 ads in the middle of the show. And I was like, you are doing ads anyway, yeah, the question was like, Google has all this money. Why do they have this growing cash pile? Why can't they find something to do with it? And it's interesting looking back on it now, because Google did wind up giving a lot of cash back. They weren't able to find a place to. They truly had too much cash to do. They invested so much in Waymo and so much in DeepMind and so much in Google Cloud and a ton of other projects. And at the same time, they still had money left over. And so they were still doing, I think, stock buybacks and dividends throughout that whole process. And so it was like Thiel was kind of proven right that Google was sort of out of ideas, or the big tech companies or the technology industry broadly was really out of ideas. Then, of course, AI comes now we're sort of vindicated. Hey, there is this new thing we can invest. Let's draw down on the cash flow. People are skeptical about it, but at least it's happening. But the question is, is what Is Zuck thinking, Because he's definitely in the mode of like, I got this cash machine, let me invest my cash flow in new data centers, in new AI training. Are right to look at this and say, like, Meta platforms is one of the greatest businesses of all time. And you have. And the CEO is a little crazy. Like, he's a bit of a wild card. Like, he has obviously has an incredible. Of the big tech companies. No, I disagree. I think if you look at, I think if you look at Sundar, I think if you look at Satya, I think if you look at the guys. That are running Bezos, I'm thinking Bezos because they had a cash machine with Amazon. What did he do? He didn't return a dime of capital and had gross net profits of zero for a decade while he was building aws. Aws. And the last time that Mark invested this heavily in something, it did not deliver roi. Sure. And so I think people are just a little bit scared. That's why the stock's more volatile. That's why it traded down. This is, this is. Google is up. Google's up 10%. Yeah. Microsoft traded down briefly after, after earnings. But, but ultimately I think you have to, if you're, if you're investing in this company, you have to be, you have, you have the, the, the, the sort of protection, knowing that this is fundamentally just a fantastic business. And you can pause, you know, they can sort of pause this like crazy spending at any point. But again, Meta can. Yeah, but Meta hit the hit. They're doing a bond offering that got announced this morning for $25 billion. And that's after they did another, they did another deal with Blue Owl for like something like $30 billion a couple weeks ago. And so Zuck is levering up. He's going all in. And investors need to be tolerant of that risk. And there's plenty of people that are going to say, well, it's fine. I'd rather own Alphabet, I'd rather own Microsoft, et cetera. Buco Capital bloke is also. Seems like he's on your side here. He says excited to buy meta in the 500s. The stock, of course, is trading in the 600. So he's currently at $666. Is that a good thing? Is that a good omen? Is that a good symbolism? It's a devilish omen. It's rough. And Buco Capital says the only challenge will be having the courage to do it when it gets there. And he shares a pretty good visualization from Gemini of what's happening right now. Mark Zuckerberg is in some sort of convertible, driving off a cliff, wearing a VR headset with piles of cash, Wall street in the back, flying out the back of the car. To be honest, I think this him look really sick. It does. And this is exactly what I want out of a big tech CEO. I want risk. I want risk. And I don't know. I feel like you're making a ton of good points that I agree with this year. I'm not saying, to be clear, that I'm not riding with Zuck. I will always ride with Zuck. I'm just saying I understand why people are like, you know what I'm going to. I'm not. I can't really stomach, you know, a drawdown. Some people are going to just rotate into. Yeah. The other hyperscalers. I'm just trying. Yeah. Tyler, what do you think? I mean, people were calling for Sundar to be basically fired for, like, a long time, like, until, like, basically this year. Yeah. So I feel like you're. You're.

Thursday, October 30, 2025. We are live from the TVVN Ultradome. The temple of technology, the fortune, the fortress of finance. The capital of capital. Meta missed earnings yesterday due to a one time tax hit. Yes, not a. Not that big of a deal honestly. Meta post record revenue but warns of expenses. This is from the Wall Street Journal. Meta reported record revenue in the third quarter. But the technology company warned of accelerating capital expenditures around artificial intelligence, sending its stock down 7% in after hours trading. If you're worried about expenses, you got to go to ramp.com Time is money save. Both easy use corporate cards, bill payments, accounting and a whole lot more all in one place, baby. It's now a $1.7 trillion company. Not bad. But we are in the age of 3. 4. 5 trillion dollar companies now. It's crazy times. There's a club above standout for me, reels at north of a $50 billion run rate. Crazy. Which is more than all of TV combined, right? Something like that. It's close. No, I think, I think television advertising. Like linear TV advertising is, is in that range or it's like creeping up on it. In 2024, television advertising spending in the US was expected to amount to approximately $60 billion. I mean they're within striking distance. Let's hear it for the Meta team. Remarkable. So there was this one time tax charge of 15.9 billion. That crush net income. Spending on AI researchers has also been crazy recently. And Capex is growing a ton. They're going to hit 72 billion this year. I'm good for my 72 billion over at Meta. Not bad. The ad load just anecdotally is up tremendously. They're now doing four ads where they used to do one. Yeah, there were almost five. Like you can go in between stories and get five in a row or something. Yeah. So in between two stories you can get up to five individual ads. So got to pay for all that Capex somehow. Yeah, the core business rocks. We know this. 51.2 billion in revenue this quarter. They were up 26% year over year. And there's just so many dials that the Meta team can get slightly more dialed every quarter. You can get more users, more time on the platform from those users, more ads, more targeted ads. There's all these small tweaks that add up and wind up compounding. So my bigger question today is what happens to the advertising cash machine once you're two decades in. So Google went through this transition on October 2nd of 2015 and at the Time I feel like most people thought it was crazy. They rebranded, they went from Google to being called Alphabet and the idea was that they were going to have other business. A to Z. Yeah, yeah, we're going to have other, we're going to have other things and you know, focus is usually pretty valuable. And at the time people were like, well you can't even keep Google Reader online. You can't even get a chat app up to date. You can't win in social networking. You had to shut down Google. So what are you thinking? You're gonna go build a self driving car, an AI team or a new cloud platform? Like this is crazy. Just put the 10 blue links in the bag. But looking back on it now, it feels like Alphabet totally deserves the broader name. The company is more than just Google search box, certainly more than 10 blue links. Google Cloud is material. DeepMind is material. Waymo is material. There's the business side, Google Apps for business. All of these are both key to the future value of Alphabet, but also key to just running the business today. The interplay between these divisions creates a ton of value. But more importantly, I don't think these businesses, at least most of them would exist if they hadn't grown up in a cash rich environment. It's just so hard to predict in 2009 how much capital is it going to take us to build a self driving car network that we'll be able to launch in San Francisco and barely be profitable and then probably need another decade. Strange comp here is YC I don't know, it's some years ago at this point was trying to understand what the factors that contributed to the breakout successes. And one factor was founders having wealthy parents. So the founders felt like they could take these really massive high risk swings because they weren't, they weren't going for a base hit. The founders like if I make like a few million dollars, if I make a few million dollars, it doesn't change my life. Right. Trust is, is, is well beyond that. I got to go big and so I got to go big. Willing to like look silly for a long period of time. Willing to, you know, just stumble around as long as it takes to hit it really big. And certainly a number of the things you just outlined wouldn't have been able to be, maybe would have died as traditional venture businesses. Yeah, I mean this is what I was writing about with 1X, the robotics company. Extremely difficult to understand. Are we three years away from that business really working financially? Are we 10 years away from the business? Really Working financially, there's a lot going on. But Google was able to just hold on to Waymo from 2009 to today, 16 years, and they're probably still losing money on it. I mean they're like unit economics are decent in one specific market. It's gonna be a long time, I. Would say definitely losing money on it. But they can actually do stuff. But every time they announce something, you know, they stream it. They gotta get on restream one livestream, 30 plus destinations, multi stream and reach your audience wherever they are. You can sign in with Google since we're talking about Google. So I wanted to look at some parallels between what's going on with Google, who's been on a tear and now has this like all of a sudden, pretty diversified business. There's this meme here of the Ninja. Turtles, where from the account alphabetting. Yes. So the search giant, the cash machine of the ads business is taking the other bets as their children and now as search becomes less relevant potentially in the age of AI. Well, what does Alphabet have? They have Google, Google Cloud, they have Waymo, they have Maps, Gmail, chrome, DeepMind, Google, AI. Like, it's a stacked lineup. And so, yes, even if search does. Get older, I love how YouTube isn't even deserving of its own Ninja Turtle. No. And you'd think YouTube would be a huge one here. And that one seems. YouTube seems extremely resilient in the age of AI. It seems like the place. It's a social network, it's gonna stick around. And we really haven't seen any. I mean, we've seen the Sora stuff, but no one's. Everyone uses ChatGPT and says, oh, wow, yeah, this is definitely gonna replace some of my Google searching for sure. It's kind of searching Google for me and then giving me the results. No one's saying that about Sora. No one's saying like, oh, I don't need to watch Doug demuro anymore or whatever. Yeah. And I mean, I think one of the, you know, right now you're seeing more AI content on YouTube, but it's still created by independent channels. There's a world in the, you know, YouTube pays out a huge amount of its revenues a day to the creators on the platform. There's a world in the future where YouTube just generates the, the video, the content itself through, you know, it's, it's AI products never actually has to pay out a creator. Yeah. Because it's just. And that's actually better for YouTube in many ways. Yeah. So. So content creators Content creators today are worried about being disrupted by other people using AI to make content. Yeah. They're not thinking about the platforms themselves that know exactly what. Yeah. The kind of content that people like and would be able to over time produce it themselves. Yeah, but aggregating that demand, aggregating attention. Yeah, yeah. The value is aggregating. This is the, is not aggregating the supply side, it's the demand side. This is the aggregation theory. And so if you want to, if you can aggregate a bunch of people that open apps and are in the market for video, you can serve them up, a Mr. Beast video or Doug Demuro video, or you can serve them up, AI could generate content and you still make money because you have aggregated that. That that demand, not supply would be a good guest. We are working on it. Great point. Okay, now three, two, one. Privy wallet infrastructure for every bank. Privy makes it easy to build on crypto rail, securely spend a white label wallet, sign transactions and integrate on chain infrastructure all through one simple API. So the Google story is very interesting because really for the last decade, since 2015 when they rebranded as Alphabet, I feel like they were not getting a lot of credit and people are like, oh yeah, like Google, it's like the kind of the place where you sit on the. You rest and vest, you sit on the rooftop, you're not really doing anything. And then now everyone's waking up to this idea that it's like, whoa, they have like four monster businesses. And yeah, there's a ton of gravestones in the graveyard from various note taking apps and chat apps and Google readers over there. But overall they wound up building a very diverse, very valuable business where even if we Waymo's not cash flowing a ton, is it worth $100 billion? Does that add to their $3 trillion market cap materially? Probably right. Waymo also raised like a venture round not too long ago. Yeah, I think it actually has like a public mark now, which is interesting. But my question is how do we take this and we bridge it to what's going on at Meta, formerly Facebook in October. I guess October is the month where you rebrand your company. Facebook did it. Google rebranded to Alphabet in October of 2015. Facebook rebranded to Meta in October of 2021. And people I think overly were overly narrow about framing that transition about specifically VR, specifically virtual reality, the Metaverse, everything that Mark Zuckerberg was investing in after the Oculus acquisition and the Meta horizon worlds and VR, obviously that was a piece of. It's interesting that I feel like the name Meta has aged pretty well. I agree. Even though it was ultimately somewhat like an embarrassing over investment at the time. Totally. So the name aged well even though the activities that were driving the name change did not. Yes. And I think it was just, it was just important for, for Mark Zuckerberg. To send the message that we're not any single app. We're not Facebook. Yeah, yeah. And we're not even just social networking. Like we could wind up with a hyperscaler cloud platform if there was like, you know. Yes, you have aws, gcp, Azure and then you also have like meta cloud platform. People would be like, yeah, that makes sense. And that's a couple hundred billion dollar business. And they figured it out. Right. And so that rebranding it did definitely set them up for a new era, but also just the ability to place other bets like what Google did once they became Alphabet. But so it's interesting to see like how will you know, like what will those bets look like? Because AI is obviously just a sustaining innovation for meta. It's a similar thing to YouTube. Right. And machine learning has been generating value in ad targeting for over a decade. Sustaining in many ways. But the, the potentially disruptive component is that people are using LLMs in social ways. And so as, as people spend more and more time talking to LLMs, that is time that they are not in meta platforms, products. Yeah, maybe, maybe on the like, like the personal interaction side, like the really parasocial stuff. That's what I'm saying, that's what I'm saying. But for the users, like the, like, you know, there, there are users out there that used to spend five hours a day using meta products and now are spending. I don't have many of those though. I mean you look at the overall usage numbers, yes, you're getting 30 minutes of ChatGPT, but you're not seeing a blink on it's people are like, they're, they're doom scrolling Instagram and then they're also chatting with 4O. Right. They're doing both. Yeah, maybe. But at the end of the day. I mean, I agree like it could potentially be a headwind long term and that's obviously why I'm just saying like. Mark certainly sees ramping attention.