NEWSMAX

Journey. It'll happen. I think it'll happen more slowly than I. But that's another example of an innovation right now. Earlier in the show we were talking to Mitchell Green from Lead Edge Capital about private credit and there's been some reporting around just how big that non bank lending industry is. How should average investors who aren't maybe specifically in a private credit fund, but just, you know, your average American trying to make sure that their portfolio goes up every year, how should they think about private credit, the risk in the system, how they can protect themselves or potentially benefit? Where is America when it comes to the private credit industry right now? So first of all, just a reminder that private credit is first of all credit. And so we've got private credit, we've got public credit and they're essentially two different markets, different investor types potentially go in. But at the end of the day they're trying to solve for the same thing which is leaning in to being able to lend money into the, into the financial markets and capital system, give entrepreneurs and other business builders or business runners access to more capital. And so there are some types of borrowers who are more suited to the private markets and some who are suited to the public markets and some who do both. There's a lot of drama at the moment in private credit and there are some good reasons for it because there have been some exposures that are being a bit idiosyncratic to private credit. And also there are always liquidity issues. When people see headlines and they say, oh my gosh, is my money safe? And then money back and then you have the old elevator, elevator door problem. More people want to get out but there's not necessarily enough space and there's a bit of a rush for the exit. So that's exactly the problem that we're seeing right now. But the market I would observe is today still pretty strong because the credit market's strong and ultimately the economy drives the credit market. Now we have high energy prices for a long period of time or we have a real weakness in the economy and we're going to have problems in the credit market and then we're going to have real problems in the private credit market and public credit market. So I think today we're in this spot where there's a lot of focus. It's a large but not huge market compared to the scale of the public credit market. But the underlying fundamentals are mostly pretty good. But there's a huge watch out with energy and as a result a huge watch out into the readout to the real economy. And if we have high energy prices or other cracks and they persist, that is a different story. Yeah. With the health of the underlying economy, I feel like people.

Cryptocurrency on chain that. It feels like that happened with the dollar. It feels like stablecoins are here. They've arrived. Real estate has been slower. Stocks have been slower. What do you think? Oil's ticked up. Is oil on chain. Now, I was not familiar with that people are trading oil on chain, but I'm sure you see some questions around how that's actually being done. Yeah, well, look, remember with oil as well, it's a physical commodity. At the end of the day, the whole concept of on chain in terms of the mirror world is like if. If ever there was an example of, of a reminder that it's a physical asset. Today, today. Look, let me give you my Gen 1, Gen 2, Gen 3 view of that. And even before I do, let's just acknowledge where we are in Gen 1. So tokenization. Yes, we're underway. We're beginning. You mentioned stable coins. They have market share this big right now. And so it's early days. It's a little bit like AI. You can see the promise of the tech, you can see the opportunity. But at the end of the day, adoption, full integration into the system is very different than just having the tech. And we talk all the time, our company about AI. Great, great, exciting. But it's got to be deeper. It's got to be everywhere. It's got to be for everything, for everyone. So I'd say digital assets, similar situation. Even in Gen1, we're beginning. It's early days, lot of promise, opportunity. But just taking an existing asset or even a physical asset that exists, that isn't really part of the financial system, putting it on the beginning, then how do we actually make things work better and differently? Because for some existing assets, they're not necessarily better just because we tokenize them. We take a share of Microsoft often we declare victory because it's a token. We haven't really changed much in the world. If you take a bond, the question is not only can you tokenize the security, but what can you do with the indenture? How can you have the if and therefore statements that are all part of that piece of documentation and actually encode them in a chain in a way that actually is going to add additional value. That's a different thing than just tokenizing the security itself. And then Gen 3, you actually think about financial securities as ultimately being a cash flow and terms and conditions, then maybe you can just rerender financial assets in entirely different ways because of the fact that you now actually have the blockchain and you actually have capabilities that didn't exist today in the traditional rails. Now, today's L1s aren't really up to that task. So there's innovation that's required at the L1 layer level as well as in the L2s and then participant firms. But that's how I see the world. We're early. This is a five year, ten year journey. It'll happen. I think it'll happen more slowly than I. But that's another example of an innovation right now. Earlier in the show we were talking to Mitchell Green from Lead Edge Capital about private credit, and there's been some reporting around just how big that non bank lending.

I think, I think I'm literally going to go back with him from the war being. No, no, he's fantastic. I mean let's not forget that the US government still runs, I think like, I think we think the huge opportunity, we do some public stuff as well actually own workday and by the way, I think a 99% gross dollar retention business. Yeah. The US government still runs on PeopleSoft and most banks that people use in America run off of mainframe computers. Yeah. So you know, open source, when people say the apocalypse, apocalypse, all software is going to zero. I think what people fundamentally get wrong is, is that they think like R and D is the, is like the most important thing in these companies. Like writing the code. Yeah, it hasn't been for decades. Like open source software is a big industry. Yeah. Companies like Grafana, Databricks, Elastic Hashicorp, red hat, there's 20 more of them. You can get that stuff for free. The reason that enterprises pay for it is they need somebody to deal with customer support, security patches, user authentication. This stuff's very complicated to do. I think with software companies are going to become and by the way there's going to be ones that survive and there's going to be ones that don't. All that we see, you see in periods of technological change is like things can happen really fast. And it's not only software companies, like automotive companies. If you're still in this and you have tons of debt and you're totally making this up and you're Ford and you have no debt. Well if you believe AI and robotics are going to come to manufacturing, well like Ford can invest, Stellantis cannot. And like they very well may disrupt Ford, may completely disrupt Stellantis. It's going to happen across industries Here you saw it 99 and 2000 with like you know, e commerce companies. Some traditional retailers like Walmart and Home Depot did great. Some people did not. The same thing is going to happen with, you know, with software companies by the way. The same thing is going to happen with accounting firms. The same thing is going to happen with banks. Like this stuff is going to completely revolutionize the world. It won't do it as fast as people think it was. Funny, I asked Claude yesterday to try to like book me like an appointment to get a haircut and I could do it online. It had no idea how to do it. Like I literally could have just picked up the phone and made a phone call and saved myself 15 minutes. Yeah, well.

One that they're all like, I've all enjoyed them. But what I would say is, like, Toby Luque was. If no one. If the people listening to this have not listened to any of the new show yet, I would. If you want to go in tech, go Toby Luque. If you want to find these crazy people that are not in tech, go Todd Graves. Todd Graves. But Toby Luque was very fascinating to me because he's your favorite founder's favorite founder. So everybody that you admire, you ask who they admire, and they'll bring up Toby. And what they like about him is that he thinks through every single thing independently. So therefore, he has all these beliefs that are not correlated with one another, which means when you have a conversation with him, you are unable to predict what his response to your question or your statement is going to be. And that. We talked for four hours. So we talked for a half hour before we recorded. Then we recorded for three hours. We edited down to whatever it was. Then we recorded for another 30 minutes or talked for another 30 minutes after. And I could have kept talking. I was like, dude, I got to catch a flight. I'm going to have dinner with Charlie Rose that night. I had to fly down there. It was like we would have kept talking. Like, he just blew my mind. One thing he said I think would be interesting to your audience is he believes, and I think he said this on the episode, that we're going to look back on the year 2026 as the year that every single business in the world was up for grabs. That AI is coming for everything. Every single other business will have to be reimagined. And you're going to look back at, this is the year where it should have been obvious to you that you can rebuild the AI native version of whatever exists out there. Interesting.

Days. Everything is energy dependent. Yeah. Well, I guess the good news is that oil's down 10% today. I feel odd saying that, but it was, it was very nerve wracking when oil seemed to be going up and up. And as you mentioned, high energy prices can really put a drag on the economy. So hopefully, I think we're all hoping for stability in financial markets, stability in energy markets and all of the above. But thank you so much for taking the time. Yeah, really enjoyed your to break it down and come back on soon. Yeah, yeah, we'd love to talk to you more. Have a great rest of your day. Cheers, Robin. We'll talk to you too soon. Robin, let me tell you about graphite code review for the age of AI. Graphite helps teams on GitHub ship higher quality software faster. Our next guest is live in person in the TV one and only, the one and only David Senner. How you doing? Miss you, man. Nice watch. Good to see you. Tell us, how are you? How are you feeling? What is this? How are you feeling? That's just the Yahoo button. Does that reflect your inner feelings? I want to hear, I want to talk about your inner monologue. I want you to introspect. I want you to introspect. How are you feeling? You're doing well? Yeah. Like, unbelievable. And do you feel aligned? Do you feel like you're reaching your goals in life? Do you feel like you're doing what you're meant to be doing? Oh, you don't answer that question. What kind of question is that? I'm just messing with you. Introspection questions. Yeah, it was fun. Do you want to give the background to what you're. Sure, sure. So David Sen, host of David Senra and host of Founders, went viral last week after an interview with Marc Andreessen where you were both in discussion in agreement around this idea of maybe you don't need to, you don't need to be constantly introspecting. You need to have some forward motion in your life. You need to be ruminating. It wasn't like advice. It wasn't advice for other people. Oh, yeah. At all. That's funny. So it was an observation. Like, I wanted to talk to Mark for a long time. Yeah. And actually had dinner with him last year in Miami. And it took him a while to warm up. But then once he gets going, the same person you see on the podcast is like the same person in person. Right. And I've like consumed everything I told him before. I was like, I think you and Palmer Lucky are probably like the two best podcast guests on the planet. He's great, right? Yeah. And you know, because he doesn't have any notes in front of him. I spent 8 hours knee to knee with Palmer and I couldn't. He was inexhaustible. I've never come across a mind like that before. And Mark's the same way. It's like you can ask him anything and he'll just. He has this crazy recall. And the difference between, like, me and most people that talk to Mark is like, I've read all the same books that Mark has done. I read his blog archive, like eight years ago. Yeah. And. Which was excellent. Before, long before, he was like, tweeting an episode about. Yes. I think it's episode 50 of founders. That's great. I think it is in 2018. Episode 50. Yeah, exactly. I should redo it because there's a lot of really good advice for, like, founders in there. And so, like, I was just excited to talk to him. It was the by far. I think we've done like 13 or 14 of these that we've released so far. We've now recording like mad. So we have a ton banked. But it's like one of the people I was most excited to talk about just because, like, we have the same passions and he had. He was the only person I've come across in today that came to the same conclusion that, like, I would read all these biographies and. And these people that went on to build great companies, invent new technology, everything else, they talk about this all the time. They actively avoid introspection. And so the reason I brought up, I was not trying to be provocative. I have a ten year fucking history of not being provocative. So, I mean, I understand the pushback, which is that there's so many examples of history's greatest entrepreneurs introspecting. I think that maybe the nuance here is, when does the introspection happen? I always go back to that Disney chart, you know, the Disney napkin map of how Disneyland fits into Disney films, fits into the radio business, fits into the merchandise business. It all is crystal clear right now. And a lot of founders, a lot of content creators, a lot of people like us will look at that and be like, I need seven things that all piece together. But Disney drew that map and then died, like, two years later. It was a reflection on his life. He was introspecting about what made his business successful, but he did it after he had done all the things. I think people are confusing thinking with introspection. So I was Actually thinking about you. We're like the. The again. I went back and listened to the first like 10 minutes of that episode. Yeah. There's nothing remotely like controversial about this. And I guess one part you're like, yeah, there should be more nuance. Yeah. The Internet. No one needs the context. They're not going to watch. They're just going to see the caption and then disagree with the caption. So what I would say is like, this is the difference between pre and post life's work. And so, like, you're a perfect example. Yeah. This is like, I. We've talked about this a few times on the show. Like, there was a huge prehistory with me and you pre tpbn. Yeah. And where you're the air Founders Fund. You're making these fucking incredible doc. I can't cuss. Right? You guys got on me last time about this. Okay, we won't. Okay. Depends on how you. So if our kids start swearing, be mad at you. Yeah. I'm going to take the stand that. No. None of history's greatest entrepreneurs have ever sworn. Yeah. You'll go far with that. So what I would say is like, the prehistory here is like, you were eir at Founders Fund. You were making these incredible long form documentaries on a lot of the same interests that you and I have. I found you. I started talking to you. I was like, you're gifted at this. Like, you're a generational media talent. Because the first thing I saw of you was your History of Silicon Valley documentary, which I've read at least 40 books on the same topic and I'm learning stuff I didn't even know. Oh, this guy's like, this is incredible. And if you remember, at the time you were trying to figure out. What's that? You were trying to figure out. It sounds like a sheep. You were trying to figure out, okay, do I start another company? Do I become a vc? So you were trying to figure out, do I start another company? Do I become a vc? God forbid, do I? And I was like trying to push you to podcasts. Yeah. Yeah. And then you went through. It was a good business. And then you went through multiple different variations. God damn it, Jordy, stop. This is your show. And I'm. So you went through multiple different variations, right. Of different forms of podcasts. You even tried something like this with like a co host a few different times. I saw all of them. Lulu and Jason, Carmen. And then I also had a solo show that was sort of a copy of yours, but about Live people instead of dead people. And we were. I remember because we were walking in Miami. We were walking to dinner. We actually ran into Keith Raboy on the way there randomly. And we had this dinner. And you're like, this show just doesn't feel right. You didn't like the Power Law. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. Yeah. The Power Law was not, like, it wasn't getting me out of bed because I would make a. I would make an episode and then somebody would be like, I'm alive and I'm going to debate you about this. Like, you got this wrong. And I was like, oh, okay, I don't want to. Yeah. You're like, this is. No, no, no. Rockefeller is not coming from the grave yelling at me. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. You can say whatever you can say, you know, Steve Jobs never introspected. And then he's not going to hit you up and be like, I did. Again, we're not saying, like, never, but even, like, Elon commented on this. Yeah. I sent it to our group chat. We should pull up the tweet that even commented. Yeah. He said, reinforcing negative neural pathways via therapy or introspection is a recipe for misery. Don't cut a rut in the road. But isn't this just like. Don't ruminate. Some people were saying, oh, you guys are using the term wrong. Whatever. Yeah, let me finish. But it was like, negative introspection. Let me finish the. We have friends that all they do is introspect. Yeah. One of them has still not done his first deal. We will not name him. Like, he thinks too much and not enough action. That is the point. It's just like, yeah, people that built. This is not controversial. People that built great shit turned out to do a lot of action. Like, they take a lot of action. Sure. As opposed to, like, just sitting there thinking about how they. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so even. Even the. Isn't it Blackstone, whose first deal, like, Steve's first deal was like, a total flop, if I remember correctly. I don't know. I remember that. But let me go back to John. It's like, I wasn't. I wasn't sitting there thinking about, like, what's the perfect media product? I was trying things very forward motion, being aggressive about these different things. The important part is you were trying to figure out a business that fits for you. And then this is why, when I immediately saw you guys, you were in, like, the wrinkled T shirts you were filming at the Jonathan Club. I was like, this is it. You found it yeah. The reason I bring that up for you is because I think it's a great illustration of the point. It's like, I talk to you guys every day. You don't wake up thinking about, like, how do I feel today? Or, like, what should I do? You guys just are unbelievably dedicated to because you found your life's work. And I know this because, like, how many people try to buy the show? How many people are trying to invest in the show? How many people try to get you to do other things? And you're like, no, like, we just want to do this, and we just want to do this forever. And the example I use on the episode was Sam Walton. Like, Sam Walton was figuring retail out. He had one store for the first five years of his life, right? But then you fast forward 25 years into his life. He wasn't waking up. Like, what should I do today? He's like, no, I like Walmart. I like building Walmart. I'm going to make more Walmart, so just keep doing this until I die. That's the point we were making. And then I love that Mark just refused. Oh, he just, like, it was like 10x down. Oh. Day after day after day after day of just not fighting this back. And then did very well. And then what I would say about this is, like, perfect. We hit on this, like, weird, unintended, like, political divide where, like, a lot of, like, my liberal friends were texting me and saying, like, this is wrong. This is evil. And I'm just like, oh, interesting. I think, you know, I'm not a wrong, like, person. And then, you know, more of my conservative friends, like, yeah, no shit. And again, that was unintentional. So a lot of the hate comments came from, like, the socialist side of Twitter, which. Okay, fuck them, people. Like, I hate socialists. Like, good. By the socialist. Good, good. More. Yeah, more. More inspiration to grind harder. Tell us more about the show. What's coming down the pipe? How are you thinking about it? How much are you on the road these days? A lot of people. So Jordy is seeing the new studio, which you got to come out and see. Okay. Crazy. Yeah. Yeah, it's crazy. Yeah. It's probably actually the craziest podcast studio ever in history. Wow. Just. Just like, the actual dirt that it's on. Okay. Yeah, Love it. We just had Evan Spiegel out there. Thank you for making that connection. But he started watching the show and he's like, can I be on the show? And then he had known because he's like, I love these guys. So the answer is just like, I'm not. I mean, we will travel if we have to. I'm trying to push as many people as possible to Malibu. We're having a lot of success with that. And, you know, we're all really friends of my good friends, my co founder, Rob Morin. Like, every time, like the Andreessen one we did, I probably did that like three weeks before he came out. And I was like, again, I don't do any drugs, but I was high as a kite and I was just like shaking Rob. I was like, just put a founder in front of me every single day. Like, that's the biggest thing. So, yeah, I definitely feel like I'm not waking up thinking, what should I do today? It's like, I'm completely. What's the pipeline of people that are coming on the new show that have never done a podcast? Okay, so one. Okay, so we all know because that's the real alphas. Like there's a thousand. There's not. I'm saying, like all of it. But I'm just saying, like, there's a thousand people out there that are. That would break the Internet if they did a show and they just. For one reason or another. Who's your Sarah Payne? Okay, so there's two things here. One, there's a lot of other podcasters. A few have tweeted this publicly and I don't really respond anyway on Twitter. But I said, hey, you know, I think of this differently. They're like, I don't like doing people that have the podcast circuit. Sure. And when you say that, you're just admitting that you have no differentiation, you have no unique perspective. So, like, I really wanted to do Mark because never interview someone here if they were. If they had done a different podcast. Yeah, exactly. But I wanted to interview what? This is your sixth show today. Let's ring the gong. I wanted to have conversation with Mark because of all the things that I knew about him that I had never heard anybody else. Of course, of course we went on Jim Clark. So if you listen to episode and the virality is evidence that you had a new conversation conversation, you got to a different place. Well, not only that, but like, that was the stuff that was controversial, but there's stuff in there like, okay, the fact that When Mark was 20 years old, he was mentored by like the Elon of his day. Jim Clark was the first person to ever in history to ever found three separate billion dollar technology companies. And he didn't start his first company was 38 years old. At 38, he started his first company. And then. And check this out. And then there was this book from like 2001 that was published that I read by Michael Willis. And before he was 38, was he just like introspecting or. No, no, no, he was an academic. The moment he stopped, he was. He was an academic, but straight to the top. He describes himself in the book, he just said as a self described loser because he was smart and he had papers written and he was teaching, but he had no money. And then I think his second or third divorce, the guy's like, he was literally just. Who is this again? Jim Clark. Jim Clark? Yeah. Silicon Graphics, Netscape, the company that turns into WebMD. And Marc Andreessen was really young when he first co founded Netflix, but he had Jim Clark or Netscape, but he had Jim Clark as like this older. His mentor, his co founder. Mentor. It'd be like a wild thing because normally if you walk into Dreeson's office and you say like, I'm 20 and I have a 40 year old co founder, people would be like, this is odd. Like, normally we fund like two Stanford grads. So I read an entire book on this. Very interesting. He talks about it in his blog archive. And I did two other episodes on the same book, like two or three years apart. Yeah, I don't know how no one brought that up to Mark, but it was so fascinating. And he tells three different stories on the podcast, spread by like 30 minutes in between each story about how formative this was, that the reason he is the way he is is because he was mentored by Jim Clark at 20. How is that not interesting? Yeah, so there's a. I want to have my own spin on people that you know or do other podcasts. There is another one coming out. We're actually flying to New York to do this one because it's gonna be one of the craziest locations that you could possibly film in. This was suggested by somebody I can't name on the show. He's a good friend of us three. Sure. He's probably the smartest person that we all know. And he's like, hey, we were at dinner in Miami and he's like, he who shall not be named. Exactly. And so basically he's like, what are you talking about? This guy? I can't tell you who it is yet, but this guy's product. If you are wealthy in the world, you will know and probably have frequented this guy's product. And it's outside of tech. It's nothing to do with technology. And so he's never. What'd you say? Chrome hearts? No, no. But he's never done a podcast. He doesn't even have any. This guy doesn't even have any social media. He designed wraps that go on Huracans. The chat is saying, you're bringing vague posting to podcasts. Who you are. You're vague post. Who you're vague posting on a pod, which is innovating. Let's be less vague. What do you think about the AI podcast that's at the top of the charts right now? It is coming for all of us. Keep. It's putting us all out of a job. Is this the Epstein one? Yes. Yeah, yeah. But I think they're transitioning to. They're going to do more. They're going to do a bunch of stuff. Everything that you want. Like, if, if it's a hot topic, they're going to have a podcast that's, you know, single narrator, like very fact based, deep research. Yeah. And the reason that it's interesting is like, it's not, it's not an AI app. It is like somebody used AI to make the media product and then just uploaded it to traditional channels. Yeah, Kareem from Ramp showed me this like a month ago. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Obviously there's going to be great AI generated podcasts. Like, of course now they, I think they got to the top of the charts not because they have a large listenership, if I'm not mistaken, but the frequency in which you produce. And so that's a way to actually like manipulate that. Sure, sure, sure. Where you see this with some other media companies doing this, where they essentially record for three hours and they just break up every. All the episodes are like 15 minutes long and they upload like, you know, 15 a day or whatever and they're like, look, we're on top of charts, but if you actually look at overall listenership, it's like really low. Yeah, we would. But yeah, like there's, there's, there's obviously like three a day. I mean, I spent, I got, I got to spend. I think I could talk about this. Pretty sure I got to spend some time with Demis from, from DeepMind. And just like, you know, that is the most AGI pilled fucking person I've ever come across in my life. So he thinks it's coming for everything. Yeah. So, yeah, obviously there's going to be great AI generated podcasts. I think the people making AI podcasts would Stop. If they knew they were competing against you. I found this hilarious. I was looking back like the Chuck Norris of podcasting. You guys are hilarious because I went through our look at this here. You guys text me this when I did the new show and you didn't like the profile picture that I. That I originally picked. Yeah. You were smiling. I was like, read it. Yeah. I said, you created a new account for the new show and I just immediately texted it to you. And I said, I think no smile and profile picture. John says, agree. And I says, I said, you look good. It just doesn't seem on brand you're more serious than 99% of people. And then John said, unless it's a deliberate ploy to make enemies, underestimate how seriously you take podcasting. And I said, you look like you should look like you're going to kill someone. Yeah. So anything like, I think, like, being the best in the world, like, trying to like, dominate whatever niche. Like you guys are dominating your niche right now. Yeah. I'm amazed. I hear. Listen to every single interview you guys do and like, just your. Your relentless focus of, like, this is what we do. You don't even want to travel, which I heard, like, you changed something plans recently. Yeah. I think, like the key for us and anybody is just like, whatever your core competency is, like, focus in on that. Try to get as far down that line as possible and then just say no to everything else. And again, is that even new? Yeah. It's interesting on the AI topic, the speed with which AI can produce an audio deep dive on a hot topic like the Epstein files, which drops. It has thousands and thousands of pages of documents. The human team's not going to be able to read through that. And people want to consume that media through audio. That makes a lot of sense. At the same time, it does feel like interviews with particular people that everyone knows is not AI, like Marc Andreessen, and then they can react to that and feel something emotionally because it's a real person with a real impact on the world that feels very, very sticky. So, okay, so debate demons on that. We just had this conversation. So some of the stuff, like how we're using AI for the new show, like, I'm not going to talk about publicly, obviously tell you guys because we share information, but it's just like, I'm not giving an edge to competitors. It's not going to happen. Yeah. What I would say is you have a course. No, never do that. Never. So what I would say is, like, we had. I Had dinner, like, a month ago. And this is exactly. It was with Kareem and the guy that we can't mention. Yeah. And they're just like, you're moving way too fucking slow. These are close friends. So it's like, they're not, like, being mean to me. You're moving way too slow. You're not using AI enough. Like, Founders is more, like, susceptible to being overtaken by AI than the new one. Yeah. And you should drastically ramp up production on the new one. Yeah. And they made the exact same point that you did. But I do think, again, like, everything the world is, like, run on parallels. And I think podcasting is the same way. And it's just like, yeah, you guys are making media, you're delivering news and commentary, but your audience has a relationship with you. Yeah. Like, I see when they come up to you, like, how they act. They act like you're. Jordy and John are my best friends. Like, that's what I've been saying that you can go. I've been going on podcasts for half a decade. Like, not making medium, creating relationships at scale. And that's why your. Your shows are not just like, you ask one. Like, it would be very different to, like, use AI and walk into an interview with Mark Andreessen just with, like, 10 questions and be like, mark, how did you start your career? I didn't have AI Will be able to. Mark can put up an insane podcast just with that format where the guests could say, like, a total of a thousand words. He just, like, goes off. But no, you're. Yours are more like, you know, all of your. I think a lot of your episodes will end up being, like, 50. 50. I'm trying to, like, I didn't have anything. I think they're better if I don't have anything in front of me. Like, I prepared for last decade. Like, I can just sit down and talk to you. I. We do have one. So I met Tony from Doordash here. Remember, he came on your show and we had this crazy conversation. You were writing the newsletter, but me, you, Patrick and Tony had this crazy conversation for, like, 45 minutes. And in 15 minutes, and I was like, hold up, dude. You got do more podcasts. So impressive. That one, I think is coming out next weekend. That one I had maybe too much in front of me just because, like, the way I think about Tony is just. He's like, again, like, not financial advice, but he just gives me out of any. Anybody I've ever spoken to. I think he's 41 just gives me like, yeah, like young Jeff Bezos vibes. Like I have no idea the quality of the doordash. I don't look into the stock, anything like that. All I know is if you think that guy's gonna stopping at food. Yeah. The other thing that's notable there is all three of the original co founders are still working in the business and it's. What are they 15 years in or something crazy? Maybe, maybe a little bit less, but. But that it's so, so rare to have that much success. Yeah. All the, all the founders normally, you know, but somebody steps back normally think, think somebody's got to start a venture fund. Think about how humble he is though. Right. And you know, I even said this on the episode. It's like, you're not going to like what I'm about to say, Tony, but I'm gonna say it anyways. It's just like your competitors are afraid of you. Like, I've had a dinner in Stockholm with the guy that sold his company for like $8 billion to Tony. His name's Mickey. The company's called Volt or something like that. It was like doordash European. And it was. He told this crazy story I told on the episode with Tony. He still reports directly to Tony to this day. And we're like, he, he's like. I thought of myself as an entrepreneur in my entire life. I thought there's no way in hell I'd ever work for anybody else. We had, we had a term sheet right in front of me. We could raise a fresh billion dollars of capital to fight them. And I'm looking at it thinking about this and something involuntarily came out of my mouth that I never thought I would admit. And he's looking at it. He goes, I can't beat him. Whoa, you can't beat him. Join him. I can't beat him. So I either could like sell for life changing money and then learn from him, or I could fight this ego and maybe light this billion dollars on fire. And he did the difficult decisions, like, I'm going to go and sell. He's still going to get stock in the company and be able to grow that. Yeah. But I would say that out of all the conversations I've had so far, the one that they're all like, I've all enjoyed them. But what I would say is like Toby Luque was if the people listening to this have not listened to any of the new show yet, I would. If you want to go in tech, go Toby Luque, if you want to find these crazy people that are not in tech, go. Todd Graves. Todd Graves. But Toby Luque was very fascinating to me because he's your favorite founder's favorite founder. So everybody that you admire, you ask who they admire, and they'll bring up Toby. And what they like about him is that he thinks through every single thing independently. So therefore, he has all these beliefs that are not correlated with one another, which means when you have a conversation with him, you are unable to predict what his response to your question or your statement is going to be. And that we talked for four hours. So we talked for a half hour before we recorded. Then we recorded for three hours. We edited down to whatever it was, Then we recorded for another 30 minutes or talked for another 30 minutes after. And I could have kept talking. I was like, dude, I got to catch a flight. I'm going to have dinner with Charlie Rose that night. I had to, like, fly down there. It's like we would have kept talking. Like, he just blew my mind. One thing he said that I think would be interesting to your audience is he believes, and I think he said this on the episode, that we're going to look back on the year 2026 as the year that every single business in the world was up for grabs. That AI is coming for everything. Every single other business will have to be reimagined. And you're going to look back at this is the year where it should have been obvious to you that you can rebuild the AI native version of whatever exists out there. Interesting. Meta has scaled back their metaverse plans, kind of refocused the company. A lot of people over the last couple weeks have been kind of dunking on Zuck for that. Anything stand out in history where great entrepreneurs, CEOs made, like, massive, massive bets, and they didn't pan out? I would say, as a matter shareholder, I think it's great that Zuck is willing to, like, bet heavy, heavy, heavy on, you know, trends that he really believes in. And also it's great if you kind of run it down and then realize you're hitting a dead end or need to refocus. But what's your view on swinging for the absolute fences and missing sometimes? I mean, it's obviously inevitable. Jeff Bezos has this great line in Shareholder Letters where it's like, the size of your failure has to scale with the size of your company. So he's like, I can't make a $300 million mistake anymore. I need to be making. I think the fire Phone was like a $3 billion. Yeah, that's good. Okay. Because I'm going to somewhere I have to. It's just inevitable. What I will say is I've spent some time with Zuck. I don't. I don't think he has a peer. Like, I told him this. It's like, who else is his age? And he's still somewhat of a puzzle and mystery to me. And that's why I'm, like, interested in, like, to continue to talk to him. Because it's just like, I've read every single book on Facebook. They're all bad. There's no good books on Facebook. They're some of his, you know, most of his interviews, like, they just. There's just certain things I want to talk to him about that because I'm just naturally curious about. I think this is the whole point where, you know, people like you guys are having this immoral conversation about introspection. It's just like, it's funny because, yeah, you actually want him to introspect. You want. The interview that you would do with Zuck would be very reflective. It would not be. Tell me how you're thinking about MSL's product roadmap. No, I don't even think it would be introspective. It'd be like, just. I want to know how. Like, the reason I signaled out the Toby Luque episode is because when I sat down with Toby and I did this with Brian Armstrong too, who was awesome. Just like, I want to make like a How Toby Luque works episode. Yes. Like, and this is what I just want to know. I'm not. There's no gotcha here. It's just like, how do you think about building businesses? How do you think about retaining talent? Why'd you do this product? Like, just tell me the stuff that you have. 25 years, in his case, I think 20 years experience as an entrepreneur. Like, that's one very rare, especially one in a single company. Like, you've learned all kinds of crazy stuff. Like, just like, let's get some of this on record and let's talk about this. So same thing with Zuck. I'd just be very interested. What I like about him is like, he has this just like inner clock where, you know, he's. He's going to make these massive bets and, you know, obviously he knows. He's obviously not stupid. Like, some of them are going to fail. Of course. What do you think about retired interviews? People that are out of the game? The risk with a live player, someone who's actively running a public company is that the SEC is listening to what they're saying, that they want to stay on talking points, that they have a bunch of different incentives. Well, if they say, oh well, you know, the easiest thing I ever did was cut back my marketing spend because none of that stuff was working well, then their head of marketing is going to be upset. There's internal politics. Whereas when you do an interview with somebody who's retired and no longer in the game, sometimes they can speak a little bit more freely about their industry, their life's work, their career, et cetera. Yeah, I would if, if I could have a show of just 80 year old billionaires. Like that would talk like, I got to spend time with Sam Zell before he died. The fact that I was never able to record a podcast with him, like now that I have this new vehicle is like, man, because he just like doesn't care. He's dying of cancer. Yeah, he's going to say, whatever. So my friend Sam Hinkey, I just saw him like two weeks ago and he actually gave me advice. He's like, you should organize your guest list in reverse chronological order because like there's one guy we're working on right now who's, you know, one of the most successful people. We already had to reschedule with them. He's 87. 87. And he is like unfiltered. Incredible. What about the, the tension between a name brand, live player, like a Toby. Look, he's somebody who has done other podcasts. People are, you know, know Shopify, maybe they built a business on Shopify. Like it is not fully a consumer brand, but it will draw a certain level of attention versus 80 year old billionaire who's been, you know, owns half the farmland in Montana. Might have had a fantastically rich life, but one behind the scenes. Is there still an interview to be done there? Yeah, like how do you guys choose the people you want to talk to? Like, well, a lot of it's news driven, so a lot of it's about, you know, what's happening right now in the world. Who can we talk to to contextualize that? And so I enjoy those reflective moments when they come up, but they aren't so as much of a driving force at all. So I try to. So I went on a walk yesterday, or maybe yesterday, I don't know where I was yesterday. Yeah, it was yesterday morning. And a really good friend, really smart person is just like, you have one of your gifts is like distilling everything down to like what is actually essential. And so. And he's like, you help me talk through all these issues I'm having with my business this way. But you do it for yourself where it's like this. I'm just going after things I'm intensely interested in. Especially in the age of AI. If you're not following what you're obsessed with, like, I don't. I think you're doing it wrong. So Founders is just the books that I'm intensely interested in reading and the new show is just people I'm intensely interested in speaking to. Some of those stuff, the people we have recorded, they'll like maybe knowing this like small niche thing. I'm not going after like just big names. That's not interesting to me. It's like the rubric is very. Or the like the decision making here is very simple. It's just like, am I intensely interested to sit down and talk to this person like Evan Spiegel. I showed him too this. I did an episode of Founders on him. I think it's episode like 25 or 24. It was like a long time ago. And there was like one thing that happened with Evan because I talk about Edwin Land all the time. Founder of Polaroid. Steve Jobs hero. Steve Jobs copied a lot of how Edwin Land built Polaroid and used those ideas in building Apple. He's the job of mentoring technologists. Yeah. And he's the patron saint of founders. And so I read this book about Evan and Evan is 21 years old and he's talking about that he's got two heroes and it happens to be Steve Jobs, which makes sense. Every 21 year old kid trying to be an entrepreneur at the time had Steve Jobs and then Edwin Land. It's like, how the hell does a 21 year old even know we got no Edwin Land? Yeah. We had an incredible conversation about. No, it's a different Land. Yeah. And so like you see what I mean? Like I just like we have the same interest. This is a guy that has influenced my thinking. He influenced your thinking. And of course you wind up with a camera company. Yeah. Like it makes perfect sense to me. Oh, that makes sense. And I don't care. Anybody's like, oh, market cap. Or I don't care about that. The iPhone is also. But people are like, what about like if the stock price is down on the market cap? So I don't give a shit. I want him to win. He's like a very interesting person to be. Yeah, totally. Totally. Okay. Saturday, I watched Elon's kind of new pitch for Tesla XAI and SpaceX. And one of the products that he was kind of presenting was a mass driver. Did you follow this at all, do you think? I did. I know you didn't. We have. Hold on. We have two episodes tomorrow, by the way. Yeah, yeah. So we were having. We were having a debate on the show at the beginning around the timeline for the products, and we were pretty. John, where did we actually land? You were saying under 20 years. I said under 20. Tyler said under 30. And you said 75 or something like that. And so. Or you said 10, but then also 75, but also five. Literally. I have no idea. I'm not gonna pretend that I think I have, like, an accurate read on it, but has there any. Any entrepreneurs throughout history that were kind of pitching their business overall on. On timelines where the market was like, I don't know if this is like. Yeah, like. Like going back to, like, inventing flight. People telling the Wright brothers, like, you're never going to be able to fly. That's impossible. People were saying that. Yeah, no, I know, I know, I know. But they did it. They did it. They weren't being like, like, this chain of events will lead to the 74750 years from now. Yeah, exactly. And like, so get ready. So invest in my bicycle plane, because the 747 is coming. It was coming in 50 years. Right. So I would say about Elon in particular, I did this episode of Founders, which I'm really proud of. It's probably the most downloaded episode ever. It's called How Elon Works. And it strips away all the biographical details and just talks about him speaking about the way he runs his companies. And in that episode, I said, like, usually there's some kind of, like, historical equivalent for everybody operating today. And, you know, you could name a person. I could find somebody in history that you know. But for him, I do think he is, like, a singular character. I can't think of anybody, living or dead that is like him. Yeah, there's weird because he's an industrialist, but he's also incredibly promotional and, like, very good at the marketing side as well as the building. He's the best in the world at that. That's very. Might be the best salesperson. That was why the week. The weekend presentation was tough because I didn't think the. All the technology was cool. And I have zero doubt that Elon can do hard things that no other set of companies do, and you see it today. But I just wasn't A decade ago, people were like, roadster's coming next year. Everyone's talking about Roadster, and no one's really talking about Mass Driver. So breakthrough. In the same way, probably because the name. Like, they gotta get a new name. Yeah, they should call it. I didn't see it, so I don't know what that means, but that's fine. Hold on. There is. To answer your question, though, Jordy, there is tons of examples from history of somebody having an idea saying that they're gonna dedicate to that life, their life, to making that idea come to fruition, and taking multiple decades to actually do that. So, like, the thing that comes to mind just because I'm rereading about him now and I'm probably gonna do another episode on him. I've done like six episodes on Henry Ford, and Henry Ford had one idea. He will tell you. I had one idea in my entire life, and that was to figure out a way to make the car for an Everyman. Meaning at the time when you made less than a dollar a day, cars are like $6,000. You can't afford the people making them, cannot afford them. How can we learn to mass produce that? And it took him, you know, 20 years of pounding on that idea until he actually accomplished that goal. So he probably thought it was going to be done three or five or 10, and it took 20. But, yeah, you're going to find a ton of examples like that. It always takes longer. And that's why the Raptor R exists. The car for the Everyman. Henry Ford would have. Well, the thing that example doesn't quite satisfy this example, because this pitch is like, these eight things need to happen perfectly synced together in order for this other thing to be possible. But again, betting against Elon has not worked. There is. There's a book by our mutual friend Eric Jorgensen that's coming out tomorrow. Mid curve. Mid curve. We. Yeah, I think. I mean, we can show the COVID can't we? You can read the whole thing right now, live. You guys Want to see 7 hours? Let's do a table reading. This is the book of Elon with a forward by Naval Ravikant by none other than Eric Jorgensen. And the visuals are by Jack Butcher. Oh, that's great. So in the book, Elon talks about the fact that he gets a lot of shit on. The fact that his timelines are usually, you know, off. Yeah. And he explains why and everything else. But I think what, Eric, we're actually doing something. Eric was actually the first American to ever Put me on a podcast. Really? And so, like, the first podcast I ever did of somebody else's podcast was this one that only went in, like, China. Yeah. And so it was, like, really popular on WeChat. But no one but Eric, he just, like, gave me a shot when no one really knew who I was. That's awesome. And it wind up being important because one of the listeners of that episode, there's only, like, a thousand people listen to it, was Patrick and Matt Russell, who was running Colossus. And there's a comment in the Colossus Slack, the Colossus podcast network. Slack, which Patrick o' Shaughnessy is the founder of. Talking about the episode. This is before I was signed to them, and they said, this guy sounds like he's going to bite the microphone. And so they're like, oh, he's actually like, might be good at this. But I think what Eric is. The reason why I'm doing is I'm dropping an episode of Founders on this book tomorrow, which is a normal solo episode. Then I did something different for the new show, which I think could be another, like, not just having conversations with great founders, but conversations with charismatic authors who are writing about great founders. Eric, he's a friend. He's also very articulate and charismatic. And so we essentially. That episode's coming on the David center feed tomorrow. Did you say because he's a friend, he's articulate? No, no, because Charismatic. Spend a lot of time talking to him. We're like. You guys interviewed authors? Yeah, you know, some of them. Authors are almost universally fun to talk to in the moment that they're launching their book, because they've spent more time than anyone else on Earth just thinking about that one. So when you see the shot tomorrow, it's like we have, like, you know, I don't know, a thousand pages of Elon documents in front of us. And a lot of it is just me going through, asking my notes and highlights with Eric, and then you essentially can prompt him, and then he can tell you crazy Elon stories. Yeah. Do you think that a lot of the CEOs that you're talking to, the ones that are kind of in their prime, let's say, you know, five to 10 years or 20 years into their company, do you think they are more AGI pilled than they let on on the Internet? Because a lot of them will, like, talk about how they're using AI and talk about how they're excited about it. But I feel like you've given me some examples where behind the scenes, they're actually, like, much stronger believers. You guys had. I think Lulu, I think, has been on here talking about that. AI has like a communication, like a branding problem. It's, like, very unpopular with the general population, actually talking. I spent over an hour with Kareem yesterday talking about this topic and about ways to actually get good information. What I would say is like, yeah, like, most of the stuff they're talking about, they're not gonna talk on a podcast. They're not gonna talk about. You'll see this in group chats to some of the. The ones that, like, you and I are in. But even that, like, yeah, most of them is, like, whispers and, like, private conversations and completely off the record stuff. Mm. Do you think you'll ever write a book? Do you think I'll ever write a book? The things that we three share. No, man. The thing that we three. No, the thing that we share is like, do you want to do anything else than the show? Why haven't you raised the fun yet? Why aren't you starting a new company? Yeah. Why aren't you on a plane right now traveling? Like, I'm just thinking, like, I don't know, like. Like the book of David Senra with Eric Jorgensen. He's writing. It could make sense. But basically Eric's already writing. Yes. Yeah, he tried to work on it with me, and he's just like, you. You're. You don't answer my phone and I talk to you because I can't get a hold of you. Then I talk to you. You have. Your idea changes all the time. I was like, I can't be the bottleneck of anything. This is why I have to run my own shit. Yeah, that's fair. I'm just thinking about, in terms of, like, are you trying to, like, sabotage me or you're trying to, like, get me to know? I've just seen more and more. Like, Dorkash wrote that book with Stripe Press that was heavily based upon the interviews that he did. Had a bunch of interesting graphics. It was clearly a collaborative project, and I feel like there's an aura effect to writing that can work very well. I mean, we had. We've had a number of people on that have been able to stick the landing. And no, I think, again, just focus is more important than ever in this age. And focus on things that you just. You think about all the time and that you're, like, obsessed with. And, like, the reason I could do a new episode every day is because I never get tired of Talking about how people build their business or think about their products or like I find that shit infinitely fascinating because you could do it. This is what I loved about Toby. Yeah. And it's just like he's like the reason he think he said this on the episode, the reason he thinks through every single thing because he's like, there's not one right way to do it. There's probably a hundred and I'm looking for the right way for me. And so like talk about AGI build. He said something that was shocking on that episode where you know, because he's like, I started Shopify in my in. I was. He had no money. He was living in his like mother in law's house at a small desk in a bedroom. There it was inside of a cave, right? No, I don't think so. With scraps. With Scraps. No, he built the company with scraps. And then what was interesting about that is right before all the new innovation AI happened, he said that he was like, he, he thought like, I'm not the right person to run this company. I shouldn't be CEO anymore. And then he stayed and then he's like, if it wasn't for age for, for AI, I wouldn't be running the company. So many stories about like that where someone had a really good business growing and it's just stable growth, 20% top line, they're doing fine, but they are just lost for purpose or energy. And then AI happens and they're like, I'm backing gear. I love seeing it especially with the folks who are at that like multi billion dollar phase. It's just been, it's been a remarkable, remarkable moment in tech. Yeah. You want those people to be playing as long as possible. He's still relatively young. He's probably what, his 40s, 45 or something like that. Like that's way too early. But it's so easy to step back and think about something else, get distracted or do a fund or something or just retire. Like there's a of lot. And he went. And also he went public really early. I think he said on the episode they went public. $1.5 billion valuation or it was like some crazy number. IPO, France, it's high for Canada. There's a lot of stuff in the TSX that's like tiny. Yeah. But I think at one point he's at 200 billion. I don't know what he's at now. Yeah. And so it had to feel like he was sprinting, you know, for, for 20 years. Totally. But no, you want. I'm glad those people are like that. And like. And I do think that, you know the point. Somebody's making this point to me yesterday, where it's just like these technical founders just have a massive vantage over everybody else. And you see this with Toby constantly writing more code. Brian Armstrong is doing the same thing. You just see this over and over again. There's a lot of folks. There was a peptide you could take that would allow you to podcast for 25 hours a day. Would you take it? Well. Okay, here's the thing. I keep hearing about peptides. I think I accidentally took one one time. What happened? Justin. Justin, I think had some. Oh, no, that was. Yeah, Justin gave. Justin had like. I don't even know if we could talk about this. He gave me and you. That's right. It was like Justin mares some sleep. It was some sleep peptide, but it was like something you get on Amazon. Okay. But I thought his friend. He said his friend made it in like his own compound pharmacy. We might get Justin arrested for this, but us, we were hanging out and then you text or maybe hung out. The next day you text him. He's like, I didn't feel anything about. No, I. One of the benefits of partnering with Andrew Huberman is you get access to, like, weird health shit. And so I was like, over. Like, I remember recording with like, John Mackey. It was the day I recorded with John Mackey. Felt fine. We stopped at like 1pm by like 5pm, I feel like I'm gonna die. And I had an unbelievable important thing to do. Like 36 hours later, I could not mess around. And so I just text the group and they sent like this IV guy. And it was like a four hour iv. And I was like, listen. And I don't know anything about it. So I was like telling Rob, I was like, I trust you. So, like, you don't give me, like, I don't want to. This has to be good. Would you take this? And it's something they do to make sure that, like, they're. When they're on the edge of getting sick. Well, the next. The next meta or go. One of them. There was some kind of peptide in there. One of them. By the next morning, I woke up feeling 100% like I went from deadly sick to. I feel like a completely normal person. Well, the next meta is leeches. No. Gonna be what? Terrifying. No, you can get medical leeches. This is every podcaster. Oh, yeah, you don't like snakes. What. What happened? Because I walked in and all the guys were talking about, you guys had some kind of debate. We have a debate. Martin Shkreli, what happened from Superpower? Yeah, they just. Whether or not like the, the, the, the more out there peptides that are not fully FDA approved yet, maybe there's some data. Should those be sold? What's the correct path to bring the next generation peptides to market? Martin Shkreli's position was that the FDA has the path laid down. These companies should be, these products should be developed by biotech companies, approved by the fda, then sold in the pharmaceutical context, prescribed by a doctor. And Max from Superpower had a more liberal view. Does one of the guys sell peptides? I don't know if Superpower does. But a lot of, a lot of Silicon Valley companies are getting into that market and a lot of people in San Francisco and Silicon Valley broadly are like taking Chinese peptides, quote unquote, meaning that they're like going to a gray market marketplace that then manufactures these drugs that are not FDA approved and not made in FDA approved facilities and certainly are not to the economic benefit of the pharmaceutical companies that spent a lot of money developing these drugs. So there's some company out there that's been working on something. They develop the intellectual property. They're hoping to recoup 100% of that because they have a patent on it and so that they should be able to sell it and get all the value. And there are a whole bunch of third parties that are going around copying the homework, maybe changing it a little bit, maybe making it worse, maybe making it less effective, maybe making, making it less safe and then selling it. And so there's a big debate in Silicon Valley right now about like the. Are you taking any of this stuff? Nope. You, like, protect your body like a temple. Yeah. I'm surprised you took what Justin gave you. I trust Justin. Justin and I have a very similar ethos around health. Anyway, this has been a fantastic conversation. I'm excited to continue this podcast as soon as we go off that. For sure, for sure. Podcasts never stop. Leave us five stars on Apple Podcast and Spotify. We are now the number two technology show on Spotify. Thank you to everyone who supported us. Who's ahead of you throughout this way. All in. All ins on a big run. You know, they're doing well, but we're coming for you. All in. Watch out. Just kidding. Subscribe. Subscribe to our newsletter@tvpn.com leave us five stars. We're happy for them to be number one as long as they're running ads. Yes. Yes, they're running ads. Our job is finished. Our job is finished. Yeah, that was one of our early bits. We wanted all in to run as and they're running as, so we're happy. Anyway, patriotic thing to do. Have a wonderful evening. Massive stream tomorrow, 11aM Pacific reaction to this.

Saved myself 15 minutes. Yeah. What is your interaction been with private credit throughout your career? There's a lot of headlines around the debt load for some of these software companies. And if the business model changes, if that retention does shift, that those private credit funds could be in trouble. Have you been processing the stories around? Yeah. So about a third of what we do is control buyouts. A buyout tends to have debt on it. You know that, you know, what I would say is now again, the buyouts we're doing are not big enough and they tend to be growth buyouts. Like our average portfolio company grows 50% a year. So we might just happen to find a company that's 25 of revenue owned by one guy that wants to sell 60% of his company but still wants to run it. So we're not, our deals are not big enough where we need to go to the private credit funds. I agree with Jamie Dimon though, but yeah, it's a canary in a coal mine, but it's not software. Yeah, yeah. This is what people are getting wrong. Yeah. You don't think the private equity firms overpaid for industrial companies or services companies or anything like. I tend to believe where AI is going to be disruptive is if a private equity firm bought a company, put a ton of leverage on it, and it's been running it for margin because they need to drive margins to pay the debt load. Because they put too much debt on it, they won't be able to innovate. So their competitor that doesn't have a lot of debt is going to, you know, could win. I think that is, that isn't a place all for companies that applies to everything. Yeah, I suspect there were in any unregulated industry where you take a bunch of people to Wall Street, a bunch of people have done probably stupid things. It's probably not the people getting. It's probably not the people getting blamed for it. It's probably the ones doing the blaming. Frankly, if you kind of learn, you know, from, from history on Wall street. But again, if the private credit guys get paid like they're gonna get, they'll get paid before the private equity funds. I think we're gonna sit here in 2030 and there's gonna be a ton of these deals that were done in 2019-2018-2020-2021 that screw just software. It's like everybody at all the industries where you're gonna be looking at very low single digit, low single digit IRRs. What's the oldest company you've ever bought or invested in. Have you ever looked at anything that's, like, over 50 years old?

It entirely, regardless of if they're available on the gray market or on this, like, you know, new version. I just think we shouldn't normalize making drugs in your bathtub. I think that, you know, there's. There's no evidence that any of these things are well made. I think we should leave medicine to the experts. I think that's something as V is very reluctant to do. Many people want to feel in a world where maybe they feel like they're losing control, they want to control this thing, or the world where we're losing confidence in government. We want to take this into our own hands and it's just not the way to do things. Medicine has progressed dramatically thanks to the capitalist system and the biopharmaceutical system in league with the fda, which doesn't always get it right, but is quite good. And you know, thanks to that, we have drugs for cystic fibrosis, we have a cure for cystic fibrosis, we have drugs for sma. We have these terrible diseases. And one last thing is that a lot of these people in sv, you're perfectly healthy. You know, you're talking about two sick people there a second ago. But most of the people I know in these peptides, they're taking a modafinil. They're taking drugs for diseases they don't have. And this is not a great use of people's time or great for their health. And to some extent, the government does exist to help protect people from themselves and their own stupidity. And then maximum.

Or you can split it into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket propellant. So here are the four conditions I think need to be met in order to say yes, we have a working mass driver on the moon. This is how I'd formulate this bet with Tyler Cosgrove over there. One, you need a permanently installed electromagnetic launcher and it has to be on the lunar surface. This should be obvious too. It has to launch at least 300 metric to tons over a 12 month period. This means it's driving significant mass, not just test payloads. Let's aim for 95% mission success and at least 200 launches per year. Failures are going to happen, but we want to get this reliable and at commercial scale. And that means that it can't be breaking down all the time. Lastly, the mass launch from the moon has to actually be put to use. You can't just have this demo unit that's just blasting rocks into the sun. It's got to go to something useful. And that could just be water that's going somewhere else or rocks that are going somewhere else. But it needs to be like we're catching them somewhere. There's a reason that it's going there. How do you adjust the direction? I think at the last second, if you have the trajectory right, it's like, how much do you go up, how much do you go over, how much do you go left? And it's of course, once whatever's launched is floating in space and you can use propulsion to kind of move around. But yeah, so I mean, with that it seems like it's a pretty, like it's a pretty basic satellite that doesn't have any propulsion on it, but you could potentially put some, you know, like even just a gas can. Yeah, I was more, I was more asking because it's like, okay, do we need, do we need a, do we need every possible angle of mass driver? How many mass drivers do we need? Because I'm assuming we don't want to send every single thing that we want to send into space the exact same angle, same direction. Okay, we're going to solve that one later. That's a 2065 issue. We'll get that.

Less harm, net higher benefit for the US People. I think we should treat them like we treat controlled substances. Right? I mean, there's a very specific set of laws that states what you're allowed to traffic on interstate commerce or not, and you need a BLA or an NDA or 505 to traffic a drug across interstate commerce in the United States of America. And that changing that, I don't think is useful or helpful. No matter how many people on Reddit think that they want to play Dr. House today, that's not something that they should be engaged in. So this is why I think they need to be legalized, because I don't think what we have today is safe. I don't think people going to.

Does exist to help protect people from themselves and their own stupidity. And then, Max, you're planning to take BPC157 through clinical trials. Are you planning to take any of these other peptides through? Yes. Where does that ultimately go? Yeah. So we're working with a handful of different biotech companies that are taking these through clinical trials. We're in the early days of setting that up. And my. My statement is not anti FDA or anti the machinery we have. I think it solves a lot of purposes. I just think it doesn't solve all purposes. And my statement is not that the current system is always perfectly right. I think when new data comes along, when new science comes along, when there's a dangerous gray market, we need to accept that the times have changed and adapt the regulation. It has solves a lot of purposes. There are many parts of it that are exceptional, but it is not complete. And I'm saying that we should do what the FDA has said they're doing, which is legalize several of the category 2 peptides that have the strongest safety and efficacy. Efficacy signals, because that reduces net harm for patients, increases net benefit, even if pharma doesn't necessarily like it because they're not making money from their $100,000 biologic drug anymore. Sure. Martin, any closing statements? It's been great. Yeah. I just want to say you. Thank.

Mm. Martin, it sounds like there's a sort of a mischaracterization of your argument that I'll let you push back on that. You're arguing that the FDA has no problems, that the FDA is perfectly efficient. And that seems crazy. I feel like everyone's upset with every aspect of the government all the time. Are you saying that the FDA is anywhere near approving, anywhere near to the speed required to approve new drugs, new research, as quickly as they could? I'd say they're pretty good. Really. You know, I hate almost every part of the US Government, but that's. That. That's. That's one I do like, and I advise the US Government. And I feel like this is something that, you know, could not be further from our. Our collective benefit company. Companies love making money. You prefer the gray market? You think the gray market. I prefer no market. You have one way of no market. No genie is out of the bottle. What does that mean, out of the bottle? What does that mean? What that means we can arrest the genie. We can give the genie 20% cocaine. In the 80s, doctors have prescribed these compounds and they're doing everything they possibly can to get their hands on them. And that can be very risky. And what I'm saying is we have safety and efficacy signals in millions of patients with thousands of doctors in 10 to 20 years. Yes. So Max is arguing that, like a war on drugs will not work. It hasn't worked in the past. It is impossible to. Because if it's gray market, that means illegal. Like Martin is arguing that we can arrest the genie, but can we, Martin? Can we actually arrest the genie? Because it seems like there's a lot of genies and you had a product behind you that I think might be not legal either, and that was probably available in a corner store. And I know that there are dozens of illegal flavored E cigarettes and vaporizers that come over and they make their way into bodegas all over the United States. And like this just happens. Provably harmful. And they still. Provably harmful things do it. I'm saying these things. Doctors have their license on the line. I don't think. I don't think doctors want to recommend peptides. I don't think doctors like recommending non FDA approved drugs. I've never met one that did. Well. I know thousands of doctors who do. And I'm saying thousands of doctors. I don't know thousands of doctors. I spent my whole life. Thousands is such a big number. So many doctors. And what I'm saying is. I agree they shouldn't recommend things gray market. What I'm saying is let's legalize because that is net safer for the American people. Yes. And you're saying that, you're saying that you can win. You're saying, you're saying that, that if we hang out in the gray market, you think it's actually possible to shut down gray market activity. Is that true? I think you can shut it down. And then I also think that we have a perfectly great system which is the normal regulatory body we've had for 60 years. Yes. And creating, like I said, a new special ed version of it for drugs that couldn't quite get on the school bus, you know, is not something that we should do because we have a rigorous way to determine if drugs work or not. Let's get rid of all gray market. And my friend can go back on biologics, go back on painkillers. You should. All of the pharma can continue making hundreds of thousands of dollars from these biologics. Let's do that. Sure. And you know what? We're not going to start there, but you get what I'm saying. Closing arguments. One more thing. So, Martin, your stance is generally.

Isn't the risky thing just doing like massive sort of unofficial, you know, human trials when we don't. I don't think so. I think that is true for peptides that we do not have longitudinal clinical experience and patient experience with. But let's take something like BPC157, which is one of the most controversial ones. So let's go right to the meat of things. Let's take something like BBC 157. My contention is that thousands of doctors prescribe this. They do, and have prescribed this for two years. You can't prescribe this drug. They give it to their patients. Right. You can prescribe, give it to their patients. It's not a drug. Thousands do that. My statement is not the semantics of prescribing. My statement is thousands do this. My other statement is that millions of patients have taken this. At least hundreds of thousands, I believe millions have taken this. Yeah. That clinical experience, again, is not an rct. But we cannot ignore it. Yes, you can. Yes, you can. Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait. It sounds like there's some sort of fundamental disagreement here about, like, the way BPC157 is being distributed right now. Because I know people that have told me that they've taken it. I thought that they were getting it prescribed or recommended to them, like Martin, what is your. We can agree that it's being given to them. I think, I think they're getting it. They're getting it. What's actually, what's actually happening? It's being. How is this happening out in the back alley? Is that what's happening in the back alley? It doesn't seem like that. It seems like. It seems like there are doctors that do have the ability to best doctors in the world. So when I was first introduced to peptides, one of the most esteemed doctors in the US said to me, max, you take so many supplements. Have you explored peptides? Because I think they're a really interesting modality with a few decades of clinical use. Sure. Right. And when he said that to me, I was like, no way. This is, this is. I'm not injecting myself with something that was weird. So what I did is I went around to around 20 different doctors who's should have trusted your gut.

Because it is. So first we have to define what a mass driver actually is. In simple terms, it's an electromagnetic launch system fixed on the lunar surface that converts energy. So you put down some solar panels, you take energy. That's the electromagnetic. So you're not putting up fuel. And then, because that's extra cost, once you're there, you can just repeatedly get sunlight, turn that into energy, and you. It's fixed to the lunar surface, and it's going to successfully accelerate a payload to lunar escape velocity, which is one fifth of Earth's escape velocity. You got to be going 5,000 miles an hour to escape the moon's gravity well. You have to be going 25,000 miles per hour to escape Earth's. So from an efficiency, an energy efficiency standpoint, it's much better to leave from the moon than to leave from Earth. So then the payload needs to go somewhere useful. Like you make this thing. In this video, he's talking about making satellites on the moon that's even farther away. But those have to go somewhere. So you can't just launch them into deep space. I mean, unless that's where you're going. Usually you would go to a lunar orbit or an Earth orbit or some point in between the moon and Earth. And there are more intermediate steps. You don't need to go straight to satellite with a chip on it from the moon to wherever it's going. You can start just by launching rocks, which sounds crazy, or water or hydrogen. If there's ice on the moon, you can split that into hydrogen. That can be used as fuel with electricity. Electrolysis is the technique for that. Even just moon rocks can be used as radiation shield. Gabe says, what is this mass driver you speak of? SpaceX is getting in the supplements game. That's a great name for this. They should make a. They've done the Tesla tequila. Exactly. They should make a mass gainer, mass release now, and say, hey, you'll get. If you buy this, you'll get priority access to the mass driver on the moon. I like this. I like this a lot. I would definitely be a daily driver of the mass driver.

I saw a hilarious. Take that the first UFO that will arrive on Earth will just be a car guy from another galaxy who, like, got into building a crazy supercar, effectively taking it out on. And somebody's like, you can't get to Earth in that thing. That's too modded. That's too crazy. Yeah, you're going to break down. There's no way. And he's like, I'll show you. You're going to be too old, but you get there. I'll show you. I've modded this thing.

What are reasonable timelines here? Even though I agree with everyone with what you're thinking, which is that it's really far away, because it is. So first we have to define what a mass driver actually is. In simple terms, it's an electromagnetic launch system fixed on the lunar surface that converts energy. So you put down some solar panels, you take energy. That's the electromagnetic, so you're not putting up fuel. And then because that's extra cost, you, once you're there, you can just repeatedly get sunlight, turn that into energy, and it's fixed to the lunar surface, and it's going to successfully accelerate a payload to lunar escape velocity, which is one fifth of Earth's escape velocity. You gotta be going 5,000 miles an hour to escape the Moon's gravity well. You have to be going 25,000 miles per hour to escape Earth's. So from an efficiency, an energy efficiency standpoint, it's much better to leave from the Moon than to leave from Earth.

Mass driver on the moon first or Atlantis first? Atlantis. Full society of people living underwater in, like, some sort of glass dome where it's fully sustained. You can go. You can move there and be like, yeah, I got a buddy who moved to the new Atlantis, and I haven't seen him in three years because he's just been down there, happy, living life. Which one do you think happens first? I've been very blessed on Atlantis data centers. Yeah, Atlantis data centers. Atlantis data centers actually make a ton of sense. Right. Don't you get a ton of cooling for free? Yeah, all sorts of stuff that you get. No energy. No, the vents. The vents. Geothermal. Geothermal. Okay. No one's talking about underwater data centers. No one's doing this. Call up James Cameron. He'll be on this. Let me tell you about vent.

For the audience to like realize that that was his clause. Key disclaimer. Never bet against Elon. I'm not dumb enough to bet against Elon. Yes. I'm not dumb enough to try to short any of his company. And I'm not, you know, by now you should have learned not to doubt. Yeah. What his organizations can do. Yeah. And even though this tariffab concept, you know, there's a lot of reasons that you would want to bet against it. Yep. There's a lot of I don't, I don't know that many people that are genuinely sold on, on the space data centers in the near term. It's still is not clocking for me. Sure. John. It's not clock that he's standing on business. It's not he's standing on business and you're it's not clocking for you to me that he's standing, he's standing on these data centers.

It what's actually happening? How is this happening out in the back alley? Is that what's happening in the back alley? It doesn't seem like that. It seems like. It seems like there are doctors that do have the ability to best doctors in the world. So when I was first introduced to peptides, one of the most esteemed doctors in the US said to me, max, you take so many supplements. Have you explored peptides? Because I think they're a really interesting modality with a few decades of clinical use. Sure, right. And when you said that to me, I was like, no way. This is. I'm not injecting myself with something that was weird. So what I did is I went around to around 20 different doctors who's should have trusted your gut, whose opinions I respect, and I asked them about peptides. And normally when you ask these doctors about anything, you ask them about red meat, you're asking about spinach. They're all divided. They're all like one for you. Another view punches with peptides, just about all of them except one. Said, these are really interesting. I have used these in my patients. I believe that endogenous molecules, peptides, that exist in our body are going to be the future of medicine. And those doctors have the incentive to not be wrong. If they're wrong, they could go to jail. If they're wrong, they can have their license stripped. If they're wrong, patients don't come back to them. So they have the maximum incentive. And for 10 to 20 years they still give this to their patients. And their patients say, my life changed. Now you might say it's placebo. My statement is the patient says their life changes and the doctor sees that. Okay, Martin, I want you to react, but I also want you to sort of set aside the intellectual property argument. I like that argument, but let's focus on the.

Stuff that's not fully FDA approved. I think the canonical example would be like the Chinese peptides, the retas, the stuff you buy online and inject. And it's based on some interesting scientific literature, but it hasn't actually been through the full FDA process yet. Where do both of you stand on that? Yeah, I mean, why do you have a right to pirate somebody's intellectual property? This is the property of Eli Lilly. They discovered it, they spent billions of dollars on it. You want to steal it, you want to work with a Chinese company stealing it, I mean, that's not good for America, that's not good for the drug industry. And guess where do these drugs come from? They come from American R and D labs. And if you keep stealing them and pirating them in this weird Twilight DIY drug system, which is not very large, at least compared to pharma, you know, I don't know if you make a big impact, but if it went very large scale, you would. I mean, you would stop having drugs the same way pirating music would have huge ramifications for the music ecosystem. So you have to respect intellectual property to some extent. And then taking a retta to True Tide, which is just sort of a GLP plus, if you will, instead of just waiting it for it to be FDA approved or like using Ozempic, I think this is like the worst risk reward decision you could possibly make. It's like some of the decisions I used to make in the past. What is your upside to taking illegally manufactured registry Tide from some other place and you can't verify it, et cetera, versus just taking those epic. The people that take peptides and have these peptide stacks are mostly people in sf, maybe New York. They're very wealthy people. They don't know what the rest of the world looks like. Nobody else in middle America is excited to do this. It's not normal, Max, to inject yourself with things. You know, this isn't like a thing everyone should be doing. And so to me, the retatrue type case is really insane because this is a drug that Eli Lilly is going to get approved eventually. And the fact that, you know, there are people dying of certain terrible diseases and they need compassionate use, they need to get on extension programs, but nobody needs reticrutai now, right now, before FDA approval. I think we agree on this. So I think the things we agree on are.

And I believe the FDA should make it legal to compound because the genie's out of the bottle. People have seen their lives change and they're getting it anyway. What else, what else are what, what else are you excited about? Because when people say. When people, people say peptides with an acid. So people. Thymos now for one is fascinating. Approved in 35 countries. I take and I never get sick. I used to get sick four or five times a year. I had the most elaborate immune stacks. None of those elaborate immune stacks, 100 things. Placebo, me, Thymos now for one. Everyone around me had Covid a few months back and I didn't get it. A bunch of people around me had influenza. I didn't get it. Every time I get a sore throat, I take BBC 157 thymos now for one, and the sore throat disappears. Now this is a drug that is approved in 35 countries. Right. Has, has some, some human, human data. Now pharma in the US hasn't, hasn't brought it through trials because they can't patent something that it existed for several years. So I think Thymosa now for one is a really interesting one as well. Okay, Martin, your reaction? Well, drug companies can and do patent things that have existed before. I agree with that. I did not say that. I said Thymosa Alpha 1 in the form that is approved in other countries. They cannot patent. Yeah, you don't even have to patent a drug. Right. You can get seven years orphan exclusivity, five years of NCE exclusivity. There's a lot of ways to make money in pharma, and pharma is if you haven't noticed. I agree with that. I agree that they could find some rare disease indication and use Thymosin Alpha 1 against them, get a patent. My statement is that they could not get a composition of matter patent for Thymosin Alpha 1 in the way that doctors and patients are using it today. Sure. I mean, you can change molecules too.

There's a sort of a mischaracterization of your argument that I'll let you push back on that. You're arguing that the FDA has no problems, that the FDA is perfectly efficient. And that seems crazy. I feel like everyone's upset with every aspect of the government all the time. Are you saying that the FDA is anywhere near approving, anywhere near to the speed required to approve new drugs, new research as quickly as they could? I'd say they're pretty good. Really. You know, I hate almost every part of the US government, but that's that, that's, that's one I do like and I advise the US government and I feel like this is something that, you know, could not be further from our collective benefit. Companies love making money. I'm saying you prefer the gray market. You think the gray market. I prefer no market. No genie is out of the bottle. What does that mean, out of the bottle? What does that mean? What that means we can arrest the genie. We can give the genie cocaine. In the 80s doctors have prescribed these compounds and they're doing everything they possibly can to get their hands on them. And that can be very risky. And what I'm saying is we have safety and efficacy signals in millions of patients in 10 to 20 years. So max is arguing that like a war on drugs will not work. It hasn't worked in the past. It is impossible to. Because if it's gray market, that means illegal. Like Martin is arguing that we can arrest the genie, but can we, Martin? Can we actually arrest the genie? Because it seems like there's a lot of genies and you had a product behind you that I think might be not legal either and that was probably available in a corner store. And I know that there are dozens of illegal flavored E cigarettes and vaporizers that come over and they make their way into bodegas all over the United States. And this just happens provably harmful. And they still provably harmful things to it. I'm saying these things. Doctors have their license on the line. I don't think doctors want to recommend peptides. I don't think doctors like recommending non FDA approved.

Yet we can't make a definitive statement and we don't have the rct. Wait, but I thought you. I thought you said there was studies done on BBC 157. No, there are no human studies done. There was one done by Pleaver and it failed. There are dozens of studies of drugs that become commercialized that previously fail. Anyway, my view is we don't know whether it's placebo or not yet. That is true. And some people will say it's placebo, some will say it's not. My statement is really simple, which is you can have Martin's view, or you can have the view of thousands of doctors who have used this for 10 to 20 years and have their license on the line. The view of millions of patients who talk about their lives changing. You can have that view. My dad's visiting from Australia and he's been taking painkillers for the past four months and can't walk upstairs because his back is bad. He took BBC 157 for three days and he said to me, max, this is the first time in four months I haven't taken a painkiller. Again, I'm not saying this isn't placebo. I'm saying we don't know. What I'm saying is I am. God, I'm really happy my dad's not in a painkiller. Right? My co founder, he lost three organs in hospital. He had an autoimmune disease. They put him in biologics, he took BPC157, he's off biologics, and he doesn't have an autoimmune disease anymore. We will put our money. Put your money where your mouth is. We can't ignore the real world evidence. Again, you are ignoring it. If you're not putting your money where your mouth is. If you believe that's true. No, no, no. Clinical trial. We are. Tell me about it. We're in the process of chatting with the people required to set up a clinical trial for this because we will put our money where our mouth is. Because I've seen thousands of doctors, millions of patients, even the fda, Right, who have said they're going to start legal license, even the fda. Okay, but Max, you can have your view and I don't. That's okay. People will have that view. I will have an opposite view and I'll put my money where my mouth is. Max, you've never done a clinical trial before, right? You've never invested in drug companies before, but you want to do your first clinical trial on this drug, which you did in an event, you know, you see, you've heard anecdotal evidence about. Why? Because I have seen thousands of doctors, millions of patients over one to two decades. Right? Go say to my friend, go back on biologics. Go back to hospital, lose another organ. Go say to my dad, go back on painkillers every single day. I don't want my dad on painkillers every single day. Now, you might say that's placebo. I say, I don't know. But I say, with the evidence that we currently have, I believe there is more you should see. You should see what this galaxy gas does for me. It's amazing. Okay? It's really good.

Says their life changes and the doctor sees that. Okay, Martin, I want you to react, but I also want you to sort of set aside the intellectual property argument. I like that argument, but let's focus on what doctors are doing, how BPC157 is being delivered, that type of thing. So I'm a drug hunter, right? People like me, Vivek Ramaswamy, we look all around the world for medicine to buy and medicine to put into companies that great firms like A16Z and Founders Fund and other more healthcare maybe focused firms will fund, take it to the ipo, which I've done before, and get paid huge amounts of money. That's what I do, that's what I'm good at. That's why I'm the farmer, bro. BPC157 is the biggest scam I've ever seen. It does absolutely nothing. There's no redeemable value to this. Do you know the story about it? Do you guys know, please tell us this guy in Croatia made it. Si my hinterland brother. And you know the only publications about this drug are by him. Nobody else has published about this drug. It's not a drug. In fact, nobody has even confirmed that it's a peptide from the gastric juice as he claimed. Nobody can find a sequence that matches that. And the gastric juice of human beings has been thoroughly profiled. It's a 15 mer peptide, so it's 15amino acids. Half life is minutes. There's no plausible physiological basis for it to work. And it's been in clinical trials. PLEVA was a local drug company in the Balkans, very well respected my ad, PLEVA actually licensed BPC and tried to do clinical trials for it and guess what? They failed. So this weird high level, do you think it's placebo effective? Thing is, do you think it's placebo effect? Because yeah, I talked to people that say it's good for recovery and I can imagine it's. If you're sticking yourself with something you might feel like, ah, I'm less sore today because it's just while you, while you are recovering, you think that the drug is helping you? Of course it is. And it's the recovery process you're going through. And there's a, there's an app for this. If you want to make real money, go make BPC in CGMP conditions and go do a clinical trial and you can be a trillion dollar company like Eli Lilly instead. You can putz around, you know, buying fake Chinese stuff and then injecting yourself and dreaming that you're doing well. I have a dream right here that if I take, might also aid my recovery. No, no, no, no. Should I try this? Should I tell you that it works? N of 1 oh, my God. I did so great with this. N of 1 you know, it. It healed my recovery. Like this is nonsense. This is not science. Science is controlled experiments that are well done, very, very carefully documented and so forth. Why are we going backwards? Why do we go forwards in civilization and society? What is this urge by the valley? And I blame the valley to go back time and space. I hear of you and I think.

Yes, you can. Okay. It sounds like there's some sort of fundamental disagreement here about, like, the way BPC157 is being distributed right now. Because I know people that have told me that they've taken it. I thought that they were getting it prescribed or recommended to them, like, Martin, what is your. We can agree that it's being given to them. I think. I think they're getting it. They're getting it. What's actually. What's actually happening? It's being. How is this happening out in the back alley? Is that what's happening? Meet in the back alley? It doesn't seem like that. It seems like. It seems like there are doctors that do have the ability to. They're the best doctors in the world. So when I was first introduced to peptides, one of the most esteemed doctors in the US Said to me, max, you take so many supplements. Have you explored peptides? Because I think they're a really interesting modality with a few decades of clinical use. Sure, right. And when he said that to me, I was like, no way. This is. This is bullshit. I'm not injecting myself with something that was weird. So what I did is I went around to around 20 different doctors whose should have trusted your gut, whose opinions I respect, and I asked them about peptides. And normally when you ask these doctors about anything, you ask them about red meat, you ask about spinach. They're all divided. They're all like one for you, another view punches with peptides, just about all of them except one. Said, these are really interesting. I have used these in my patients. I believe that endogenous molecules, peptides, that exist in our body are going to be the future of medicine. And those doctors have the incentive to not be wrong. If they're wrong, they could go to jail. If they're wrong, they can have their license stripped. If they're wrong, patients don't come back to them. So they have the maximum incentive. And for 10 to 20 years, they still give this to their patients. And their patients say, my life changed. Now you might say it's placebo. My statement is the patient says their life changes and the doctor sees that. Okay, Martin, I want you to react, but I also want you to.

At least that's my point of view. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I think that's right. So maybe let's start with stuff that's not fully FDA approved. I think the canonical example would be like the Chinese peptides, the retas, the stuff you buy online and inject. And it's based on some interesting scientific literature, but it hasn't actually been through the full FDA process yet. Where do both of you stand on that? Yeah, I mean, why do you have a right to pirate somebody's intellectual property? This is the property of Eli Lilly. They discovered it, they spent billions of dollars on it. You want to steal it, you want to work with a Chinese company stealing it, I mean, that's not good for America. That's not good for the drug industry. And guess where do these drugs come from? They come from American R and D labs. And if you keep stealing them and pirating them in this weird twilight, like, you know, DIY drug system, which is not very large, at least compared to pharma, you know, I don't know if you make a big impact, but if it went very large scale, you would. I mean, you would stop having drugs the same way pirating music would would, you know, have huge ramifications for the music ecosystem. So you have to respect intellectual property to some extent. And then taking a Reddit true Tide, which is just sort of a GLP plus, if you will, instead of just waiting it for it to be FDA approved or like using Ozempic, I think this is like the worst risk reward decision you could possibly make. It's like some of the decisions I used to make in the past. What is your upside to taking illegally manufactured registry Tide from some other place and you can't verify it, et cetera, versus just taking Ozempic. The people that take peptides and have these peptide stacks are mostly people in sf, maybe New York. They're very wealthy people. They don't know what the rest of the world looks like. Nobody else in middle America is excited to do this. It's not normal, Max, to inject yourself with things. This isn't a thing everyone should be doing. And so to me, the retatrutide case is really insane because this is a drug that Eli Lilly is going to get approved eventually. And the fact that there are people dying of certain terrible diseases and they need compassionate use, they need to get on extension programs, but nobody needs retatrutide now, right now, before FDA approval things. So I think the things we agree on are that the existing FDA approved GLP1 receptor agonists are an interesting category of drug, and there are peptides.

Concepts, synthesizing data into a single view or bringing creative projects to life. And without further ado, let's kick off the peptide debate. Welcome to the stream, guys. How are you? Hey, how's it going? Thank you so much for taking the time. Why don't you both start with an introduction on yourself and maybe your core thesis around peptides. Martin, why don't you go first? Oh, Max. Okay, sure. Let's start with Martin. Yeah, so I'm the farmer bro. I represent the interests and the pharmaceutical industry, I guess viewpoint of the pharmaceutical industry, including but not limited to Pfizer, merck, Eli Lilly, etc. I'm sure those guys love that. And you're the face of pharma whether they like it or not. There you go, a self trained biopharmaceutical expert. I think I can speak at a pretty high level about every inch of the pharmaceutical industry. I've discovered brand new drugs, I've acquired drugs, I've commercialized drugs. Just about anything you can do in the drug industry, I've done it. I'm very concerned about the peptide craze. I think it comes mostly out of psychological issues which we'll discuss. The need for identity control, distrust of institutions, all kinds of things like that are leading to what we're seeing today. Great. And Max. Hi, I'm Max, former peptide skeptic turned peptide believer. I run a healthcare company called Superpower and our thesis is that the health system today does a good job when you're sick. It doesn't do a fantastic job at preventing things and actually allowing people to be their best selves. I say a former peptide skeptic because they seem scary. And I say a converted believer because I spoke to dozens of doctors and heard hundreds of clinical vignettes from people who had their lives changed. Now, I don't believe all peptides are safe. I do believe we need more research, but I think there are a subset of things that have improved people's lives. I also think as a modality, peptides are one that are more interesting than before. Now that injecting is normal, now that wellness and optimization is normal, not just treating disease. And now that we have AI for things like computational discovery, so we're early, we need more research, but I think peptides are exciting. Martin, I'll let you just respond. Yeah, seems pretty good. Seems like you have something on your mind. But it would be useful to at least define the conversation a little bit more. Because when we say peptides, we could mean ozempic, prescribed by a Doctor for someone who has diabetes and is very overweight, it could also mean the wolverine stack taken by a 15 year old in a gym in Miami. Right. And like there's a wide gap here. So let's maybe narrow it down a little bit to probably off label use. I don't know exactly where the, where things start to get fuzzy for you guys, but defining a little bit more of where the actual point of debate. Because I imagine that there's agreement with the extremes. Yeah, I mean, isn't there a problem when we have to redefine semantics that have been defined forever? You know, isn't this like somebody saying, you know, I'm using, you know, GPT instead of using AI or something like that? Like there's a specific meaning. Like peptide has this very specific meaning. And they're not new, they're 80 years old. People been using peptides forever. And in fact, in pharma you try to avoid peptides because of their inherent weaknesses. You go for small molecules or really large molecules like antibodies. Peptides are sort of the worst of both worlds. So the idea that we've taken this kind of like last place drug class and then turn that into like the standard bearer for do it yourself medicine is kind of humorous to anybody who actually understands pharma. Except that the last drug class has the potentially most impactful drug of all time, or set of drugs of all time, the GLP1 receptor agonists. So I'm not saying we only have peptides in the toolkit. I'm saying the genie's out of the bottle and we cannot ignore peptides as a tool in the toolkit. Small molecules, just like, I guess framing it for people who don't understand the difference between these things. Small molecules are made synthetically. Peptides tend to be derived from what already is happening in the body. DNA is the building block of the body and encodes for RNA which produces proteins and peptides. So these peptides naturally occur. Now can sometimes be hard to patent a naturally occurring thing. You can, but it's a little bit harder. Small molecules on the other hand are things that humans design to block. Biology to block typically block something that is happening in the body. I'm not saying small molecules are bad, but they're kind of the two different modalities we're talking about here. And we've seen one category of peptides, GLP1 has already changed the world. And my contention is that there are other categories of peptides that are under researched but have really interesting kind of clinical vignettes that might change the world going forward. Martin bothers large, but I think why we're having this conversation is because people are just injecting a number of them into themselves now. And. And you're saying they might change the world, but people are going through a process of self experimentation. And there's a bunch of companies, private companies, that are happily facilitating this and profiting off of it when it seems to be a large number of risks that are still unknown. At least that's my point of view. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I think that's right. So maybe let's start with stuff that's not fully FDA approved. I think the canonical example would be like the Chinese peptides, the retas, the stuff you buy online and inject. And it's based on some interesting scientific literature, but it hasn't actually been through the full FDA process yet. Where do both of you stand on that? Yeah, I mean, why do you have a right to pirate somebody's intellectual property? This is the property of Eli Lilly. They discovered it. They spent billions of dollars on it. You want to steal it, you want to work with a Chinese company stealing it? I mean, that's not good for America. That's not good for the drug industry. And guess where do these drugs come from? They come from American R and D labs. And if you keep stealing them and pirating them in this weird Twilight DIY drug system, which is not very large, at least compared to pharma, you know, I don't know if you make a big impact, but if it went very large scale, you would. I mean, you'd stop having drugs the same way pirating music would have huge ramifications for the music ecosystem. So you have to respect intellectual property to some extent. And then taking a retta to True Tide, which is just sort of a GLP plus, if you will, instead of just waiting it for it to be FDA approved or like using Ozempic, I think this is like the worst risk reward decision you could possibly make. It's like some of the decisions I used to make in the past. What is your upside to taking illegally manufactured registry Tide from some other place and you can't verify it, et cetera, versus just taking those epic. The people that take peptides and have these peptide stacks are mostly people in sf, maybe New York. They're very wealthy people. They don't know what the rest of the world looks like. Nobody else in middle America is excited to do this. It's not normal, Max, to inject yourself with things. You know, this isn't Like a thing everyone should be doing. And so to me, the retatrue type case is really insane because this is a drug that Eli Lilly is going to get approved eventually. And the fact that, you know, there are people dying of certain terrible diseases and they need compassionate use, they need to get on extension programs, but nobody needs retic now, right now before FDA approval. I think we agree on this. So I think the things we agree on are that the existing FDA approved GLP1 receptor agonists are an interesting category of drug and they're a peptide and they're impactful. I think we also agree that companies should not do things illegally and infringe on the patent for reta. Right. I do think the patent system incentivizes innovation. I think the crux of where we disagree is not. And just quickly on the. This is the NSF thing that is not true. If you speak. I know dozens of people who own these research use companies and if you speak to them, the majority of their audience is middle America, not SF Tech Bros. Despite the Tech Bros being noisy on Twitter. I think the crux of where we probably Disagree is the 14 or so peptides that RFK has said they might move from category one, two, meaning they cannot be compounded, back to category one, meaning they can be compounded. And I guess my general statement here is that people are taking these compounds, they're already using them at scale, right? And the way to minimize risk, the way to minimize risk is to move them from category two to category one, right? To legalize them. Because the risky thing is the dodgy supply chain we have today. The risky thing? Well, isn't that, isn't the risk. Isn't, isn't the risky thing just doing like massive sort of unofficial, you know, human trials when we don't. I don't think so. So I think, I think that is true for peptides that we do not have longitudinal clinical experience and patient experience with. But let's take something like BPC157, which is one of the most controversial ones. So let's, let's go right to the meat of things. Let's take something like BBC 157. My contention is that thousands of doctors prescribe this. They do and have prescribed this for 10. Prescribe this drug. They give it to their patients, right? You can prescribe it, give you semantics, give it to their patients. It's not a drug. My statement is not the semantics of prescribing. My statement is thousands do this. My other statement is that millions of patients have taken this. At least hundreds of thousands, I believe millions have taken this. Yeah, that clinical experience, again, is not an rct. But we cannot ignore it. Yes, you can. Yes, you can. Absolutely. Wait, wait, wait. It sounds like there's some sort of fundamental disagreement here about, like the way BPC 157 is being distributed right now. Because I know people that have told me that they've taken it. I thought that they were getting it prescribed or recommended to them, like, Martin, what is your. We can agree that it's being given to them. I think, I think they're getting it. But what's actually, what's actually happening? It's being. How is this happening out in the back alley? Is that what's happening? Meet in the back alley? It doesn't seem like that. It seems like. It seems like there are doctors that do have the ability to best doctors in the world. So when I was first introduced to Pepsi, one of the most esteemed doctors in the US said to me, max, you take so many supplements. Have you explored peptides? Because I think they're a really interesting modality with a few decades of clinical use. And when he said that to me, I was like, no way. This is bullshit. I'm not injecting myself with something that was weird. So what I did is I went around to around 20 different doctors whose should have trusted your gut, whose opinions I respect, and I asked them about peptides. And normally when you ask these doctors about anything, you ask them about red meat, you're asking about spinach. They're all divided. They're all like one for you. Another view punches with peptides. Just about all of them except one. Said, these are really interesting. I have used these in my patients. I believe that endogenous molecules, peptides, that exist in our body are going to be the future of medicine. And those doctors have the incentive to not be wrong. If they're wrong, they could go to jail. If they're wrong, they can have their license stripped. If they're wrong, patients don't come back to them. So they have the maximum incentive. And for 10 to 20 years they still give this to their patients. And their patients say, my life changed. Now you might say it's placebo. My statement is the patient says their life changes and the doctor sees that. Okay, Martin, I want you to react, but I also want you to sort of set aside the intellectual property argument. I like that argument, but let's focus on what doctors are doing, how BPC157 is being delivered, that type of Thing. So I'm a drug hunter, right? People like me, Vivek Ramaswamy, we look all around the world for medicine to buy and medicine to put into companies that great firms like A16Z and Founders Fund and other more health care, maybe focused firms will fund, take it to the ipo, which I've done before, and get paid huge amounts of money. That's what I do. That's what I'm good at. That's why I'm the farmer, bro. BPC157 is the biggest scam I've ever seen. It does absolutely nothing. There is no redeemable value to this. Do you know the story about it? Do you guys know? Please tell us. This guy in Croatia made it. Sijic, my hinterland brother. And the only publications about this drug are by him. Nobody else has published about this drug. It's not a drug. In fact, nobody has even confirmed that it's a peptide from the gastric juice as he claimed. Nobody can find a sequence that matches that. And the gastric juice of human beings has been thoroughly profiled. It's a 15 mer peptide. So it's 15amino acids. Half life is minutes. There's no plausible physiological basis for it to work. And it's been in clinical trials. Pleva was a local drug company in the Balkans, very well respected might add. PLEVA actually licensed BPC and tried to do clinical trials for it. And guess what? They failed. So this weird. Do you think it's placebo effect? The whole thing is. Do you think it's a placebo effect? Because Yeah, I talked to people that say it's good for recovery. And I can imagine if you're sticking yourself with something, you might feel like I'm less sore today because it's just while you, while you are recovering, you think that the drug is helping you? Of course it is. And it's the recovery process you're going through. And there's a, there's an app for this. If you want to make real money, go make BPC in CGMP conditions and go do a clinical trial and you can be a trillion dollar company like Eli Lilly. Instead you can putz around, you know, buying fake Chinese stuff and then injecting yourself and dreaming that you're doing well. I have a drug here that if I take, might also aid my recovery. No, no, no, no. Get that out of this. Should I try this? Should I tell you that it works? N of 1. Oh my God, I did so great with this. N of 1. You know, it healed my Recovery like this is nonsense. This is not science. Science is controlled experiments that are well done, very, very carefully documented and so forth. Why are we going backwards? Why do we go forwards in civilization and society? What is this urge by the valley? And I blame the valley to go backwards. Time and space, I hear of you and I think other people will have it. And we don't know whether these are placebo or not yet. We can't make a definitive statement and we don't have the rct. Right. But I thought you said there was studies done on BBC 157. No, there are no human studies done. There was one done by Pleva and it failed. There are dozens of studies of drugs that become commercialized that previously fail. Anyway, my view is we don't know whether it's placebo or not yet. That is true. And some people say it's placebo, some will say it's not. My statement is really simple, which is you can have Martin's view, or you can have the view of thousands of doctors who have used this for 10 to 20 years and have their license on the line. The view of millions of patients who talk about their lives changing. You can have that view. My dad's visiting from Australia and he's been taking painkillers for the past four months and can't walk upstairs because his back is bad. He took BBC 157 for three days and he said to me, max, this is the first time in four months I haven't taken a painkiller. Again, I'm not saying this isn't placebo. I'm saying we don't know. What I'm saying is I am God. I'm really happy my dad's not in a painkiller. My co founder, he lost three organs in hospital. He had an autoimmune disease. They put him in biologics, he took BPC157, he's off biologics and he doesn't have an autoimmune disease anymore. Again, the thing we need to study, we will put our money and fund the studies. Put your money where your mouth is. Exactly. We can't ignore the real world evidence again. Well, you are ignoring it if you're not putting your money where your mouth is. If you believe that's true. No, no, no. We are do a clinical trial. We are. Tell me about it. We're in the process of chatting with the people required to set up a clinical trial for this because we will put our money where our mouth is because I've Seen thousands of doctors, millions of patients, even the fda, right. Who have said they're going to start legal license, even the fda. Okay, but Max, you can have your view and I don't. That's okay. People will have that view. I will have an. I'll put my money where my mouth is. Max, you've never done a clinical trial before, right? You've never invested in drug companies before, but you want to do your first clinical trial on this drug, which you did in an event, you know, you see, you've heard anecdotal evidence about. Why? Because I have seen thousands of doctors, millions of patients over one to two decades, Right? Go say to my friend, go back on biologics. Go back to hospital, lose another organ. Go say to my dad, go back on painkillers every single day. I don't want my dad on painkillers every single day. Now, you might say that's placebo. I say, I don't know. But I say with the evidence that we currently have, I believe there is more you should see. You should see what this Galaxy Gas does for me. It's amazing. Okay. It's really good. But what's your question? Is your question, Martin, more that like, okay, you know, pharma guy in their right mind would do this. Well, hold on, hold on. So no pharma guy would do it. Max clearly believes in this. And what is the intersection of these two things? Is it possible to do the type of study that you're talking about with Silicon Valley backing? Is a $30 million Series A enough to get started, or do you need to go to Wall street ipo, do the biotech thing? I mean, plenty of private. Plenty of private companies do this. Hundreds, if not. Actually, I would say there's thousands of private biotechs. Generally, they would pass on something like this. Well, yeah, yeah. So why so, so there's this body of. Body of anecdotal evidence. Yeah. Unpublished evidence. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So certainly, certainly a drug hunter would have looked at this already, right? Martin, as you're saying that the only admissible evidence is an rct. Yes. And what about all of the examples of when something works? Before anything works with an rct, there's a time when it works pre rct. Do you know? Yes. In animals. No. In humans, there are times when before there's an rct, it does happen sometimes. Yes, yes. They're intelligently. Because they're intelligently designed drugs that were designed to do a specific thing and they do the specific thing and then they work. This is not that. And you think your statement, your singular statement of placebo outweighs the. Again, we don't know. But I'm saying on the facts we have today, there is more to support the fact this is more likely than not placebo. No. Then I would. I would bet anything. I would. I would bet anything. No trial of BPC would work. Okay, I guess we'll see. What else. So. So, Max, are you. Is superpower facilitating people getting BBC 157 today? No, we won't sell anything that is not legal to compound, but I believe the FDA will make it legal to compound soon. And then you sell it. And I believe the FDA should make it legal to compound because the genie's out of the bottle. People have seen their lives change and they're getting it anyway. What else. What else are what? What else are you excited about? Because when people say. When people. People say peptides with an s. So Thymosin Alpha 1 is fascinating. Approved in 35 countries. I take. And I never get sick. I used to get sick four or five times a year. I had the most elaborate immune stacks. None of those elaborate immune stacks. 100 things. Placebo meat. They're most now for one. Everyone around me had Covid a few months back and I didn't get it. A bunch of people around me had influenza. I didn't get it. Every time I get a sore throat, I take BBC 157 Thymos Napa one, and the sore throat disappears. Now, this is a drug that is approved in 35 countries, right. Has some human data. Now, pharma in the US hasn't brought it through trials because they can't patent something that has existed for several years. So I think Thymosin Alpha 1 is a really interesting one as well. Okay, Martin, your reaction? Yeah. Well, drug companies can and do patent things that have existed before. I agree with that. I did not say that. I said most. Now, for one, in the form that is approved in other countries, they cannot patent. Yeah, you don't even have to patent a drug. Right. You can get seven years orphan exclusivity, five years of NCE exclusivity. There's a lot of ways to make money in pharma and pharma, if you haven't noticed. I agree with that. I agree that they could find some rare disease indication and use Thymosin Alpha 1 against them, get a patent. My statement is that they could not get a composition of matter patent for Thymosin Alpha 1 in the way that doctors and patients are using it today. Sure. I mean, you can change molecules too. I mean, there's a lot of ways. I know. Why would they do medicine? And so we're saying the machinery of the FDA requires something works. We see in 35 countries, the only way to get a patent is we got to change the molecule and spend 300 million to $3 billion. What is that like, what is that for a system? I mean, regulatory capture by pharma. To me, I wouldn't say that necessarily. I think that there are benefits to making drugs stronger. Like I said earlier, drugs, peptides are the weakest form of drug. They're not the best, but maybe the best drug of all time is a peptide. Yeah. But it's very, it's, it's one of very few. I would say 5% of drugs by revenue today. Today. Right. Five years ago they even have GLP1. Ten years ago we didn't. Peptides were, were and probably always will be a backwater just because they're, they're very weak. They have no pharmacological properties that are beneficial. Like, like a good half life. And in fact, the naked peptide GLPs don't work either. They have to be heavily modified by pharmaceutical chemistry. We know this is not. There's an FDA approved peptide with a very short half life. Semirelin, Thymosin Alpha 1 has a very short half life. Yeah. Half life to have an effect. We know this. We know this. The FDA knows 35 other countries know this. There are some drugs that, that can work with short half life. But almost every drug guy will tell you that you want to have a long half life so you don't have to keep taking the drug. There are some drugs. Correct. And that is fine. And we have methods now with science to extend the half life of these compounds. And that's part of where the research is going. This is called pharmaceuticals. That's correct. Correct. Yeah. That's what the industry is. We have an FDA for it. We have all these rules for it. And I don't think we should change that. I mean, these are the things that have made American pharmaceuticals one of the greatest industries ever. To start to move away from evidence based medicine is potentially very risky and scary thing. I think the riskier thing is there being a gray market because the genie's out of the bottle and people are getting these regardless. I think it's far safer to get them through GMP certified compounding pharmacies. And the way that the FDA has oversight over rather than the state we're in today, which is the Gray market. This isn't a debate between no peptide and legal. It's a debate between gray market or white market. And I contend white market is net less harm, net higher benefit for the US People. I think we should treat them like we treat controlled substances. There's a very specific set of laws that states what you're allowed to traffic on interstate commerce or not. And you need a BLA or an NDA or 505 to traffic a drug across interstate commerce in the United States of America. And that changing that I don't think is useful or helpful. No matter how many people on Reddit think that they want to play Dr. House today, that's not something that they should be engaged in. So this is why I think they need to be legalized. Because I don't think what we have today is safe. I don't think people going to gray market pharmacies injecting anything into their body is safe. What I do think is far safer and net lower harm and high benefit the American people is these things being regulated in Category 1 and produced in GMP certified facilities and prescribed by doctors. That is safer. So the net harm reducing case is making these Category 1 illegal to be prescribed by doctors. Not all of them, but the ones where we have a sufficient safety signal and a sufficient effectiveness signal. There is an arbitrator for that already. It's called the fda. I mean, why? You want a second, I guess, special, like special ed version of the FDA for drugs that didn't quite make it so clearly efficacious. What I'm saying is many of these things the FDA might not ever want to research because the patent is hard, because they target wellness and prevention and human optimization rather than disease. And the FDA loves their cancer therapeutics. And my statement is if we have sufficient safety and efficacy signals, we reduce net harm by making them legal today. We reduce net harm. And try saying to the person who used to be in biologics with autoimmune disease, you have to wait 20 years for something that might never be researched by big Pharma, right? Try saying to my dad, who's on painkillers for the past four months, every single day, that you know what this compound you took for three days that has been used for two decades. Go back to your painkillers, try saying that to them. And maybe, maybe one day pharma, maybe in 10, 15 years of research, this we don't even know, say that to them. Martin, it sounds like there's a sort of a mischaracterization of Your argument that I'll let you push back on that you're arguing that the FDA has no problems, that the FDA is perfectly efficient. And that seems crazy. I feel like everyone's upset with every aspect of the government all the time. Are you saying that the FDA is anywhere near approving, anywhere near to the speed required to approve new drugs, new research as quickly as they could? I'd say they're pretty good. Really. You know, I hate almost every part of the US government, but that's that, that's, that's one I do like and I advise the US government and I feel like this is something that, you know, could not be further from our collective benefit. Companies love making money. I don't think you prefer the gray market. You think the gray market. I prefer no market. No genie is out of the bottle. What does that mean, out of the bottle? What does that mean? What that means we can arrest the genie. We can give the genie cocaine. In the 80s doctors have prescribed these compounds and they're doing everything they possibly can to get their hands on them. And that can be very risky. And what I'm saying is we have safety and efficacy signals in millions of patients 10 to 20 years. So Max is arguing that like a war on drugs will not work. It hasn't worked in the past. It is impossible to. Because if it's gray market, that means illegal. Like Martin is arguing that we can arrest the genie, but can we, Martin? Can we actually arrest the genie? Because it seems like there's a lot of genies and you had a product behind you that I think might be not legal either. And that was probably available in a corner store. And I know that there are dozens of illegal flavored E cigarettes and vaporizers that come over and they mix, make their way into bodegas all over the United States. And like this just happens provably harmful and they still provably harmful things do it. I'm saying these things. Doctors have their license on the line. I don't think they do recommend. I don't think doctors want to recommend peptides. I don't think doctors like recommending non FDA approved drugs. I've never met one that did well. I know thousands of doctors who do. And I'm saying thousands of doctors. I don't know thousands of doctors. I spent my whole. Thousands is such a big number. So many doctors. And what I'm saying is I agree they shouldn't recommend things gray market. What I'm saying is let's legalize because that is net safer for the American people. Yes. And Mark, you're saying that, you're saying that you can win. You're saying, you're saying that, that if we hang out in the gray market, you think it's actually possible to shut down gray market activity. Is that true? I think you can shut it down. And then I also think that we have a perfectly great system which is the normal regulatory body we've had for 60 years. Yes. And creating, like I said, a new special ed version of it for drugs that couldn't quite get on the school bus, you know, is not something that we should do because we have a rigorous way to determine if drugs work or not. Let's get rid of all gray market. And my friend can go back on biologics, go back in painkillers. You should. All of the pharma can continue making hundreds of thousands of dollars from these biologics. Let's do that. Sure. And you know what? We're not going to shut that. But you get what I'm saying. Closing arguments. One more thing. So, Martin, your stance is generally that these drugs just haven't proven to be that good. They've been around for long enough that a bunch of smart pharma bros and sisters would have, like, you know, taken them through trials already if they. We take a lot of bad stuff through trials. You know, BPC isn't even, doesn't even come close to the muster of a farmer bro. Yeah. Okay. And so it's weak. You're saying there's a placebo that you think is probably real, but then what is that? What is the risk? Right? Because if somebody's saying, like, okay, it's a weak drug, I maybe get a placebo effect. Maybe, maybe, maybe it just helps. But why should somebody avoid these, Avoid it entirely, regardless of if they're available on the gray market or on this, like, you know, new version? I just think we shouldn't normalize making drugs in your bathtub. I think that, you know, there's, there's no evidence that any of these things are well made. I think we should leave medicine to the experts. I think that's something as V is very reluctant to do. Many people want to feel in a world where maybe they feel like they're losing control, they want to control this thing, or the world where we're losing confidence in government, we want to take this into our own hands, and it's just not the way to do things. Medicine has progressed dramatically thanks to the capitalist system and the biopharmaceutical system in League with the fda, which doesn't always get it right, but is quite good. And thanks to that, we have drugs for cystic fibrosis, we have a cure for cystic fibrosis, we have drugs for sma. We have these terrible diseases. And one last thing is that a lot of these people in sv, you're perfectly healthy. You're talking about two sick people there a second ago. But most of the people I know on these peptides, they're taking a modafinil, they're taking drugs for diseases they don't have. And this is not a great use of people's time or great for their health. And to some extent, the government does exist to help protect people from themselves and their own stupidity. And then, Max, you're planning to take BPC157 through clinical trials. Are you planning to take any of these other peptides through? Yes. Where does that ultimately go? Yeah. So we're working with a handful of different biotech companies that are taking these through clinical trials. We're in the early days of setting that up. And my statement is not anti FDA or anti the machinery we have. I think it solves a lot of purposes. I just think it doesn't solve all purposes. And my statement is not that the current system is always perfectly right. I think when you data comes along, when new science comes along, when there's a dangerous gray market, we need to accept that the times have changed and adapt the regulation. It has solves a lot of purposes. There are many parts of it that are exceptional, but it is not complete. And I'm saying that we should do what the FDA has said they're doing, which is legalize several of the category 2 peptides that have the strongest safety and efficacy signals, because that reduces net harm for patients and increases net benefit, even if pharma doesn't necessarily like it because they're not making money from their $100,000 biologic drug anymore. Sure. Martin, any closing statements? It's been great. Yeah. I just want to say pharma did try to develop BPC and failed. Yeah, yeah, okay, we went through that. It's a good point. Well, thank you so much for joining today. Thank you to you both. Everyone had a great time. Good job keeping it civil, boys. Yeah, very civil, Very civil, very professional. Next time a new peptide goes viral, we'd love to have you both on the show independently or together. Have a great rest of your day, have a great week and we will talk to you soon. Goodbye. Cheers. Let me tell you about console.com Console builds AI agents that automate 70% of it. HR and finance support giving employees employees.

Extra uav online. Glaze. Double blaze. Triple glaze. Double kill. 5 kill. Run. Cook is up. Wins. Team death match. We are experts. Triple blaze. Let's just roll, right? Market clearing order inbound. We are surrounded by journalists. Thank you. Strike 1. Strike 2, Activate. Go, go. The retriever mode. Trust. Market clearing order inbound. I see multiple journalists on the horizon. You're watching TVPN. Today is Monday, March 23rd, 2026. We are live from the TVP at Ultra Dome, the temple of technology, the fortress of finance, the capital of capital. Let me tell you about ramp.com time is money save. Both easy corporate cards, bill pay, accounting and a whole lot more all in one place. You got the whole. Very barnyard themed this morning. Very barnyard themed. Let me pull up the linear lineup. Linear, of course, is the system for modern software development. 70% of enterprise workspaces are using agents if they're on. Very fun day today. We got Martin Shkreli coming on with Max over at Superpower, the peptide debate. Peptides, two very different stances on these compounds. We will see how it goes. Bring, bring the popcorn. Is there a peptide that helps with debating? I'm sure there is. Is there like a DBT1, DBT157 that you can take and then you become a. Max can make one before. We'll see. Then we have Mitchell Green, Lead Edge capital coming on 12:30. Shane from AIR, we're going into a lightning round and then David center is coming on at 1:15, hanging out in person. Don't forget we're going to ask what the meaning of life is. BNY and Matt from Doctronic. Yeah, a very fun day. Anyway, over the weekend you watched this live, right? Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, the CEO of SpaceX, got some folks together, gave a big keynote presentation about his vision for the future. Basically something that looked like an ultra dome. It did look like an ultra dome. And so you watch this, right? I did watch it. I watched, I watched a little bit of it. And overall and if you were taking a shot every time Elon said epic, you were hammered by. Not in any, in any state to drive after about three minutes. Yeah. He's got so much going on at this point. I mean he's doing sports cars, Cybertrucks, you know, model 3, model Y, just consumer cars, Y XL, space Internet, space data centers, space launch capacity. Point to point. He's going to take us from one on a rocket from New York to Tokyo in an hour, 30 minutes. Neural link, brain chips, tunnels, these Elon projects have just gotten bigger and bigger and bigger. Of course, he owns X and Twitter Xai training foundation models trying to make a consumer app where you chat with it as well as solve math and physics. So the big night. Yeah. This was super rough. It was. I listened to it and it was a rough delivery. Like, he seemed like. He seemed a little like, just like, okay, got another thing to present. And so the cadence wasn't quite there and he wasn't able to get the crowd going. There was a lot of, like, waiting a little bit for the audience to like, realize that that was never bet against Elon. Sure. I'm not dumb enough to bet against Elon. Yes. I'm not dumb enough to try to short any of his companies. And I'm not, you know, by now you should have learned not to doubt. Yeah. What his organizations can do. Yeah. And even though this tariff concept, you know, there's a lot of reasons that you would want to bet against it. Yep. There's a lot of. I don't. I don't know that many people that are genuinely sold on. On the space data centers. In the near term. It still is not clocking for me, John. It's not clock for me that he's standing on business. It's not clock. He's standing on business. And you're. It's not clocking for me to me that he's standing. He's standing on these data centers. And so. So this entire pitch, you know, notable. Seemingly the first time he's put the. The Tesla XI space X logos together. Sure. No. The tunnel project Hyperloop was a blog post that he wrote and it appeared both on the Tesla blog and the SpaceX blog at the same time. And everyone was like, who's going to be involved in this? And it turned out it was like a couple people from both sides. It became its own company at some point. I'm not saying it's the first time. No, no. But it does feel like Elon Megacore. For the Elon Megacore. And. Yeah. So just overall. Yeah. The pitch is he's basically saying like, okay, we're going to do Terrafab. It's this really hard project. And the evidence for why you should believe that it's going to work. Well, he's like, we've done a lot of hard things in the past. And then talks a little bit about space data centers and then he talks about needing something in the order of a thousand times more compute. Yeah. Than he says to reach a petawatt. We'll build an electromagnetic mass driver on the moon with robots like Optimus and humans. No, but before the mass driver, he's talking about how. Oh, we're chip constrained. Which is true. Elon. He gets it. Chip constrained by a thousand acts. Sure. And so we have to do this. Yeah. We have to build that capacity. He doesn't, he doesn't lay out like a super compelling case of what all the chips will be used for. Right. Is it, are they going to be. Is Space X going to be a Neo cloud? Is it just for their own internal products, like, you know, self driving humanoids? Yeah. You know, again, again, my criticism is not of any individual company as much as the presentation. I just came away. He kept saying, like, if we can do this, it's going to be epic. Yeah. Yeah. And. And it wasn't. There wasn't a really strong justification. There wasn't a strong justification other than it's going to be epic. Yeah. And then he just closes out with this render of the mass driver, which is, again, it's tight. Yeah, but I didn't, I didn't. What was the takeaway on like what we're even going to use the mass driver for other than to get to a Kardashev 3 civilization, which again, all this stuff just feels so, so, so so far in the future. Far out. But he did, he did, he did. He did drop the line. Turning science fiction into science. Science fact. Science fact. No way. Which is. I think it's a Josh Wolf line. I mean, it's funny because Josh is the first one to ever say it, but it's a good line. Yeah. I think of it as a, as a wolfism. I do too. And it's funny because Josh Wolf was like the hardest critic of Elon. Oh, that's right. Yeah. And he was. That's right. Like, he basically had to stop at some point. Yeah, of course. But, but yeah, he kept saying these lines that he was like expecting like kind of laughter. Yeah, it was really hard. I mean, doing like, like the actual delivery of a speech on stage. I mean, Jensen just went through this with a keynote at GTC where he didn't have a teleprompter and he was able to deliver moments and get the crowd going. And the crowd size at GTC is really big. And so even if you just have a couple hardcore fans that really get you and have listened to every Jensen keynote, they know. Yeah. They start clapping and then everyone starts clapping because it's infectious and then pretty soon everyone's clapping. This is how it works. So, yeah, yeah. I mean, the comedic timing, the delivery timing of like when to clap, when to be. Whoa, you know, that was a little tough. I don't know. I actually know who was in the audience. Might have just been employees. It has a certain aesthetic to it. But interestingly about the tariff AB this is something I was advocating for back in 2022. So when the Biden Chips act happened, there was this question about like, what's going to happen with Intel? Intel should be at the center of the CHIPS act because the whole pitch for the CHIPS act was that America is not on the leading edge of semiconductor fabric fabrication. And so we need to sort of pull our weight with our intellectual property laws to stop Taiwan from exporting them. Remember, Taiwan is its own country. They should in theory be able to sell their products anywhere. Like what, what say do we have over, you know, if Japan wants to sell PlayStations to China or anywhere, why do we have authority over them? Well, it comes down to the intellectual property. There's a lot of patents that have been licensed to asml, to tsmc. And so we do have the ability to pull levers and strings to sort of limit those, especially if they're packaged by Nvidia, an American company. We have export rules. But it's, it's a stretch. But the whole thesis was America is going to lose to China unless we do this. And so intel was a very logical one. And I remember there was like 60 billion or something up for grabs around the chips act. At the same time, Elon was marshaling around 60 billion for. To buy out Twitter, something like that, 40 something billion. And then Intel's market cap, they're $220 billion company now. I think that they were lower back in 2022. They were maybe 150 billion. And so it would have been a stretch, but between the CHIPS act money, the. All the private equity dollars that came in, all the venture capital dollars that came in to buy Twitter. There was a world where Elon just bought Twitter. And there was also that, that, that rumor that he was maybe meeting with global Foundries, that there were a number of different, like, oh, like what is Elon really great at? He's great at engineering efficiency. What is, what does intel need? It needs engineering efficiency. There was a world where, you know, they, they teamed up and, and intel, you know, like really delivered on building new facilities much quicker. Yeah, but, yeah, so, so here we are. I think it makes total sense for Elon to make chips. Yep. I think it will make sense over time for XAI to start offering cloud services to other companies. Having computer is valuable, but still this seems like a kind of, just kind of a blatant sci fi pump going into the ipo. Maybe I will take the other side of that, but first let me tell you about CrowdStrike. Your business is AI. Their business is securing it. CrowdStrike secures AI and stops breaches. And let me also tell you about the New York Stock Exchange. Want to change the world, Raise capital at the New York Stock Exchange. Hopefully we'll see. We have BNY was the first bank of New York, was the first company to go public on the New York Stock Exchange. We'll have them joining later today. So the, the other side of this is that, is that it is good to have a long term vision even if it is decades away. And that's what mass driver on the moon is. It's not going to be realized this quarter. It's not going to be realized this year. Probably not even this decade. Elon interestingly didn't really put a date on it. Like he's. Yeah. Did he say something specific? He said I hope to see it in my lifetime. Yeah. In his like, I mean he's 54, he's got a while, right? Yeah. If he's a radical life extension guy, he could be like 300 years from now. Who knows? That's a very vague timeline. Whereas in the past with point to point, with roadster, with cybertruck, with space data centers, all the other Elon pitches have been very focused on we think we can do this in five years, we think we can do this in two years. And he always gets criticized for being Elon math, too aggressive. But then history shown that, you know, he, he over promises under delivers but he typically does deliver eventually. And if the technology is completely new, no one else was going to build it and he's the first one to build it. Like it's fine because Starlink works. It was the first LEO constellation for satellite Internet, had turned into a huge business, wound up being a great technology. And so even if, even if it was late, I don't even remember the Starlink predictions, but even if that was late, it's fine. It was still good business. Now the mass driver's a lot crazier. I back and forth with Tyler about this trying to get him to nail down a prediction. We started with 100 years. Do you think it's possible to put a mass driver on the moon in the next 100 years? Yeah, but. And you said yes so it's possible. Yes, there's all sorts of like, qualifications. I think the thing, it was like 300 metric tons. Okay, we will go through, we will go through my conditions. We will also go through my timeline, and then we will get everyone's predictions for how long this will actually take. So first, there was this interesting moment last year when everyone sort of like came around to the same AGI predictions or the same super intelligent predictions saying 8, 10 years. George Hotz, Dwarkesh Karpathy, Sam Altman. There were a number of people that were all saying, in various words, like Sam said a few thousand days, Dwarkesh had this probability distribution that said 2032. And so everyone was sort of in the, in the seven to ten year range. And it was just this interesting moment in the AI industry, at least, where everyone had a clear definition of like, what superintelligence would be. And then simultaneously everyone was like, yeah, it's not this year, it's more like 10. And so it was a cool set of discussions and I enjoyed that moment from last year, sort of around November, last year, fall. But there's way, like, we are so far away from consensus around mass driver timelines. I thought it'd be interesting to start developing a thought process around what is a mass driver, what does success look like, and what are reasonable timelines here. Even though I agree with everyone with what you're thinking, which is that it's really far away, because it is. So first we have to define what a mass driver actually is. In simple terms, it's an electromagnetic launch system fixed on the lunar surface that converts energy. So you put down some solar panels, you take energy, that's the electromagnetic, so you're not putting up fuel. And then because that's extra cost, once you're there, you can just repeatedly get sunlight, turn that into energy, and it's fixed to the lunar surface. And it's going to successfully accelerate a payload to lunar escape velocity, which is one fifth of Earth's escape velocity. You got to be going 5,000 miles an hour to escape the Moon's gravity well. You have to be going 25,000 miles per hour to escape Earth's. So from an efficiency, an energy efficiency standpoint, it's much better to leave from the Moon than to leave from Earth. So then the payload needs to go somewhere useful. Like you make this thing in this, in this video, he's talking about making satellites on the moon that's even farther away, but those have to go somewhere. So you can't just launch them into deep space. I mean, unless that's where you're going. Usually you would go to a lunar orbit or an earth orbit or some point in between the moon and Earth. And there are more intermediate steps. You don't need to go straight to satellite with a chip on it from the moon to wherever it's going. You can start just by launching rocks, which sounds crazy. Or water or hydrogen. If there's ice on the moon, you can split that into hydrogen. That can be used as fuel with electricity. Electrolysis is the. Is the technique for that. Even just moon rocks can be used as radiation shield. Gabe says. What is this mass driver you speak of? SpaceX is getting in the supplements game. That's a great name for this. They should make it. They've done the Tesla tequila. Exactly. They should make a mass gainer, mass release now and say, hey, you'll get. If you buy this, you'll get priority access to the mass driver on the moon. I like this. I like this a lot. I would definitely be a daily driver of the mass driver. And so yeah, there's this question of like, you set up this thing that's going to take forever. Be really expensive. What are you actually pushing into space? You probably start with basic materials. So rock, literally rocks, metal, oxygen, water. A lot of useful space. What if the asteroids that we get into our atmosphere is just an advanced civilization somewhere else just hurrying. Mass driving. Mass driving. I saw. I saw. Yo, we're downrange, guys, relax. I saw a hilarious take that the first UFO that will arrive on Earth will just be a car guy from another galaxy who like got into building a crazy supercar, effectively taking it out on. And somebody was like, you can't get to Earth in that thing. That's too modded. That's too crazy. You're. Yeah, you're going to break down. There's no way. And he's like, I'll show. You're going to be too old, but I'll show you there. I'll show you. I've modded this thing. So a lot of useful space infrastructure needs heavy shielding. That means water regolith. Other dense materials are good for shielding humans and sensitive equipment to radiation. There's been a lot of fear around the radiation around affecting different instruments or humans in space. So you wrap them in moon dust or water and then that reflects the or diffuses the radiation. You can also potentially get propellant from the moon. If you can extract water from ice from the moon, especially near the poles, that water can support people because you can Drink it. Or you can split it into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket propellant. So here are the four conditions I think need to be met in order to say yes, we have a working mass driver on the moon. This is how I'd formulate this bet with Tyler Cosgrove over there. One, you need a permanently installed electromagnetic launcher and it has to be on the lunar surface. This should be obvious. Two, it has to launch at least 300 metric tons over a 12 month period. This means it's driving significant mass, not just test payloads. Let's aim for 95% mission success and at least 200 launches per year. Failures are going to happen, but we want to get this reliable and at commercial scale. And that means that it can't be breaking down all the time. Lastly, the mass launch from the moon has to actually be put to use. You can't just have this demo unit that's just blasting rocks into the sun. It's got to go to something useful. And that could just be water that's going somewhere else or, or, you know, rocks that are going somewhere else. But it needs to be like, we're catching them somewhere. There's a reason that it's going there. How do you adjust the direction? I think at the last second, if you have the trajectory right, it's like, how much do you go up, how, how much do you go over, how much do you go left? And it's just like once whatever is launched is floating in space and you can use propulsion to kind of move around. But yeah, so I mean, with that it seems like it's a pretty, like it's a pretty basic satellite that doesn't have any propulsion on it, but you could potentially put some, you know, like even just a gas can. Yeah, I was more, I was more asking because it's, it's like, okay, do we need, do we need a, do we need every possible angle of mass driver? How many mass drivers do we need? Because I'm assuming we don't want to send every single thing that we want to send into space the exact same direction. Okay, we're going to sell that one later. That's a 2065 issue. We'll get that quickly. Let me tell you about public.com investing for those that take it seriously. Stocks, options, bonds, cryptos, treasuries and more with great customer service. Let me also tell you about Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform that grows with your business and lets you sell in seconds online, in store, on mobile, on social, on marketplaces. And now with AI agents. So once all four of those conditions are met, it will be hard to argue that we're in some sort of demo phase or publicity stunt. We know we love a publicity stunt, but this needs to be actually commercial. I'm looking for Model 3 level success, not Tesla semi level success. I want to see this actually working. Reviews, economics, I want other, other, other companies being like, yes, I benefit, I'm a buyer of mass from the driver. So how long will this take? My, like you should, you should put the goalposts on the driver, the way that you keep moving them. Okay, I'm moving the goalpost. I feel like I'm just trying to dial. Oh, it needs to be economically viable. I mean, what, what, what Elon showed was extremely economically viable. If you're just up on the moon and the moon is just producing satellites with chips that are fabbed and they just go into space, that's extremely economically valuable. As long as you can get the cost down and build it in some reasonable amount of time. And it's going to take a long time. So how long will it take? I put the over under at like 15 to 20 years, which is about as aggressive as I could get. I think Tyler's going to take the other side of this. Well, I'm going to take the over. You're taking, you're going to take over. 20, 15 years is, I think, kind of crazy. 15 years is a blink of an eye. It really is. Well, personally, you know, I think I have a bit more AGI pill than you, Tyler. Okay, so. Okay, well let's go through the six. Just say, just say the six steps. Six steps. Okay, so first off, we got to get to the moon. We can't really get to the moon right now. We're pretty close with like really small payloads. We need reliable heavy lunar launch capacity and that's gonna take some time. So starship needs to be refueling in orbit, landing on the moon with and without crews, because you're probably gonna need some humans up there, some robots, and we need to start routine cargo flights to the moon. So this is straight up like three to five years away, like minimum. Then you need to build the power infrastructure. So mass driving hogs electricity. You need to deploy a hundred kilowatt solar array, then build out energy storage systems so you can burst power during launches and ultimately scale to multi megawatt continuous power generation plant. So that's another couple of years because once you're actually going up and back, you have to put down a bunch of solar Panels stored in batteries. And then the batteries need to be able to deliver a lot of power. All of a sudden. Now this is what the Tesla does, right? You can charge your Tesla Model S plaid off of solar panels. It'll take a couple days, and then when you're ready to go 0 to 60 in two seconds, it can deliver that energy very, very quickly. And that's what you need for a, an electromagnetic mass driver because it's, it's a railgun, basically. So, yeah. And to SpaceX team's credit, this stuff can, a lot of this stuff can be done in parallel. Right. By the time, like, I would, I would hope that five years from now, Optimus is, is quite good, functional, valuable. Yeah. At that point in time, maybe we can get to the Moon and back. And I've, I've talked to SpaceX folks who have been working on, on putting solar panels out on Mars. The problem with Mars is it's farther away from the sun, so you have to put out a lot of solar panels. And that's why maybe they're thinking nuclear on Mars. But it's not like they've never thought about how do you deploy solar once you get to another celestial body. They've been thinking about this for at least over a decade that I know of. So robotic construction capacity, you got to get autonomous construction rovers at least up and running to lay the electromagnetic track. You have to solve for all the insane forces during high acceleration, deal with thermal expansion. So you're basically laying train tracks that have electromagnetic coils in them. So they're way more particular than just like railroad tracks. But then those coils, all that infrastructure has to deal with being negative 280 degrees Fahrenheit during the night and then positive 260 Fahrenheit during the day, I think. So, like massive, massive temperature fluctuations. And that means everything expands, contracts. If you have metal there, it gets brittle during the night, it gets warmer during the day. That's maybe three years of work, maybe a lot more. Who knows? Then you actually have to build the mass driver on Earth because you don't have the infrastructure to build anything up there yet. So you have to build most of it on Earth. You need to ship hundreds of tons of superconduction coils to the Moon. These, the physics behind all this stuff actually comes from a Navy scientist back in the 1970s. And so isn't. It isn't his pitch, we're just going to just drop a bunch of robots on the Moon and they're going to just like mine and refine rare earths and then build out the manufacturing facility with those rare earths and like just kind of become a self replicating civilization, fully autonomous civilization. Like I thought the whole pitch was that we didn't have to send. I think we definitely have to send like close to finished goods. I would be very surprised if you can go and just scoop up some lunar regolith and be like, okay, step one, make a wrench, make a hammer. Okay, now I have a hammer and a wrench. Now let's make some, some rebar, let's make some cement. All of that is you would, you would just logically you would pull it forward by delivering some of that pre made because it's just, it's just one extra space SpaceX launch to get up there and then have, you know, a CNC machine or something. I don't know, whatever you put up there, like you're not going to go with nothing. So you're looking at another five years here at least. You'll need dozens of dedicated cargo flights just to get the several hundred ton system up there. Then you need to assemble the track sections with humans or more likely robotic crews, integrate the supply, the power supply and cooling systems. Test everything rigorously. Integration hell can take years, but should overlap with some of the other milestones. Lastly, you need to shift into operational launches. Your first payload needs to achieve escape velocity. And at no point can a catastrophic failure result in permanent damage to the mass driver or the energy infrastructure. And obviously we've seen test failures at SpaceX where things blow up and it can hurt other support infrastructure and that can delay things. And so you know how long the mass driver is. Roughly, I think like 1km is about enough. But I'm not, I'm not 100% sure on where that is, but that's a long way to go. If the California government thinking about 11 km of track, that's 50 years right there. So you know, just testing all that, not damaging things, any unforeseen setbacks, that's another five years with lots of variability. The good news is that once you build it, once you've built it, the benefits are really good. You don't have an atmosphere, there's no drag, no weather, no air resistance, and of course gravity is a lot less. So you still need a plan for where the mass goes after it's driven. You got to catch it kind of. And that's a whole other problem. But, and when you add all these projects up, you start easily getting into the decades. But, and what the render just kind of played. Yeah, Everyone clapped and then the presentation was over. But the idea is to put more space data centers on these. Yeah, I mean, if you think about this in like the most grand project you can imagine, which is like the Dyson sphere, basically solar panels directly around the sun, all the way around the sun. To capture all of its energy, you're going to need to send a lot of solar panels to the sun. Making those on the Moon is lower cost potentially than making them on Earth. That's the theory. But then in the meantime, Elon's clearly thinking about making at least part of the satellite up there. And then, I mean, you could, you could ship up the chips and just make the housing up there. If that's the most, if that's the heaviest part, you could make the more economically precise, valuable piece up here, drop off a bunch of chips, drop them into the actual, you know, housing that's been made, and then launch those into orbit. There's a whole bunch of other. Yeah, but then you're sending chips from here to the Moon and then they're being sent back, right? No, they're not being sent back. They're sent, they're being sent into various orbits. Okay, so these are not. Yeah. And then again, my concern, and again, I'm not a mass driver expert. I'm just kind of thinking through this is like, what if the, like you got like one shot, basically? Well, I mean, the moon's. The Moon's like, movements are pretty predictable, and it's not like the Moon's just up there going crazy. Right. Like the Moon is like rotating. It's like extremely predictable. It's perfectly predictable. Predicted hundreds of years. Yeah. And so, and so if you have it lined up so that every day, at least it lines up to be the perfect angle, like then you just launch right then. I know, but you're saying we're launching them back into Earth, like just in Earth's orbit. Earth orbit? Yeah. Toward where the SpaceX. Yeah, yeah, you are kind of round tripping, but, but it's the equivalent of like, of like dropping a ball versus throwing it up. Like. Yeah, like you're dropping stuff. But it seems clear, it seems clear that, that the, it's going to require like, the vast majority of the components for these satellites being made entirely on the Moon. Otherwise it could very well not make sense. Yeah, yeah, no, totally. Like, like there is no benefit to bringing a fully complete Starlink satellite up there and then driving it from the Moon down to low Earth orbit. That makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is if you're able to get something like the vast majority of the mass, ideally 100% of the mass from what's already on the moon because that's already been driven up there. It's already at low gravity. Like the energy is stored effectively. I'm seeing a tourism angle when the mass drivers pointed back at the earth to be in a little like bobsled type thing, a little pod to be launched at the earth and then you kind of break through the atmosphere and then you parachute. Yeah, that could be good for like gender reveal birthday parties, you know, potentially. Yes. Well, let me tell you about Restream 1 livestream. 30 plus destinations. If you want to multi stream, go to restream.com and let me also tell you about Cisco. Unlock critical infrastructure for the AI era. Unlock seamless real time experiences and new value. Okay. Predictions. Tyler, you're going over 20 years. You're going over 20. 20 years. Under 70 years. Yeah, it's just so hard because like right now I don't. It's. It's hard to see like a real economic incentive to do this. Like because even, even space data centers, it's like still pretty hard to like figure out how like, like why that like really makes sense. Yeah. But then for this to work you need maybe space agenda centers, but you also need them to somehow be built on the moon for them to make sense. Right? Yeah. So I think yeah, maybe I'll like Median is like something like 70 years. 70 years. Okay, median, 70. Give me 50. 50 years. 50 years. Okay, 50 years. Getting more techno optimist over here, Jordy. If I'm at 20 and Tyler's at 50, where are you? And while you think about it, let me tell everyone about Applovin. Profitable advertising made Easy with Axon AI. Get access to over 1 billion daily active users and grow your business today. Okay, you got it. My concern is that an Elon like Elon is the only one. I didn't specify Elon. It could be anybody, Bezos. But I'm just saying there's a lot of. There's. I'm just saying mass driver on the moon. This needs an Elon esque figure to accomplish. And yeah, I'm thinking more in that 50. 50 year. Over 50 or under 50. We gave Tyler exactly. I changed. I'm going 30. 30. What I think. Well I was just like, you know, AGI is like basically here. There's no way it's going to take that long. There we go. There we Go. It's like everything will be so cheap. Okay, so you want. I mean, I was thinking five. Yeah. Years. Five years. I was thinking months. Specifically 50,000 months. I mean, when, you know, OpenAI codec 6 comes out. Yeah. Totally possible. One shot. It. No, no, no. Even in the software only singularity. So there is just amount of time that takes to build things. I have a pull to mid curve this one. And just think, okay, this is just a big pump. Yes, this is just a big pump. We need the semiconductor pump pump, the mass driver pump to get to the $2 trillion valuation. We need a lot of pumps going on. Right? Space, data centers, mass drivers, semis. Like it's the final pump. That is the mid curve. That's the middle of the mid curve. Okay. Okay. What's the left curve? The left curve is Elon good. Elon businessman. I accelerate. Yeah. Elon good business. Five years. Elon make thing. Elon put a thing in space. Elon do hard thing. Elon do hard thing. And then. And then the right would be just like insane AI acceleration. What does Elon know? Yeah. And who else is going to do it? He has all the infrastructure. He's cornered the launch market. He's shown a big track record. Yeah. The politics thing. Yeah. It's hard to see how real it is. Right. Because these data centers on land do generate a lot of local revenues and there are going to be plenty of places that want them. But so hard not to mid. Kirby. Well, while you think of your final estimate, knowing that I'm at 20, Tyler's at 30, and you are undecided, let me tell everyone about Gusto. The unified platform for payroll, benefits and hr. Built to evolve with modern small and medium sized businesses. What's your final answer? Ten years. Ten years. Ten years until we have. Majority. That's too aggressive. I never said 10. Don't. I said maybe 10 year. 10 years to an MVP. No, no, no, no. It needs to specifically be launching 300 metric tons. 95% mission success. 200 launches a year. It needs to be pumping mass. Needs to be driving. Never. Never. I think. No, I think. I think. I think pumping mass. Drive it. Mass driving mass. It's got to be. I'm thinking. I'm thinking 20. 100. Okay. Based on just average life expectancy, he's got another 20 years. 54. Average life expectancy is 75. 76. He has access to all sorts of stuff. Could go for 30, could go for 40. Plus you forget that Apple introduced products after Steve Jobs passed away. Companies continue to exist and projects will be picked up, there will be other competitors. This isn't even specifically an Elon thing. This is a humanity thing. I think there actually is like a. What about China? China could do it. Maybe if there's some economic center found on Mars or like asteroid mining. Like it actually does make sense to do, to launch from the moon. Right. Because it's like so much easier. Cars, wireless, energy. Yeah. So 210075 years. 75 years. There is another, there is another mass driver idea which is you, you build this, you take a shuttle to the moon and then if you want to go to Mars, you are mass driven from the moon to Mars. Ryan says Roadster has been 10 years since they sold out pre orders. This isn't going to happen. The Roadster is happening. Ryan, is it never going to happen? Like you would say Roadster is not going to have. I mean Roadster could just get completely canceled, but no one does it. I'm not even saying Elon. I'm saying humanity. Mass driver. Moon over under 210075 years. You got 70, 74 years. Seems possible. I don't know. Okay, which one? What about, what about, what about. So here's, here's the, here's the thing. You have to make so many, you have to come to terms with so many incredible technological leaps to get to the point where the mass driver on the moon is mass driving. If assume we get all those leaps, can we not just mass drive from let's say the Earth? I don't think so. I mean there's a company that's doing this 25,000 miles per hour. There's a company that's doing. The fastest plane has been. Is like that, that NASA plane. It's like 7,000 miles an hour. Thousand? I thought it was like a couple thousand. I don't know. Fastest plane. Yeah, look up the fastest plane. We'll tell you about the McCallop default, which Andrew McCallop, friend of the show over at Varda Space was in the Economist the cost of a 1 gigawatt data center in space. He pegged it at 50 billion star cloud is aiming for 16 billion star cloud at $200 a kilogram is around 10, 11 billion dollars per gigawatt fastest. SpaceX is trying to do this for aircraft. Fastest aircraft speed ever recorded is Mach 9.6 by an unmanned NASA X43 scramjet on November 16th. How fast? 2004. It's nearly 7,000 miles per hour. Okay, so we got a 5x that or something. Get to 4x that to get to escape velocity, to escape the. To just like do the thing from interstellar and just drive the plane into the atmosphere and just go to space. Maybe. Maybe. Do you think we will have mass driver on the moon first or mass driver on the moon first or Zit says the mid curve is definitely right. Okay. Total victory. Mass driver on the moon first or Atlantis first? Atlantis. Full society of people living underwater in like some sort of glass dome where it's fully sustained. You can go. You can move there and be like, yeah, I got a buddy who moved to the new Atlantis and he. I haven't seen him in three years because he's just been down there, happy living life. Which one do you think happens first? I've been very bullish on Atlantis data centers. Yeah, Atlantis data centers. Atlantis data centers actually make a ton of sense. Right. Don't you get a ton of cooling for free? Yeah, all sorts of stuff that you get no energy. No. The vents. The vents. Geothermal. Geothermal. Okay. No one's talking about underwater data centers. No one's doing this. Call up James Cameron. He'll be on this. Let me tell you about Vibe Co, where DTC brands, B2B startups and AI companies advertise on streaming TV, pick channels, target audiences and measure sales, just like on Meta. And let me also tell you about phantom cash. Fund your wallet without exchanges or middlemen and spend with the phantom card. Okay, so we have. It's so hard to be Barrett on the technology business programming network. I'm sorry, everyone, I'm sorry. We got a decel over here. Yeah, we got a decel over here. True decel with a crazy IP doom over here. No, I mean, 2100 is pretty acceleration pilled if you look at the fact that going to the moon is now a lost art that we're trying to. I've talked to a lot of people in tech that say the 2100 milestone is Dyson sphere. And so you probably get the mass driver before you get the Dyson sphere. Like full Dyson Sphere. Maybe over 50% coverage. Yeah, 2,100. Because this is based on super intelligence. Yeah. Well, this is like singularity. Every AI company is a Dyson sphere company at the end of the day. Potentially. Yeah. And then the question of what is it? Kardashev 1 is all the sunlight that falls on the Earth. Kardashev 2 is all solar panels all the way around the entire sun. So we get the sunlight that doesn't just hit Earth, it also hits the. It also hits Mars also hits the backside. You know, you get all of that power. So much more power than, than the, than, than just Kardashev1. But then I think Kardashev3 is every. You, you're harvesting energy from every sun in your soul, in your, not your solar system, but your galaxy or something like that. Like everything in the Milky Way, it gets really crazy. In the galaxy. In the galaxy. And that's a lot of power. That's a lot of power. By then it's totally possible that like you won't be able to tell the difference between AI generated imagery and like real imagery with that much power. It's entirely possible that it could be funny automated workflows. It'll be able to do high school level. Yeah. Homework for sure. Reliably for sure. Well, we have a related prediction from Kelshi about Tesla. Will the Tesla Optimus be released this year? It's sitting at a 25.4% chance and it jumped a little bit just over the past week. It was down at 19%. It's pumped to almost 30% now it's down at 25. Based on the more recent announcements from Elon Musk. Anyways, to end on some positivity, I am glad that Tesla and Elon Inc. Are going to be focused on chip manufacturing. I think we'll get some very, I think we'll get some real progress there and it is good for America, it's good for the world that they are choosing to work on this very hard problem. I agree with that. I had a different positive conclusion as well, which is that I think it's fine to think in decades and share a vision that is decades away. The last thing I want is for technologists to be devoid of long term vision. I really don't want there to be like an end of the tunnel. Oh, we're just working towards superintelligence and then we can all become complacent. I'd much rather get excited about projects many years away or decades away that only have a slight chance of, of working, rather than the alternative, which is just stagnation. And so I'm cheering for the mass driver. And there's that old phrase, shoot for the moon. If you miss, you'll land among the stars. And I couldn't agree more with that. I think it's the other, shoot for the stars, you'll land on the moon, right? No, it's not that. Shoot for the moon. If you miss, you'll land amongst the stars. If you shoot for the stars, you're just going to randomly land anywhere. The chance that you land on the moon. The moon is closer than the stars. No, no, no, no, no. You shoot for the moon, which is this narrow target, and if you miss, you go off into the stars. Okay, you're talking about directions. I'm talking about, like, distance. Right? Yeah. If you're shooting for stars, you don't get all the way there. Once you've reached escape velocity, if you miss the moon, you'll just keep going until you hit a star. It might take you a long time, but you will land there. I think I'm right about it. I don't think. Look it up. Look it up. So let's head over to. Take us somewhere else. Jordy, let's head over to suspended cap. What do they have to say? Are they bullish on suspended cap? Bullish on the presentation. Suspended Cap says terrafab is a blatant pump. It actually disgusts me. There will never be leading edge chips from them. There will never be data centers in space. It's such a blatant effort to IPO SpaceX on the back of some pie in the sky BS and then merge with Tesla, do humongous rays and keep blah blah, blah, blah blah for five years. Anyway. Not specifically caps. Not a fan Dcell systematic. Cap's a D cell. Anyway, let me tell you about Railway. Railway is the all in one intelligent cloud provider. Use your favorite agent to deploy web apps, servers and databases and more, while Railway automatically takes care of scaling, monitoring and security. Should we go over to the mall King? Where should we go next? Jordi, head over to the Mall King. Okay, so there was an obituary in the Wall Street Journal for David Simon. He was a mall king who was both feared and admired. He had ruthless negotiation tactics, an obsession with details, and the sheer force of will that turned his family's real estate business into the largest mall owner in the country. He passed away on Sunday after a cancer diagnosis and 2024. He was diagnosed with cancer in 2024. He was 64 years old. During his more than three decade, his more than three decades as Simon Property Group's chief executive, the inveterate dealmaker gobbled up competitors and defied critics who said malls were obsolete. Over a decades long buying spree, he cobbled together an empire that spanned 250 properties and 206 million square feet, giving Simon control of more retail space than anyone in the world. His success helped propel the family to the wealthiest echelons with an estimated net worth of 11.6 billion ranking number 38 on Forbes magazine's list of the richest American families. The Simon family, through a charitable donation, donates to many causes, including a $5 million gift to Columbia University. At a time when malls were failing and retailers were filing for bankruptcy, Simon invested in his properties, beefed up their luxury offerings and added non shopping tenants such as high end fitness fitness centers, high tech mini golf courses and upscale residents. I feel like that has been the secret to success with the modern mall. There's a lot of malls that have sort of mid tier or low end retailers where it is, it is actually pretty comparable to shopping online. You go in, there's no one that's really going to talk to you. The stuff's just there. It might be on the floor, it's messy. But then there are certain malls that have leaned into the higher end experience and oh, would you like a drink? Let's talk about what you're thinking. Let's show you all this stuff. Try this on and it's much more. It's just in a completely different tier than E commerce shopping. And so I feel like those properties and those chains have done very well. So along with partners, he snapped up ailing retailers including Aeropostel, nautica, Eddie Bauer, J.C. pennington, Forever 21, Lucky Brand and Brooks Brothers. The arrangement propped up the chains, prevented large vacancies in Simon malls and turned out to be moneymakers for the company. Effective Monday, Simon's board appointed Eli Simon, one of David Simon's five children, as its CEO and president. The mall king was both feared and admired and could be both charming and terrifying. Simon unleashed a tirade at Coach executive Todd Kahn during their first meeting in the decade of the 2000s. After the handbag maker tried to renege on deals to open stores in Simon malls. There was no shortage of profanity. Khan said the two came to an agreement and became friends. Nothing like a screaming match to kick off a lifelong friendship. David's word was his bond. You could have bang out meetings, but if you came to a resolution and you shook hands, it was golden. That's a good way of doing business. Well, rip to the mall king and hopefully we'll get a chance to meet Eli at some point. Yes, OpenAI is offering private equity firms a guaranteed minimum return of 17.5% as well as early access to models not yet in public release. There was a lot of chatter on the timeline going back and forth like, is this some sort of weird guarantee? Is this not normal for private equity dealing? Market participant had broke it down to Take you through it. So why don't you read through some of this? But first I will tell everyone about MongoDB. What is the only thing faster than the market? Your business on MongoDB don't just build. I own the data platform that powers it. Many are saying OpenAI's $10 billion private equity joint venture is giving a desperate feeling. A lot of people are throwing up the red flag emoji. Vendor financing dressed up as venture capital. Guaranteed returns that smell like a Ponzi. A company burning 14 billion this year buying distribution it can't earn organically. I'd push back TPG, Bain Capital Advent in Brookfield put up 4 billion. They get preferred equity with a 17 and a half minimum return, board seats and early access to OpenAI's newest model. OpenAI gets instant distribution into hundreds of portfolio companies. No traditional enterprise sales cycles, no selling company by company. The part people are missing. A huge number of software companies are privately held. Thoma Bravo alone owns 75 software companies generating 30 billion of annual revenue. PE firms collectively did 1.8 trillion in buyouts last year. These companies are shifting to heavy token consumption. AWS knows this. They run a dedicated sales function. Talk about a dream job that. Oh, I would go for that. Yeah. Yes. You love private equity. Yes. Hard to imagine. Anyway, anything better? Advisory programs, transformation consultants, the whole apparatus. Azure and GCP do the the same. OpenAI is running the cloud distribution playbook. Wholesale tokens to PE portfolios at scale. The difference is exclusivity doesn't ask PE firms to put up 4 billion to take board seats. They give the advisory away. OpenAI is asking for for capital commitment which buys preferential access, dedicated forward deployed engineers and a financial incentive for the PE firm to actually push adoption across its portfolio. A PE firm that invested 4 billion in this JV isn't running a parallel RFP with Anthropic. That's the point. The 17 and a half percent return looks like a red flag until you look at it closely. It's preferred equity hurdle, not a coupon on debt. This is the main thing that the hundreds of posts I saw are missing. Priority on returns before a common shareholder. So it's preferred equity plus a return. On top of that, OpenAI is buying captive distribution channel into enterprises they'd otherwise spend years trying to reach. Anthropic is running a parallel deal with Blackstone, Hellman, Friedman and per mira. It's 1 billion common equity, no guaranteed return. More of a Palantir style consulting venture. Both companies doing this simultaneously tells you where Enterprise AI is heading. The bear case is real. 95% of Enterprise AI pilots fail to deliver. Roi Ferdy gone. Yeah, that's not true anymore. But yeah, that was one study and again it was every agent coding. Yeah. 14 billion in projected losses this year. Profitability not expected until 2029. All true. And OpenAI's enterprise business is already 10 billion of 25 billion in revenue 40% and growing to 50% by year end. The distribution problem is what's left to solve and anyways goes on and on. But yeah, overall I think like people are taking one data point out of context, kind of spinning it into something that that looks like quite extreme and concerning when in reality is just giving them a preferred return which is somewhat normal. Yeah, good, good takes here. Let me tell you about Cognition. They're the makers of Devon, the AI software engineer. Crush your backlog with your personal AI engine engineering team. And let me also tell you about Okta. Okta helps you assign every agent a trusted identity so you get the power of AI without the risk. Secure every agent. Secure any agent. Financial Times had some reporting Saturday. OpenAI to double workforce as business push intensifies I love a business push so this is fantastic news. Matt Slotman says tbh the biggest risk to incumbents may be that labs absorb all the top talent. Labs already get great engineering talent but this will spread to product sales, marketing, etc. When they become the optimal destination to solve the problems of your customers. It's going to get ugly. Yeah. Basically you know, you have a big enterprise. Instead of going and doing and trying to figure out like the right SaaS solution for a specific problem, you can go to a lab and get something similar as part of that workforce push. OpenAI tapped former Meta executive to lead their ad push yeah, why is no one talking about Dave Dugan the Dugganator? It's, it's crazy. Dave Dugan, a former top advertising executive at Meta, is going to lead sales ad sales. Dugan, who announced earlier this month he was stepping down from his role as Vice president of global clients and agencies at Meta, has been named Vice president of global ad solutions for OpenAI. He will report to Brad Light Cap the Light Cap inator. The high profile hire underscores OpenAI's urgent push to generate new revenue streams to support its enormous funding requirements for its computing needs. Yeah, Eric Seufert had some good, good commentary around like the ad sales strategy. People were complaining that like the advertiser that bought the first ad campaigns on ChatGPT said the process with low tech and that they haven't received much data showing if their ads worked. Two executives at agencies working with early ChatGPT advertisers said they haven't yet been able to prove the ads have driven any measurable business outcomes for their clients. Eric Suefert over at Mobile Dev memo shared two thoughts on reporting that early ChatGPT ad campaigns lacked performance data. One this is to be expected. Any early offering will feature limited functionality. Early adoption should be prepared to fill measurement gaps themselves with polling or any other sort of pixels or tracking. You should be able to work this together. There's been plenty of times this was the early podcast ads. You'd run a bunch of podcast ads and be like, okay, some people use the coupon code, but a lot of people don't. What multiplier should I apply to that? And then you'd wind up surveying your customer base and being like, wait, we spent 10% of our marketing budget on podcast ads, but 20% of our customers said they found out about us from a podcast. Like maybe we should spend more there, right? That's the role of a good ad agency. Measuring incredibly asserting performance is precisely what ad agencies are paid to do, says Eric Suefert says if an ad agency says it can't provide performance data because the channel doesn't provide it, it is merely a media buying intermediary. If you're an ad agency, you got to figure out whether or not the ads that you pitch to your clients are actually working quickly. Let me tell you about 11 labs build intelligent real Time Conversational Agents Reimagine human technology interaction with 11 labs. Mark Zuckerberg Big scoop. Huge. From Megan over at the Journal. Mark Zuckerberg is building a CEO agent to help him do his job. Employees are also adopting AI agents and AI tools internally, namely My Claw, My Claw, My Claw, My dude and Second Brain in a bid to speed up work as they get graded on AI use. And so Tyler, where's our My Claw and our Second Brain, I think and our co host chatgpt? Yeah, I don't know. I'm so interested to know what Marksucker Revenge prompt Revenge says Zstack. Yeah, honestly, Zuck's Zstack is like, it's like God mode. I mean it does make sense in his position to have a model that's fine tuned on the internal KPIs, the internal org chart. All this information that's private and he probably doesn't want to hand that off to another to another lab that's just going to maybe look at the data and be like, oh, okay, so Mark Zuckerberg just add, I just asked, how do I poach from. From all the other labs? Maybe we should go on the defense today. But there's got to be so many other questions that he's asking all the time. When you're walking into a meeting with executives, you want to know, well, how is this division performing? How much money am I spending on Meta Ray Ban displays? What's the turn rate? Who are our biggest partners? There's a million questions. Yeah, we're joking around, but Zstack does make sense. It does make sense. You should be able to have God mode. Yeah. And I mean this has the. There are companies that are starting to do this where they're pitching their, you know, agent stacks for CEOs. Boardy is sort of one version of that. Right. But there's more and more people that are like, okay, we will come in and fine tune something for your organization specifically and maybe do that on the fly. Maybe that's just ChatGPT Enterprise or Anthropic enterprise or whatever. But. But Zuck clearly wants something built from the ground up and it's also a great product demo because if it works really well for him, then it can probably. The lessons and the learnings from there will probably apply to other people in the ecosystem. So the agent, which is still in development, is currently helping Zuckerberg get information faster, for instance, by retrieving answers for him that he would typically have to go through layers of people to get. Zuckerberg's agent project reflects the a drive across the seven 78,000 person company to accelerate the pace of work, eliminate layers from its organizational structure and change the day to day jobs of its employees to remain competitive with AI native startups with much smaller staffs. The company views AI adoption as critical to the future of success. Zuckerberg has been spending more time coding recently. He previewed some of the efforts at a company's earnings call in January. Quote, we are investing in AI native tooling so individuals at Meta can get more done. We're elevating individual contributors and flattening teams. He said, if we do this, then I think we're going to get a lot more done and I think it'll be a lot more fun. I love that we have our guests in the Restream waiting room, I believe. First, let me tell you about Plaid. Plaid powers the apps you use to spend, say, borrow and invest securely. Connecting bank accounts to improve money, fight fraud.

Live from the TBP at Ultradome, the temple of technology, the fortress of finance, the capital of capital. Let me tell you about ramp.com time is money save. Both easy use, corporate cards, bill pay, accounting and a whole lot more all in one place. You got the whole very barnyard theme this morning, very barnyard themed. Let me pull up the linear lineup. Linear, of course, is the system for modern software development. 70% of enterprise workspaces are using agents if they're on. Very fun day today. We got Martin Shkreli coming on with Max over at Superpower, the peptide debate. Peptides, two very different stances on these compounds and we will see how it goes. Bring the popcorn. Is there a peptide that helps with debating? I'm sure there is. Is there like a DBT1, DBT157 that you can take and then you become Max can make one before. We'll see. Then we have Mitchell Green, Lead Edge capital coming on 12:30. Shane from AIR, we're going into a lightning round and then David Senner is coming on at 1:15, hanging out in person. Don't forget we're gonna ask what the meaning of life is. Bny, of course. And Matt from Doctronic. Yeah, a very fun day. Anyway, over the weekend you watched this live, right? Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, the CEO of SpaceX, got some folks together, gave a big keynote presentation about his vision for the future. Basically something that looked like an ultra dome. It did look like an ultra dome. And so you watched this, right? I did watch it. I watched a little bit of it. And overall, and if you were taking a shot every time Elon said epic, you were hammered by the not in any state to drive after about three minutes. Yeah, he's got so much going on at this point. I mean, he's doing sports cars, cybertrucks, model 3, model Y, just consumer cars, model Y, XL, space Internet, space data centers, space launch capacity. Point to point. He's going to take us from one on a rocket from New York to Tokyo in an hour, 30 minutes. Neural link, brain chips, tunnels. These Elon projects have just gotten bigger and bigger and bigger. Of course he owns X and Twitter, XAI training Foundation models trying to make a consumer app. We chat with it as well as, you know, solve math and physics. So the big this was super rough. It was, I listened to it and it was a rough delivery. Like he seemed like, he seemed a little like just like, whoa. Okay, I got another thing to present. And so the cadence wasn't quite there. And he wasn't able to get the crowd going. There was a lot of like, waiting a little bit for the audience to like, realize that that was clauseline. Key disclaimer. Never bet against Elon. Sure. I'm not dumb enough to bet against Elon. Yes. I'm not dumb enough to try to short any of his companies. And I'm not, you know, by now you should have learned not to doubt. Yeah. What his organizations can do. Yeah. And even though this tariff app concept, you know, there's a lot of reasons that you would want to bet against it. Yep. There's a lot of, I don't know that many people that are genuinely sold on the space data centers in the near term. It's still. Is not clocking for me, John. It's not clocking for me that he's standing on business. It's not clocking. He's standing on business. And it's not clocking for you to me that he's standing. He's standing on space data centers. And so this entire pitch, you know, notable. Seemingly the first time he's put the Tesla Xai SpaceX logos together. No. The tunnel project Hyperloop was a blog post that he wrote and it appeared both on the Tesla blog and the SpaceX blog at the same time. And everyone was like, who's going to be involved in this? And it turned out it was like a couple people from both sides. It became its own company. Company at some point. I'm not saying it's the first time. No, no. But it does feel like gearing. Gearing for the Elon megacore. And. And yeah. So. So just overall. Yeah. The pitch is he's basically saying like, okay, we're going to do Tara Fab. It's this really hard project and the evidence for why you should believe that it's going to work. Well, he's like, we've done a lot of hard things in the past. And then talks a little bit about space data centers. And then he talks about needing something in the order of a thousand times more compute. Yeah. Than he says to reach a petawatt. We'll build an electromagnetic mass driver on the moon with robots like Optimus and humans. No, but before the mass driver. Yeah. He's talking about how, oh, we're chip constrained. Which is true. Elon. He gets it. Chip constrained by a thousand X. Sure. And so we have to do this. Yeah. We have to build that capacity. He doesn't. He doesn't lay out like a super compelling case of what all the chips will be used for. Right. Is it, Are they going to be. Is SpaceX going to be a Neo cloud? Is it just for their own internal products, like, you know, self driving humanoids? Yeah, it, you know, again, again, my criticism is not of any individual company as much as the presentation. I just came away. He kept saying, like, if we can do this, it's going to be epic. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it wasn't. There wasn't a really strong justification. There wasn't a strong justification other than it's going to be epic. Yeah. And then he just closes out with this render of. Yeah. The mass driver, which is, again, it's tight. Yeah, but I didn't, I didn't. What was the takeaway on, like, what we're even gonna use the mass driver for other than to get to a Kardashev 3 civilization, which again, all this stuff just feels so, so, so so far in the future. Far out. But he did, he did, he did, he did drop the line. Turning science fiction into science side science fact. Science fact. No way. Which is. I think it's a Josh Wolf line. I mean, I don't know if he's the first one to ever say it, but it's a good line. Yeah. I think of it as a, as a wolfism. I do too. And it's funny because Josh Wolf was like the hardest critic of Elon. Oh, that's right. Yeah. And he was. That's right. Like, he basically had to stop at some point. Yeah, of course. But, but yeah, he kept saying these lines that he was like, expecting, like kind of laughter. Yeah, it was really hard. I mean, doing like the actual delivery of a speech on stage. I mean, Jensen just went through this with a keynote at GTC where he didn't have a teleprompter and he was able to deliver moments and get the crowd going. And the crowd size at GTC is really big. And so even if you just have a couple hardcore fans that really get you and have listened to every Jensen keynote, they know, yeah. They start clapping and then everyone starts clapping because it's infectious. And then pretty soon everyone's clapping. This is how it works. So. Yeah, yeah. I mean, the comedic timing, the delivery timing of like, when to clap, when to be. Whoa, you know, that was a little tough. I don't know actually know who was in the audience. It might have just been employees. It has a certain aesthetic to it. But interestingly about the tariff, this is something I was advocating for back in 2022. So when the Biden chips act happened there was this question about like, what's going to happen with Intel. Intel should be at the, like the center of the CHIPS act. Because the whole pitch for the CHIPS act was that America is not on the leading edge of semiconductor fabrication. And so we need to sort of pull our weight with our intellectual property laws to stop Taiwan from exporting them. Remember, Taiwan is its own country. They should in theory be able to sell their products anywhere. Like what say, do we have over, you know, if Japan wants to sell PlayStations to China or anywhere, why do we have authority over them? Well, it comes down to the intellectual property. There's a lot of patents that have been licensed to asml, to tsmc. And so we do have the ability to pull levers and strings to sort of limit those, especially if they're packaged by Nvidia, an American company. We have export rules, but it's a stretch. But the whole thesis was America is going to lose to China unless we do this. And so intel was a very logical one. And I remember there was like 60 billion or something up for grabs around the chips act. At the same time, Elon was marshaling around 60 billion to buy out Twitter. Something like that, 40 something billion. And then Intel's market cap. They're $220 billion company now. I think that they were lower back in 2022. They were maybe 150 billion. And so it would have been a stretch, but between the CHIPS ACT money, all the private equity dollars that came in, all the venture capital dollars that came in to buy Twitter, there was a world where Elon just bought Twitter. And there was also that rumor that he was maybe meeting with global foundries, that there were a number of different, like, oh, like what is Elon really great at? He's great at engineering efficiency. What does intel need? It needs engineering efficiency. There was a world where they teamed up and intel really delivered on building new facilities much quicker. Here we are. I think it makes total sense for Elon to make chips. Yep. I think, I think it will make sense over time for XAI to start offering cloud services to other companies. Yeah, having computers valuable, but, but still, this seems like a kind of just kind of a blatant sci fi pump going into the ipo. Maybe I will take the other side of that. But first, let me tell you about CrowdStrike. Your business is AI. Their business is securing it. CrowdStrike secures AI and stops breaches. And let me also tell you about the New York Stock Exchange. Want to change the world, raise capital at the New York Stock Exchange. Hopefully we have BNY was the first bank of New York, was the first company to go public on the New York Stock Exchange. Have them joining later today. So the, the other side of this is that, is that it is good to have a long term vision even if it is decades away. And that's what mass driver on the moon is. It's not going to be realized this quarter, it's not going to be realized this year, probably not even this decade. Elon interestingly, didn't really put a date on it. Like he's. Yeah. Did he say something specific? He said, I hope to see it in my lifetime. Yeah, in his life, which is like, I mean he's 54, he's got a while, right? Yeah. If he's a radical life extension guy, he could be like 300 years from now. Who knows? That's a very vague timeline where whereas in the past with point to point, with roadster, with cybertruck, with space data centers, all the other Elon pitches have been very focused on we think we can do this in five years, we think we can do this in two years, we think. And, and he always gets criticized for being Elon math too aggressive. But then history shown that he, you know, he over promises under delivers but he typically does deliver eventually. And if the technology is completely new, no one else was going to build it. And he's the first one to build it. Like it's fine because Starlink works. It was the first Leo constellation for satellite Internet, had turned into a huge business, wound up being a great technology. And so even if it was late, I don't even remember the Starlink predictions. But even if that was late, it's fine. It was still good business. Now the mass driver's a lot crazier. I was going back and forth with Tyler about this, trying to get him to nail down a prediction. We started with 100 years. Do you think it's possible to put a mass driver on the moon in the next 100 years? Yeah, but. And you said yes. So it's possible. Yes. There's all sorts of like qualifications. I think the thing, it was like 300 metric tons. Okay, we will go through, we will go through my conditions. We will also go through my timeline and then we will get everyone's predictions for how long this will actually take. So first there was this interesting moment last year when everyone sort of like came around to the same AGI predictions or the same super intelligent predictions saying 8, 10 years. George Hotz, Dwarkesh Karpathy, Sam Altman, there were a number of people that were all saying, in various words, like, Sam said, a few thousand days, Dwarkesh had this probability distribution that said 2032. And so everyone was sort of in the 7 to 10 year range. And it was just this interesting moment in the AI industry, at least, where everyone had a clear definition of, like, what superintelligence would be. And then simultaneously everyone was like, yeah, it's not this year, it's more like 10. And so it was a cool set of discussions and I enjoyed that moment for from last year, sort of around November, last year, Fall. But there's way, like, we are so far away from consensus around mass driver timelines. I thought it'd be interesting to start developing a thought process around what is a mass driver, what does success look like, and what are reasonable timelines here. Even though I agree with everyone with what you're thinking, which is that it's really far away, because it is. So first we have to define what a mass driver actually is. In simple terms, it's an electromagnetic launch system fixed on the lunar surface that converts energy. So you put down some solar panels, you take energy, that's the electromagnetic, so you're not putting up fuel. And then because that's extra cost, once you're there, you can just repeatedly get sunlight, turn that into energy, and it's fixed to the lunar surface, and it's going to successfully accelerate a payload to lunar escape velocity, which is one fifth of Earth's escape velocity. You got to be going 5,000 miles an hour to escape the Moon's gravity well. You have to be going 25,000 miles per hour to escape Earth's. So from an efficiency, an energy efficiency standpoint, it's much better to leave from the Moon than to leave from Earth. So then the payload needs to go somewhere useful. Like you make this thing. In this video, he's talking about making satellites on the Moon that's even farther away. But those have to go somewhere. So you can't just launch them into deep space. I mean, unless that's where you're going. Usually you would go to a lunar orbit or an Earth orbit, or some point in between the Moon and Earth. And there are more intermediate steps. You don't need to go straight to satellite with a chip on it for from the Moon to wherever it's going. You can start just by launching rocks, which sounds crazy, or water or hydrogen. If there's ice on the Moon, you can split that into hydrogen that can be used as fuel with electricity, electrolysis is the technique for that. Even just moon rocks can be used as radiation shield. Gabe says. What is this mass driver you speak of? SpaceX is getting in the supplements game. That's a great name for us. They should make a. They've done the Tesla tequila. Exactly. A mass gainer mass release now and say hey, you'll get, if you buy this, you'll get priority access to the mass driver on the moon. I like this. I like this a lot. I would definitely be a daily driver of the mass driver. And so yeah there's this question of like you set up this thing that's going to take forever. Be really expensive. What are you actually pushing into space? You probably start with basic materials. So rock, literally rocks. Metal, oxygen, water. A lot of useful space. What if that asteroids that we get into our atmosphere is just an advanced civilization somewhere else? Just mass driving. Mass driving. I saw, I saw. Yeah, we're downrange. Guys, relax. I saw a hilarious take that the first UFO that will arrive on Earth will just be a car guy from another galaxy who like got into building a crazy, you know, supercars, effectively taking it out on somebody. Like you can't get to Earth in that thing. That's too modded. That's too crazy. Yeah, you're going to break down. There's no way. And he's like I'll show you. You're going to be too old. But when you get there, I'll show you I've modded this thing. So a lot of useful space infrastructure needs heavy shielding. That means water regolith. Other dense materials are good for shielding humans and sensitive equipment to radiation. There's been a lot of fear around the radiation around affecting different instruments or humans in space. So you wrap them in moon dust or water and then that reflects the or diffuses the radiation. You can also potentially get propellant from the moon if you can extract water from from ice from the moon, especially near the poles, that water can support people because you can drink it or you can split it into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket propellant. So here are the four conditions I think need to be met in order to say yes, we have a working mass driver on the moon. This is how I'd formulate this bet with Tyler Cosgrove over there. One, you need a permanently installed electromagnetic launcher and it has to be on the lunar surface. This should be obvious. Two, it has to launch at least 300 metric tons over a 12 month period. This means it's driving significant mass, not just test payloads. Let's aim for 95% mission success and at least 200 launches per year failures are going to happen, but we want to get this reliable and at commercial scale, and that means that it can't be breaking down all the time. Lastly, the mass launch from the moon has to actually be put to use. You can't just have this demo unit that's just blasting rocks into the sun. It's got to go to something useful. And that could just be water that's going somewhere else or rocks that are going somewhere else. But it needs to be like, we're catching them somewhere. There's a reason that it's going there. How do you adjust the direction? I think at the last second, if you have the trajectory right, it's like, how much do you go up, how. How much do you go over, how much do you go left? And it's, of course, once whatever is launched is floating in space and you can use propulsion to kind of move around. But yeah, so I mean, with that, it seems like it's a pretty, like it's a pretty basic satellite that doesn't have any propulsion on it, but you could potentially put some, you know, like even just a gas can. Yeah, I was more, I was more asking because it's like, okay, do we need, do we need a. Do we need every possible angle of mass driver? How many mass drivers do we need? Because I'm assuming we don't want to send every single thing that we want to send into space the exact same angle, same direction. Okay, we're going to solve that one later. That's a 2065 issue. We'll get there quickly. Let me tell you about public.com investing for those that take it seriously. Stocks, options, bonds, cryptos, treasuries and more with great customer service. And let me also tell you about Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform that grows with your business and lets you sell in seconds online, in store, on mobile, on social, on marketplaces, and now with AI agents. So once all four of those conditions are met, it will be hard to argue that we're in some sort of demo phase or publicity stunt. We know we love a publicity stunt, but this needs to be actually commercial. I'm looking for Model 3 level success, not Tesla semi level success. I want to see this actually working. Reviews and economics. I want other, other, other companies being like, yes, I benefit. I'm a buyer of mass from the driver. So how long will this take? My, like, you should put the goalposts on the driver. The way that you keep moving Them. Okay, I'm moving the goalpost. I feel like I'm just trying to dial. Oh, it needs to be economically viable. I mean, what, what, what Elon showed was extremely, extremely, economically viable. If you're just up on the moon and the moon is just producing satellites with chips that are fabbed and they just go into space, that's extremely economically valuable. As long as you can get the cost down and build it in some reasonable amount of time. And it's going to take a long time. So how long will it take? I put the over under at like 15 to 20 years, which is about as aggressive as I could get. I think Tyler's going to take the other side of this. Well, I'm gonna take the over. You're taking, you're gonna take over. Fifteen years is, I think, kind of crazy. Fifteen years is a blink of an eye. It really is. Well, personally, you know, I think I'm a bit more AGI pill than you, Tyler. Okay, so. Okay, well let's go through the six steps. Just say, just say you lost faith. The six steps. Six steps. Okay, so first off, we gotta get to the moon. We can't really get to the moon right now. We're, we're like, we're pretty close with like really small payloads. We need reliable heavy lunar launch capacity and that's gonna take some time. So starship needs to be refueling in orbit, landing on the moon with and without crews. Cause you're probably gonna need some humans up there, some robots, and we need to start routine cargo flights to the moon. So this is straight up like three to five years away, like minimum. Then you need to build the power infrastructure. So mass driving hogs electricity. You need to deploy 100 kilowatt solar array, then build out energy storage systems, so burst power during launches and ultimately scale to multi megawatt continuous power generation plant. So that's another couple of years because once you're actually going up and back, you have to put down a bunch of solar panels stored in batteries. And then the batteries need to be able to deliver a lot of power. All of a sudden. Now this is what the Tesla does, right? You can charge your Tesla model S plaid off of solar panels. It'll take a couple days. And then when you're ready to go 0 to 60 in two seconds, it can deliver that energy very, very quickly. And that's what you need for a, an electromagnetic mass driver because it's, it's a railgun, basically. So, yeah. And to SpaceX team's credit, this stuff Can a lot of this stuff can be done in parallel right. By the time like I would, I would hope that five years from now, Optimus is, is quite good, functional, valuable. Yeah. At that point in time, maybe we can get to the moon and back. And I've, I've talked to SpaceX folks who have been working on, on putting solar panels out on Mars. The problem with Mars is it's farther away from the sunset, put out a lot of solar panels. And that's why maybe they're thinking nuclear on Mars. But it's not like they've never thought about how do you deploy solar once you get to another celestial body. They've been thinking about this for at least over a decade that I know of. So robotic construction capacity, you got to get autonomous construction rovers at least up and running to lay the electromagnetic track. You have to solve for all the insane forces during high acceleration, deal with thermal expansion. So you're basically laying train tracks that have electromagnetic coils in them. So they're way more particular than just like railroad tracks. But then those coils, all that infrastructure has to deal with being negative 280 degrees Fahrenheit during the night and then positive 260 Fahrenheit during the day, I think. So like massive, massive temperature fluctuations. And that means everything expands, contracts. If you have metal there, it gets brittle during the night, it gets warmer during the day. That's maybe three years of work, maybe a lot more. Who knows? Then you actually have to build the mass driver on Earth because you don't have the infrastructure to build anything up there yet. So you have to build most of it on Earth. You need to ship hundreds of tons of superconduction coils to the moon. These, the physics behind all this stuff actually comes from a Navy scientist back in the 1970s. And so we know isn't it isn't his pitch, we're just going to just drop a bunch of robots on the moon and they're going to just like mine and, and refine rare Earths and then build out the manufacturing facility with those rare Earths and like just kind of become a self replicating civilization, fully autonomous civilization. Like I thought the whole pitch was that we didn't have to send, I think we definitely have to send like close to finished goods. I would be very, I would be very surprised if you can go and just scoop up some lunar regolith and be like, okay, step one, make a wrench, make a hammer. Okay, now I have a hammer and a wrench. Now let's make Some, some rebar, let's make some cement. All of that is, is you would, you would just, logically you would pull it forward by delivering some of that pre made because it's just, it's just one extra space SpaceX launch to get up there and then have you know, a CNC machine or something. I don't know, whatever you put up there, like you're not going to go with nothing. So you're looking at another five years here at least. You'll need dozens of dedicated cargo flights just to get the several hundred ton system up there. Then you need to assemble the track sections with humans or more likely robotic crews. Integrate the supply, the power supply and cooling systems. Test everything rigorously. Integration hell can take years, but should overlap with some of the other milestones. Lastly, you need to shift into operational launches. Your first payload needs to achieve escape velocity. And at no point can a catastrophic failure result in permanent damage to the mass driver or the energy infrastructure. And obviously we've seen test failures at SpaceX where things blow up and they can hurt other support infrastructure and that can delay things. And so you know how long the mass driver is roughly, I think like 1km is about enough, but I'm not, I'm not 100% sure on where that is, but that's a long way to go. If the California government thinking about 11 km of track, that's 50 years right there. So you know, just testing all that, not damaging things, any unforeseen setbacks, that's another five years with lots of variability. The good news is that once you build it, once you've built it, the benefits are really good. You don't have an atmosphere, there's no drag, no weather, no air resistance, and of course gravity is a lot less. So you still need a plan for where the mass goes after it's driven. You got to catch it kind of. And that's a whole other problem. And when you add all these projects up, you start easily getting into the decades. But, and what the render just kind of played. Yeah, everyone clapped and then the, the, the presentation was over. But the idea is to put more space data centers on these. Yeah, I mean if you think about this in like the most grand project you can imagine, which is like the Dyson sphere, basically solar panels directly around the sun, all the way around the sun to capture all of its energy. You're going to need to send a lot of solar panels to the sun. Making those on the moon is lower cost potentially than making them on Earth. That's the theory. But then in the meantime, Elon's clearly thinking about making at least part of the satellite up there. And then, I mean, you could ship up the chips and just make the housing up there. If that's the most, if that's the heaviest part, you could make the more economically precise, valuable piece up here, drop off a bunch of chips, drop them into the actual, you know, housing that's been made, and then launch those into orbit. There's a whole bunch of other. Yeah, but then you're sending chips from here to the Moon and then they're being sent back, right? No, they're not being sent back. They're sent. They're being sent into various orbits. Okay, so these are not. Yeah. And then again, my concern, and again, I'm not a mass driver expert. I'm just kind of thinking through this is like, what if the, like, you got like, one shot? Yeah, basically. Well, I mean, the moon's. The Moon's, like, movements are pretty predictable. And it's not like the Moon's just up there going crazy. Right. Like, the Moon is, like, rotating out. It's, like, extremely predictable. It's pretty. It's perfectly predictable. Predicted hundreds of years. Yeah. And so, and so if you have it lined up so that every day, at least it lines up to be the perfect angle, like, then you just launch right then. I know, but you're saying we're launching them back into, like, just into Earth's orbit. Earth orbit? Yeah. Toward Where? The SpaceX. Yeah, yeah. You are kind of round tripping, but, but it's the equivalent of like, of like dropping a ball versus throwing it up. Like. Yeah, yeah, like you're dropping stuff. But it seems clear, it seems clear that it's going to require, like, the vast majority of the components for these satellites being made entirely on the Moon. Otherwise it could very well not make sense. Yeah, yeah, no, totally. Like, like, there is no benefit to bringing a fully complete Starlink satellite up there and then driving it from the Moon down to low Earth orbit. That makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is if you're able to get something like the vast majority of the mass, ideally 100% of the mass from what's already on the Moon because that's already been driven up there. It's already at low gravity. Like, the energy is stored effectively. I'm seeing a tourism angle when the mass driver is pointed back at the Earth to be in a little, like, bobsled type thing, a little pod to be launched at the Earth. And then you Kind of break through the atmosphere and then you parachute. Yeah, that could be good for like gender reveal birthday parties, you know, potentially. Yes. Well, let me tell you about Restream 1 livestream 30 plus destinations. If you want to multi stream, go to restream.com and let me also tell you about Cisco. Unlock critical infrastructure for the AI era. Unlock seamless real time experiences and new value. Okay. Predictions. Tyler, you're going over 20 years. You're going over 20 years under 70 years. Yeah, it's just so hard because like right now I don't. It's hard to see like a real economic incentive to do this. Like, because even, even space data centers, it's like still pretty hard to like figure out how like, like why that like really makes sense. Yeah. But then for this to work you need maybe space agenda centers, but you also need them to somehow be built on the moon for them to make sense, right? Yeah. So I think yeah, maybe I'll like. Median is like something like 70 years. 70 years. Okay, median, 70. Give me 50. 50 years. 50 years. Okay, 50 years. Getting more techno optimist over here, Jordy. If I'm at 20 and Tyler's at 50, where are you? And while you think about it, let me tell everyone about Applovin. Profitable advertising made Easy with Axon AI. Get access to over 1 billion daily active users and grow your business today. Okay, you got it. My concern is that an Elon like Elon is the. I didn't specify Elon. It could be anybody. But I'm just saying there's a lot of. There's. I'm just saying mass driver on the moon. This needs an Elon esque figure to accomplish. And yeah, I'm thinking more in that. 50. 50 year. Over 50 or under 50 we gave Tyler. Exactly. I changed. I'm going 30. 30, boom. I think it's changed. Well, I was just like, you know, AGI is like basically here. There's no way it's going to take that long. There we go. There we go. It's like everything will be so cheap. Okay, so you want. No, I mean I was thinking five years. Years. Five years. I was thinking months. Specifically 50,000 months. I mean when you know, OpenAI codec 6 comes out. Yeah, totally possible. One shot it. No. Even in the software only singularity. There is just amount of time that takes to kill things. I have a pull to mid curve this one and just think, okay, this is just a big pump. Yes, it's just a big pump. We need the semiconductor pump. The space Pump. Pump. The mass driver pump. To get to the $2 trillion valuation, we need a lot of pumps going on, right? Space data centers, mass drivers, semis. Like it's the final pump. That is the mid curve. That's the mid. That's the mid curve. Okay. Okay. What's the left curve? The left curve is Elon good. Elon businessman. AI accelerate. Yeah. Elon good business. Five years. Elon make thing. Elon put a thing in space. Elon do hard thing. Elon do hard thing. And then. And then the right would be just like insane. AI acceleration. What does Elon know? Yeah. And who else is going to do it? He has all the infrastructure. He's cornered the launch market. He's shown a big track record. Yeah, the politics thing. Yeah. It's hard to see how real it is, Right? I don't know. Because these data centers on land do generate a lot of local revenues and there are going to be plenty of places that want them. But so hard not to midcurve. Well, while you think of your final estimate, knowing that I'm at 20, Tyler's at 30, and you are undecided, let me tell everyone about Gusto, the unified platform for Paris payroll benefits in hr. Built to evolve with modern small and medium sized businesses. What's your final answer? Ten years. Ten years. Ten years until we have. Until we have majority. That's too aggressive. I never said 10. Don't. I said may say his lifetime. 10 year. 10 years to an MVP. No, no, no, no. It needs to specifically be launching 300 metric tons. 95% mission success. Success. 200 launches a year. It needs to be pumping mass. Needs to be driving. Never. Never. I think, No, I think, I think, I think pumping mass. Drive it. Mass driving mass. It's gotta be. I'm thinking, I'm thinking 2100. Okay. Based on just average life expectancy, he's got another 20 years. 54. Average life expectancy is 75, 76. He has access to all sorts of stuff, you know, could go for 30, could go for 40 plus. Like, you forget that. Like Apple introduced products after Steve Jobs passed away. Like, companies continue to exist and projects will be picked up. There will be other competitors. This isn't even specifically an Elon thing. This is a humanity thing. I think there actually is like a. What about China? China could do it. Maybe if there's some economic incentive found on Mars or like asteroid mining. Like it actually does make sense to do to launch from the moon. Right. Because it's like so much easier. Cars way less energy. Yeah. So 210075 years. 75 years. There is another, there is another mass driver idea, which is you, you build this, you take a shuttle to the moon and then if you want to go to Mars, you are mass driven from the moon to Mars. Ryan says Roadster has been 10 years since they sold out pre orders. This isn't going to happen. The roadster is happening, Ryan. Is it never going to happen? Like you would say, Roadster is not going to happen. I mean, Roadster could just get completely canceled, but no one does it. I'm not even saying Elon. I'm saying humanity. Mass driver. Moon over under 210075 years. You got 70, 74 years. Seems possible. I don't know. Okay, which one? What about, what about. What about. So here's, here's the, here's the thing. You have to make so many, you have to come to terms with so many incredible technological leaps to get to the point where the mass driver on the moon is mass driving. Assume we get all those leaps, can we not just mass drive from let's say the Earth? I don't think so. I mean there's a company that's doing 25,000 miles per hour. There's a company that's doing spin law. Fastest plane has been. It's like that, that NASA plane. It's like 7,000 miles an hour. Thousand? I thought it was like a couple thousand. I don't know. Fastest plane. Yeah, look up the fastest plane. We'll tell you about the McCallop default, which Andrew McCallop, friend of the show over at Varda Space was in the Economist. The cost of a 1 gigawatt data center in space. He pegged it at 50 billion star cloud. Is aiming for 16 billion star cloud at $200 a kilogram is around 10, 11 billion dollars per gigawatt. Fastest space access to 10 fastest aircraft speed ever recorded is Mach 9.6 by an unmanned NASA X43 scramjet on November 16, 2004. It's nearly 7,000 miles per hour. Okay, so we got to 5x that or something to get to 4x that. To get to escape velocity, to escape the. To just like do the thing from interstellar and just drive the plane into the atmosphere and just go to space. Maybe, Maybe. Do you think we will have mass driver on the moon first or mass driver on the moon first or Zit says the mid curve is definitely right. Okay. Total victory. Mass driver on the moon first or Atlantis first? Atlantis. Full society of people living underwater in like some Sort of glass dome where it's fully sustained. You can go. You can move there and be like, yeah, I got a buddy who moved to the new Atlantis and I haven't seen him in three years. He's just been down there, happy, living life. Which one do you think happens first? I've been very blessed on Atlantis data centers. Yeah, Atlantis data centers. Atlantis data centers actually make a ton of sense. Right? Don't you get a ton of cooling for free? Yeah, there's all sorts of stuff that you get. No energy. No, the vents. The vents. Geothermal. Geothermal. Okay. No one's talking about underwater data centers. No one's doing this. Call up James Cameron. He'll be on this. Let me tell you about Vibe Co where D2C brands, B2B startups and AI companies advertise on streaming TV, pick channels, target audiences and measure sales, just like on Meta. And let me also tell you about Phantom cash. Fund your wallet without exchanges or middlemen and spend with the Phantom card. Okay, so we have. It's so hard to be bearish on the technology business programming network. I'm sorry, everyone. I'm sorry. We got a decel over here. Yeah, we got a decel over here. True decel with a crazy high p doom over here. No, I mean, 2100 is pretty acceleration pilled if you look at the fact that going to the moon is now a lost art that we're trying to. I've talked to a lot of people in tech that say the 2100 milestone is Dyson sphere. And so you probably get the mass driver before you get the Dyson sphere. Like full Dyson Sphere. Maybe over 50% coverage. Yeah, 2100. Because this is based on super intelligence. Yeah. Well, this is like singularity. Every AI company is a Dyson sphere company at the end of the day, potentially. Yeah. And then the question of what is it? Kardashev 1 is all the sunlight that falls on the Earth. Kardashev 2 is solar panels all the way around the entire sun. So we get the sunlight that doesn't just hit Earth, it also hits the. Also hits Mars, also hits the backside. You know, you get all of that power. So much more power than just Kardashev1. But then I think Kardashev3 is every. You're harvesting energy from every sun in your soul, in your. Not your solar system, but your galaxy or something like that. Like everything in the Milky Way. It gets really crazy. In the galaxy. In the galaxy. And that's a lot of power. That's a lot of power by then. It's totally possible that like you won't be able to tell the difference between like AI generated imagery and like real imagery. With that much power, it's entirely possible that it could be funny. It'll be automated workflows. Yeah. It'll be able to do high school level. Yeah. Homework for sure. Reliably for sure. Well, we have a related prediction from Kelshi about Tesla. Will the Tesla Optimus be released this year? It's sitting at a 25.4% chance and it jumped a little bit just over the past week. It was down at 19%. It's pumped to almost 30% now. It's down at 25 based on the more recent announcements from Elon Musk. Anyways, to end on some positivity, I am glad that Tesla and Elon Inc. Are going to be focused on chip manufacturing. I think we'll get some very, I think we'll get some real progress there and it is good for America, it's good for the world that they are choosing to work on this very hard problem. I agree with that. I had a different positive conclusion as well, which is that I think it's fine to think in decades and share a vision that is decades away. The last thing I want is for technologists to be devoid of long term vision. I really don't want there to be like an end of the tunnel. Oh, we're just working towards superintelligence and then we can all become complacent. I'd much rather get excited about projects many years away or decades away that only have a slight chance of, of working rather than the alternative which is just stagnation. And so I'm cheering for the mass driver. And there's that old phrase, shoot for the moon. If you miss, you'll land among the stars. And I couldn't agree more with that. I think it's the other. Shoot for the stars, you'll land on the moon, right? No, it's not that. Shoot for the moon. If you miss, you'll land amongst the stars. If you shoot for the stars, you're just going to randomly land anywhere. The chance that you land on the moon. The moon is closer than the stars. No, no, no, no, no. You shoot for the moon, which is this narrow target and if you miss, you go off into the stars. Okay, you're talking about directions, I'm talking about like distance, right? Yeah. If you're shooting for stars, you don't get all the way there. Once you've reached escape velocity. If you miss the moon, you'll just keep going until you hit a star. It might take you a long time, but you will land there. I think I'm right about it. I don't think. Look it up. Look it up. So let's head over to take us somewhere else. Jordi, let's head over. What do they have to say? Are they bullish on is suspended cap bullish on the presentation? Terrafab suspended cap says terafab is a blatant pump. It actually disgusts me. There will never be leading edge chips from them. There will never be data centers in space. It's such a blatant effort to IPO SpaceX on the back of some pie in the sky BS and then merge with Tesla, do humongous rays and keep blah blah blah blah blah for five years anyway. Not specifically. Cap's not a fan. Dcell systematic have a dcell. Anyway, let me tell you about Railway. Railway is the all in one intelligent cloud provider. Use your favorite agent to deploy web app servers and databases and more, while Railway automatically takes care of scaling, monitoring and security. Should we go over to the mall King? Where should we go next? Jordy, let's head over to the mall king. Okay. So there was an obituary in the Wall Street Journal for David Simon. He was a mall king who was both feared and admired. He had ruthless negotiation tactics, an obsession with details, and a sheer force of will that turned his family's real estate business into the largest mall owner in the country. He passed away on Sunday after a cancer diagnosis in 2024. He was diagnosed with cancer in 2024. He was 64 years old. During his more than three decades as Simon Property Group's chief executive, the inveterate dealmaker gobbled up competitors and defied critics who said malls were obsolete. Over a decades long buying spree, he cobbled together an empire that spanned 250 properties and 206 million square feet, giving Simon control of more retail space than anyone in the world. His success.