Anthropic S-1 Shocker, Greatest Business Ever? Google’s $500B Wipeout, Midterm Predictions

Anthropic S-1震撼登场：史上最佳商业模式？谷歌市值蒸发5000亿美元，中期选举预测 联合主持人们深入剖析了Anthropic具有里程碑意义的S-1招股说明书，澄清其报告的800亿美元净亏损源于非现金会计核算费用，同时重点提及了该公司激增的年化营收、扩大至85%的毛利率以及在递归自我改进方面的突破。对话探讨了AI复合体更广泛的宏观风险，警告科技超大规模企业的庞大企业债发行规模可能挤压美国国债，并引发政府对算力容量的监管。转向公开市场，该团队分析了Alphabet在搜索广告点击放缓、巨额AI资本支出导致自由现金流转负以及围绕其广告拍卖定价模型的争议下，市值蒸发5000亿美元的情况。最后，嘉宾们就即将到来的中期选举展开辩论，对比了传统民调数据与预测市场赔率，并展望了两党迈向2028年的战略和立法影响。 Anthropic提交了股票代码为ANT的S-1招股书，拟募资高达1000亿美元，预估估值在1.75万亿至2万亿美元之间，这可能使其成为史上规模最大的IPO。 (3:22) Anthropic在2026年上半年实现营收16.3亿美元，毛利率扩大至约85%，而其头条报道的800亿美元净亏损被澄清为可转债引起的非现金按市值计价会计核算费用。 (5:00) 预计截至2027年各大超大市值AI领军企业的大规模发债，约占美国国债预计发行总量的30%，这引发了对挤压主权信贷的宏观担忧。 (32:47) 在搜索业务同比增长放缓至12%且巨额基础设施资本支出导致公司出现负自由现金流后，Alphabet市值蒸发了5000亿美元。 (62:15)

Analyzing Anthropic's S-1 filing, the All-In Podcast co-hosts evaluate whether frontier artificial intelligence represents an unprecedented commercial engine or a systemic financial risk, while examining Google's search model disruption and upcoming midterm election dynamics. Anthropic's S-1 Financials and Unit Economics (3:22) Anthropic filed its S-1 targeting an initial public offering on November 16 under ticker ANT, aiming to raise $80 billion to $100 billion at an estimated valuation of $1.3 trillion to $2 trillion. The filing documents revenue of $16.3 billion in the first half of 2026, reaching $11.6 billion in Q2 alone. David Sacks explains that an alleged $80 billion headline loss was a non-cash accounting artifact driven by the mark-to-market valuation of convertible debt issued to partners like Amazon. In reality, the company held over $112 billion in cash while burning only $9 billion to $10 billion operationally. David Friedberg and Sacks emphasize expanding gross margins of roughly 85%, sustained by algorithmic breakthroughs and Mixture of Experts architectures that lower the compute cost of tasks by roughly 10x annually. The filing indicates customer accounts spending $100,000 or more rose from 200 in late 2024 to 11,900 by September 2026. However, Chamath Palihapitiya points out that only ~1,900 customers spend over $1 million, many of which are venture-backed AI startups rather than traditional enterprise accounts with established returns on investment. Macro Bottlenecks and Debt Market Crowding (15:35) Word-cloud analysis of Anthropic's mandatory risk disclosures reveals compute availability—specifically data center capacity, power grids, and advanced hardware—as the primary operational bottleneck, followed by regulatory intervention. Palihapitiya argues that AI infrastructure has become deeply politicized, suggesting that data center power delivery will be the defining economic issue for the 2028 presidential race. More broadly, Palihapitiya cautions that the AI sector has borrowed $340 billion to $400 billion, equivalent to roughly 30% of projected US Treasury issuances through 2027. He warns this corporate debt build-out risks crowding out sovereign bond auctions, creating a systemic 'too big to fail' dilemma where rising interest rates could trigger severe shocks across credit markets. Jason Calacanis and Sacks counter that AI-driven capital expenditures represent roughly 3% of US GDP, driving recent annualized economic growth of 2.5% to 3.7%. Recursive Self-Improvement and Regulatory Scrutiny (43:24) Sacks highlights that Anthropic heavily relies on recursive self-improvement (RSI), disclosing that 26% of model development tasks in August were performed by their own models to invent compute multipliers. Sacks contends this dynamic forces an inevitable break with the AI safety community, arguing that CEO Dario Amodei's calls for regulatory pacing serve as defensive cover while the firm races ahead technologically. Governance remains heavily concentrated, with seven co-founders controlling 50.1% of voting power through Class F shares. Sacks notes that Anthropic has aggressively hired former policy officials from both the Biden and Trump administrations, asserting that its shift to a publicly traded titan will dismantle its identity as a cautious startup and attract severe antitrust scrutiny, potentially prompting future calls to break up foundation model labs. Google's $500 Billion Post-Earnings Market Slide (62:15) Alphabet suffered a single-day market loss approaching $500 billion after missing search revenue expectations for two consecutive quarters. While total query volume continues to grow, click-through rates have stagnated as conversational models like ChatGPT and Claude fulfill informational queries directly without redirecting users to sponsored links. Search advertising growth slowed from 17% to 12%, while heavy infrastructure spending tipped free cash flow into negative territory. Palihapitiya notes that Google has faced criticism from large advertisers alleging the platform altered its classic second-price Vickrey auction model to squeeze extra revenue out of clicks to conceal traffic deceleration. Friedberg describes an internal identity conflict over whether Google Search should remain an advertising portal or pivot to an answer engine, though Sacks notes Alphabet's overall position is supported by Google Cloud doubling revenue year-over-year to $30.7 billion. Midterm Forecasts and Conflicting Electoral Outlooks (74:17) Looking ahead to the midterm elections, the co-hosts debate opposing electoral forecasts. Calacanis predicts a sweeping victory for Democrats in both chambers of Congress, citing Donald Trump's low net approval ratings, voter dissatisfaction with tariffs and persistent inflation, and fractures among working-class and America First constituencies over foreign conflicts. Calacanis expects a Democratic majority to deploy congressional investigations, subpoenas, and impeachment proceedings to destabilize the administration ahead of 2028. Conversely, Sacks and Palihapitiya argue Republicans will likely maintain the Senate while Democrats could secure only a narrow House majority. Sacks dismisses mainstream corporate polling as historically skewed against conservative candidates, citing strong baseline economic indicators including a 12% poverty rate and record median household incomes. Sacks maintains that if progressive Democrats recapture power, their regulatory and cultural stances will quickly re-alienate swing voters. The hosts leave unresolved whether Anthropic can successfully scale traditional corporate adoption beyond early AI startups, and whether massive tech CapEx debt issuances will ultimately trigger broad credit market distress or solidify an unassailable American technological lead.

本期节目聚焦 Anthropic 披露的 S-1 招股说明书，揭示出其惊人的营收增速与高企的毛利率，同时引发了关于巨额资本开支是否会挤出美国国债并形成“大而不能倒”系统性风险的激烈争论；此外，对话还深入剖析了 Google 蒸发 5000 亿美元市值背后的商业模式危机，以及围绕算力能源瓶颈与中期选举展开的政治博弈。 Anthropic S-1 财务拆解与高毛利增长逻辑 (3:22) Anthropic 计划以股票代码 ANT 进行首次公开募股，目标融资规模高达 800 亿至 1000 亿美元，估值预计在 1.3 万亿至 2 万亿美元之间。S-1 招股文件披露，该公司 2026 年上半年营收达到 163 亿美元，其中第二季度达 116 亿美元，管理层预计年底年化经常性收入（ARR）将触及 1000 亿美元。针对媒体此前聚焦的 800 亿美元净亏损，David Sacks 指出该数字并非现金流失，而是由于向亚马逊等战略伙伴发行的可转债随着公司估值暴涨而产生的非现金按市值计价会计减值；实际上，Anthropic 在累计募集的约 1100 亿美元中仅烧掉 90 亿至 10 亿美元，账面持有超过 1100 亿美元的现金与现金等价物。 在单位经济学方面，Anthropic 边际毛利率已扩张至约 85%。David Friedberg 与 Sacks 分析认为，公司通过算法突破、混合专家架构（MoE）及递归自我改进（RSI）创造的“算力乘数”，使基准任务的完成成本每年下降约 10 倍，公司在将半数降本红利让利给客户的同时截留了超额利润。从客户分层看，年消费额超 10 万美元的企业客户在 2026 年 9 月末已激增至 11,900 家，但 Friedberg 指出这仅渗透了全美乃至全球潜在目标客户群的约 1%，显示出巨大的企业端扩张空间。 AI 综合体巨额发债对主权国债的宏观挤出 (32:47) Chamath Palihapitiya 将分析视角扩展至宏观金融层面，警告称由 7 至 8 家科技巨头主导的“AI 综合体”正在大举推高资本负债，合计累积了 3400 亿至 4000 亿美元的市场债务以资助前所未有的算力基础设施竞赛。除微软将债务规模减半外，其余巨头的大规模债券发行正在与主权融资直接竞争。数据显示，截至 2027 年底，这些 AI 巨头的融资需求相当于同期美国国债预期发行总量的 30% 左右，从而在固定收益市场上对 2 年期、5 年期和 10 年期美债产生流动性挤出。 Chamath 认为，如果信贷市场收紧或利率走高，AI 综合体将不得不支付更高票息，甚至因占据资本市场高达 40% 的股权与债务流动而成为类似金融危机时期的“大而不能倒”系统性风险源。Jason Calacanis 则持相反观点，强调 Anthropic 代表着人类历史上最强大的商业模式之一，其未来营收有望向数千亿美元推进，全球主权资本与机构投资者因追求无可比拟的增长回报，必然会坚定配置该领域资产。 算力物理瓶颈、自我进化与安全阵营决裂 (43:24) Chamath 团队对 S-1 风险因素的词云分析显示，Anthropic 最核心的运营瓶颈集中于算力、数据中心与电力供应，而非客户需求或人员流失。Friedberg 与 Jason 预测，随着数以亿计的白领员工全面部署自主智能体，Token 消耗量将出现 500 倍的爆炸式增长，届时电网互联延迟、设备短缺与公用事业人员匮乏将严重制约扩张，促使国家力量以保护公共利益为由直接干预算力分配与数据中心审批。 与此同时，技术研发路径正在引发严重的意识形态裂缝。Sacks 强调，Anthropic 宣称其下一代模型研发任务中已有 26% 由递归自我改进（RSI）自动完成，这种利用大模型自我优化算法并维持技术壁垒的做法，与其早先宣扬的 AI 安全“末日论”（Doomer）立场产生尖锐矛盾。Sacks 批评 Dario Amodei 呼吁行业放缓的公开信实为公关借口，而随着公司走向公开市场，其深度游说政府、招募前官员并谋求监管壁垒的巨头行径将被彻底曝光。 Google 5000 亿美元市值蒸发与商业模式危机 (62:15) 在讨论 Google 最新财报导致的 10% 至 15% 股价大跌及近 5000 亿美元市值蒸发时，主持人们剖析了其传统“按点击付费”（CPC）垄断模式面临的结构性侵蚀。财报显示，尽管总搜索查询量仍在增加，但核心搜索广告收入增速从 17% 放缓至 12%，巨额算力资本开支导致自由现金流滑入负区间。随着生成式 AI 与对话智能体直接向用户提供答案，用户跳过了浏览蓝色链接和点击赞助商广告的环节，从根本上削弱了传统搜索漏斗的变现基础。 此外，财报透露出 Alphabet 内部的定位撕裂：Google Cloud 营业利润从去年同期的 35 亿美元激增至超过 110 亿美元，而核心服务板块则增长乏力。Chamath 援引数字营销业界的指控指出，Google 被怀疑放弃了传统的维克里（Vickrey）次价拍卖机制，转而通过算法调整人为推高每次点击费用，以修饰流量放缓的数据，这种做法严重透支了广告商的信任；当前公司最关键的管理挑战在于能否挽留 Demis Hassabis 等前沿 AI 领袖以完成向 AI 原生架构的转型。 宏观经济基本面分歧与中期选举推演 (74:17) 转向宏观经济与中期选举时，嘉宾们对当前经济现实给出了截然相反的解读。Sacks 列举硬核宏观指标，指出亚特兰大联储 GDPNow 追踪的第三季度 GDP 增速达 3.7%，AI 资本开支已占全美 GDP 的约 3%，成为拉动国家经济扩张的核心引擎；Jason 则反驳称，普通工薪阶层正饱受持续通胀与物价飞涨的折磨，民调显示支持率处于历史低位，宏观繁荣并未惠及非股权持有者。 关于国会控制权的前景，Chamath 预测共和党将守住参议院，而民主党可能以微弱优势夺回众议院，并随即通过委员会传票、调查和程序阻挠发起全方位政治围剿；Jason 进一步预测民主党将凭借反特朗普情绪掀起选票海啸，横扫两院并推进弹劾，提前终结相关政治遗产；Sacks 则对传统民调的准确性提出质疑，警告若民主党激进派借夺权卷土重来，其施政极端化将迅速引发政治钟摆的反向摆动。 本期讨论表明，AI 产业已从单纯的技术创新周期演变为高度绑定主权金融、能源电网与地缘政治的庞大资本综合体。随着 Anthropic 即将接受公开市场的严苛审视，企业级真实投资回报率（ROI）能否跑赢庞大的基础设施负债，以及物理电网与政府监管会否对算力扩张形成实质性硬约束，将是决定这场超级周期走向的核心变量。

[35:00] Chamath Palihapitiya: I've never seen something in my adult working life where a complex of a handful of companies are effectively competing with governments now for capital. [43:24] David Sacks: There's no single company in the world that is doing more to race towards full RSI than Anthropic; they are hell-bent for leather on getting to full recursive self-improvement. [35:00] David Friedberg: I think that you're going to end up seeing compute get regulated in the future where compute capacity is going to be assigned by government and they're going to pass laws to try and do that post-production. [12:15] David Friedberg: And I think for the first time ever, we're seeing a business actually potentially starting to realize that theory that if you can create enough productivity gain for your customers, that your TAM is commerce.

[0:00] All right, everybody, welcome back to What Is, Of Course. the number one. podcast in the world tweaking. all the mid podcasters out there. four or five years running the all in podcast it's episode 295 And Sachs, is back. Sachs is back. Sax is back. How you doing, brother? Good, good. I saw some fake news that you guys had stopped using the term super intelligence, you're getting some shade for that. Oh, I listen, we're here for this week in super intelligence right now. I mean, the whole super intelligence is kind of ridiculous. Maybe I shouldn't strizand it, but they were trying to say that we are using the term AI still instead of SI. Who was saying that? This is literally what the press is spending their time on. This is why it's such fake news. I have a photo of me. I wasn't even on the October 23rd episode. You do look very presidential there. Man, if only you were born here. Look at this fake news. I mean, they're desperate for- The US's most influential tech podcast, well, that's good. But actually, we're not just a tech podcast. We're the number one podcast in the world. Give us our due. And then they tried to say that I somehow was defying the president's instructions. But I want to clarify, I was not on the October 23rd episode. Gotcha, gotcha. I'll be keeping you guys in line on this from now on. Absolutely. Well, we will get focused on super intelligence with us again this week. Your favorite organic farmer, David Freberg. How's Ohalo doing? You've been pretty busy yourself. Ohalo in Kenya this week. Lots of excitement. Lines of farmers trying out true potato seed. Your energy looks pretty good. You look like you got some good energy. And, um, Speaking of good energy, man, we had a fun time playing cards last week. That was a blast. Great dinner. You didn't stop talking for seven hours. Sort of like the podcast. Yeah. It's unbelievable. It's unbelievable. We had a fun time. Come on. That was a lot of laughs. No. Affleck texted me after, I never want J. Cal in the game again. You got to get out, Affleck, as a member of the group? It's going to be Ben Affleck or you, and we pick him, so you're out. That's fine with me. You're never getting another one. I mean, it's an upgrade. I mean, you just kept chirping for eight hours straight. It's unbelievable. He could not stop talking. I haven't been at the game for a long time. I had a lot of material. It was really fun, though. We had so much fun. And Chamath Paliapati, everybody's favorite enterprise sales executive from the 8090 Corporation. How'd you do this week? hit did you ring the gong did you hit your quota or are you gonna have to work this weekend q4 is off to a good start but i never want to count the chickens okay that's that's good considering you whiffed q3 no no no q3 was okay we whiffed q2 Mm. Butchered it. Butchered it. That's why when I invested. All my fault too because I forced these poor salespeople. I forced these three poor salespeople to just only focus on the gigantic deals. You're learning. You're learning. I had to learn the hard way. You want to get those singles and doubles and the people who pay on time and who start the projects on time. We'll see in ANSES one, but you can build a ginormous business with singles and doubles. Absolutely, you can. Speaking. of gigantic businesses, Anthropic. Ant. dropped their S1, that's the document that outlines S1, the nature of the business for an IPM, an initial public offering. And Got to ask the question. This. Seems to be the greatest business in the history of of entrepreneurship, Goldman and Morgan Stanley are going to lead the round. And they are targeting November 16th, right before Thanksgiving, for this IPO. We've been waiting for a long time. It's been delayed. The ticker will be ant, A-N-T. And they're aiming to raise, wait for it, $100 billion. In other words, like, three months of compute. And that would make it the largest IPO ever, suppressing SpaceX. They raised $85 billion back in June, if you remember. And Polymarket says, Our great partners at Polymarket say 78% chance Anthropic raises at least $95 billion. The valuation? 1.5 to 2 trillion. Here's your polymarket. Right now, it's saying between 1.75 and 2 trillion. market cap 31%. So assume it's going to be slightly under 2 trillion. The revenue is the story Saks. 16.3 billion in the first half of 2026 that is 14x is year over year so in other words the first six months of 2025 one-fourteenth of what they did. in the first six months of this year. Q2 is going to be a whopping $11.6 billion. [5:00] 30x jump over the last five quarters and almost as much as they made in the first half of the year. They say the TAM, the total addressable market for their tokens and services is $40 trillion. That's extraordinary. I don't know how they backed into that, but we'll talk about it. and they're projecting 100 billion of ARR by the end of the year. Now, unspecified if that's annual reoccurring revenue or their annual Revenue run rate, which is A-R-R-R, like a pirate. They've got $112 billion in cash. and a very unique ownership structure seven founders yes they have seven are going to hold fifty point one percent of the voting power through a single class f share Saks, is this the greatest business in the history? of capitalism. It could very well be. I mean, I think this is probably going to be the biggest venture outcome of all time. especially given the time in which this was created. I mean, this is only a six-year-old company. I think the exit here is gonna be on par with SpaceX's IPO, but SpaceX has been around for like 20 something years. So this is probably the fastest value creation of any venture-backed company in history. And I don't know if you saw, but there was a tweet this morning about the distribution of of wealth this is going to create among the employees. Hundreds and hundreds of employees are going to be making hundreds of millions of dollars, and then thousands of employees are going to be making millions. $10 million plus. I mean, this is going to be an enormous wealth creation event like San Francisco and maybe all of Silicon Valley has never seen before. Now, there's a few other data points in this S1 that I think reflect the strength here. Number one is that this $80 billion loss number that we've heard so much about The media has constantly been pumping and harping on as proof that Anthropic was either a fake business or that We were in this sort of whole bubble. That narrative basically just got completely refuted because it turns out that that $80 billion loss is a phantom number. It resulted from the fact that, Anthropic had issued convertible notes. So basically, there are infrastructure partners like Amazon and so forth. And as Anthropix valuation increased, those convertible notes got recorded as a loss on the balance sheet and that flowed through into the income statement. But it's not a real loss. If they had just issued equity. that loss wouldn't be there. So it was not a cash loss. It's basically a fake number. And in fact, what was revealed in this S1 is that Anthropica has been an extraordinarily capital-efficient business. So they've raised something like, I think it was around $110 billion, roughly. And they've only spent about $9 or $10 billion throughout the entire course of this business. And they still have, like you said, J. Cal about 100 billion left of cash or cash equivalents on the balance sheet. So everyone thought based on the previous reporting, that this was a huge loss making business. In fact, it ended up being a very capital efficient business. And then the other thing that you saw was that their margins have been improving. I think their gross margin is now something like 85%. And what you see is that for a given time, task or capability, they're showing roughly 10x improvement year over year in their ability to deliver. that task, the cost-effectiveness of that task it gets 10x cheaper year over year And that allows them to cut the cost of that model or that task by let's call it 50%. And so the consumer recognizes a huge cost savings, but they are able to realize an even greater savings because they're able to capture the rest of that efficiency system. in their margin. And that's what we basically saw is that, again, they're cutting the cost of their tokens significantly. but their margins are going up even faster because they're able to produce these models that are more and more efficient. and they call them compute multipliers. It's very interesting the way that Anthropic sees their business. The framework that Dario has is, that there's raw compute which are scaling very rapidly as well. as a result of better and better chips and more and more of those chips. And then there's the compute multipliers, which are things like algorithmic improvements or better curation, of the data, or it can be things like Better architectures, more, you know, MOE architectures, things like, that make all these models more efficient yeah so they're able to give you the same answer for one tenth the cost or they can take those efficiencies and create greater capabilities so this is what we're seeing is that that business is actually improving and i think it is a little bit of refutation to all the people who've been saying over the past year that they're getting commoditized [10:00] The way that open models are basically putting them on a hamster wheel where they're basically going to zero on gross margin or that it's a business that only works because it's heavily subsidized by venture capital. In fact, I think there's a lot of reasons to believe that Anthropic has a pretty big lead. And if you believe that recursive self-improvement has kicked in, as they are claiming it has, then their elite could actually grow. Freeberg, your thoughts on the impact, of this massive deluge of capital coming in to Silicon Valley? And then this corporate structure, 51% ownership, And what impact this might have on the technology industry. the venture capital industry, And then on democracy here in the United States, we've never seen this much capital flow through to a nonprofit organization or whatever they're calling this anthropic nonprofit entity, but 80% of the people. of the seven founder shares. are going into this nonprofit entity of some type. benefit corporation who knows what it's going to be structured as it's optional, but that's another interesting shoe to drop. So take it whichever way you like in whichever order you like. Can I just comment on the the economic value that's arising from AI? That's kind of perhaps revealed a little bit in this. So, In the S1, Anthropic shows how many customers they have that are spending 100K or more. If we take a look at the image here, It's a pretty remarkable ramp in customers. Spending 100K or more, 200 customers in 2024, end of year. 1500 end of 2025 and at the end of September, uh, 11,900 customers spending 100k or more. So I asked the question, how many customers are there for which $100,000 annual spend is less than 1% of their total annual spend. And the answer is, in the US, it's about 200,000 to 300,000 businesses. Globally, it's a bit over a million. So, you know, if you just say, hey, look, Anthropics customers, that could spend 100k or more and have it be less than 1% of their total spend The addressable customer base is about a million customers. So they're only at, call it 1%. of total customer penetration potential. Now the question is, is there real money to be made here? So I took a look at the kind of AI value stack to try and identify who's making money where. And it turns out everyone's making money. So and I think we've talked about this quite a bit. And I know Chamath's got some views on this as it relates to the neoclouds. What is this chart? Is this like AI output? Or that or I had I had Claude make this for me as an image. Cool. Or I should just say my analyst made this for me in my shop. Your boss. And so, you know, I basically said, like, start with NVIDIA. How much does NVIDIA spend to make the chips? And then how much do they sell the chips for? So for every dollar of COGS, every dollar that NVIDIA spends, that turns into $4 of revenue for NVIDIA, 75% margin. And then that gets sold to SpaceX. And then SpaceX turns around. and they're making you know, an 83% margin on that chip spend, because they're kind of looking at a five-year depreciation. So they spent $10 billion on Colossus 1. five-year life, two billion-year depreciation. And so that's kind of the cost per year, but then they're making $1.25 billion a month. on Colossus. And then Anthropic is showing in this one pretty remarkably to Saks's point that they're making about 85 percent incremental gross margin on every incremental dollar coming in. It's obviously a baseline of compute spend, but 85 percent is kind of the incremental gross margin. So at the end of the day, a dollar that Nvidia spends turns into 18 dollars that Anthropic is making selling to customers. And the question is, are customers making money? So we're seeing the customer ramp as it is and the spend ramp as it is, And the customers are making call it on the order of two to ten times the money they're spending, because otherwise there would be probably a retention issue and a decline in spend. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's early days of exuberance and people are losing money and we could. debate that point a bit. But generally speaking, if AI is delivering value to the customers. I think this shows that there really is true productivity arising from AI that across the whole value chain, there is such margin to be had, there's so much value being created all the way through to the customers. And we're only 1% or Anthropic is only 1% penetrated on their customer potential, and probably less than 10% of the spend potential per customer. that this really is what I think Eric Schmidt a long time ago in the early days of Google used to say Google's Total Aggressible Market is Global Commerce. And I think for the first time ever, we're seeing a business actually potentially starting to realize that theory that if you can create enough productivity, [15:00] gain for your customers, that your TAM is commerce. And it really highlights that maybe, you know, we're almost growing the equivalency of the human working population by 100x or 1000x or a million x with this technology stack. So I just thought like, to me, it was so striking how early we are, but also how incredibly profitable everyone is, which indicates there's quite a bit of productivity being produced across the whole value stack. Those were my biggest takeaways kind from the S1. I don't know if you guys agree with this, but it all felt pretty remarkable to me. I'd be curious to know if you guys think I'm a little loopy on being too exuberant in my reading of this stuff. I think the thing that is probably the most important is the last box that you said where you wrote an assumption, where you said assumptions. Right. Well, how do they measure that? But by the way, I agree with you. The last box I made up, I said, assume 2 to 10x. So I'm just, I have no idea. But I'm a user of Claude. I think we get a lot of value for Claude. I think our people are able to do more because of Claude than they would otherwise be able to do. So our business grows faster, we can get more done in a shorter period of time. I think I tangibly experience that pretty regularly I talked a lot about moving to open source and we have our own cluster installed with our own kind of open source now But I think what Claude is showing is that they have such a high margin they actually have good elasticity on pricing So they could push price down And you could start to see them start to segment the market a little bit where they could start to be more competitive perhaps with cheaper tokens for cheaper easier tasks and then premium tasks charge a higher price for intelligence and start to stratify the value of the intelligence that they're providing by changing the price points. And I envision that's where everyone's going to go. Nick, I'm going to show you, this is to Friedberg's point about what is the potential downstream productivity gains that everybody can have theoretically with AI. Just put that on the screen. This is from Microsoft's earnings. My research team put this together. It's really quite incredible. What this shows you is that Microsoft's revenue went from $198 billion to $332 billion in the last four years, while staff only increased by 2,000 people. I mean, isn't that stunning? like you would have thought before AI that if somebody said great we going to get close to doubling revenues at this kind of scale you probably would have thought that head count would have doubled too The reality is head count stayed flat We don know how many people will take this offer that Microsoft just gave to leave because I think they offered it up to 60,000 people, but this number could be under 200,000 depending on how many take it. Just the scale and the impact on the productivity. To your point, this idea that it creates job loss, I don't think it's true. It's more that you're seeing productivity gains at the same number of human input. And I think that's interesting. I went through the S1. I'm going to give you my little S1 breakdown. This is the most incredible business I've ever seen. I hope that they go public after November 11th because it will force them to update with Q3. And then we'll get even more insight into So this is like some contraption that I've never seen before. I've never seen a business like this. It's really, really, really incredible. So let's cross our fingers because post-November 11th, you'll see Q3 drop. What people have been whispering is that the revenue growth kind of moderated to sort of like the 50% range. Q4 is TBD But let break this down in a bunch of charts because I think it interesting okay so Nick start with chart number one and we just go through them one by one okay so the first thing that I always read in an S1 is what are the risk factors and what I had my team do is I said go put together a word cloud first tell me this is really cool first tell me what are they afraid of. Okay, and when you look at it, the share of words in the risk factors that are allocated to different risks are very important. And what this tells you is the single biggest risk to the ant business is compute. They mention it more than anything else. And specifically inside of compute, they talk about data centers, power, chips, grid, electricity, hardware, etc. Then a close second but still second is regulation okay they care about government policy they care about sanctions they care about export controls then it's this idea of zero data retention and privacy and IP then it's AI safety then it's just you know making money it's then there's their competitors then there's governance what you notice is what are they not afraid of they're not afraid of coming [20:00] customer traction, because they rarely mention it. They're not really afraid of employees leaving because you'd be an idiot to leave if you were inside. And they don't really care about taxes and any of these other things. So this is a business that is very much on the forward foot that understands the binding constraint. So now if you know that the compute is their biggest risk factor, then you double click into that. And I had my team. run a further analysis, which is to say, okay, How do they describe these risks? How many times do they mention them? How many words are you spilling talking about this? And what you find is that inside of the compute problem, their biggest issue is really data centers. And then further, it's the financing commitments that they have, and it's the power. All of these are really important because, again... It helps us highlight what the binding constraint is to this business. So as goes data centers, as goes power. And by the way, this is a great setup for the politicians because it's very obvious if you're a Democrat, as you read this, I'll speak about it in a second, what you should be trying to do to win in 28 versus what Republicans have to do in 28. Basically, the takeaway from all of this is I think Ant is emblematic of the entire AI complex, which is to say it's all about data centers, which means it's all about power. If you're a Democrat, the best thing you want to do is slow all of this down so that there's a recession going into 28. The only thing you need to do is slow down power and slow down data centers. On the other side, if you're a Republican and you want to have the best chance of winning in 28, this is the one thing that must be done right. You must get the power, electricity, data center thing right. Okay. So based on this, your premise is – They need data centers. If they don't get data centers, it can't keep growing. However, Saks, The truth is these are the liberal of all liberals in Silicon Valley. It is the largest amount of money. that has ever been made by founders outside of Elon Musk. It would make sense to me, perhaps the opposite of what Shammat's saying. Shouldn't the Democrats come in and say we are pro data center and energy because this is going to help society because they want to see dario and his group win because they are going to be the equivalent on the left of elon musk on the right wouldn't it be better for them to steal the um the data center charge and make anthropic even more profitable so that that 51 of all of their or 80 of all their money just flows into democratic Super PACs. Maybe, but I don't think that's the Democratic Party that we have today. I mean, the old Clinton Democrats, I mean, Bill Clinton Democrats are long gone. I don't think the abundance Democrats are picking up a lot of momentum. I mean, the Democrat Party is, as Gavin Newsom said, is becoming DSA dominated. So what is their agenda with respect to super intelligence, either to ban it outright or to ban it? As Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and AOC want to do. They basically want 20-year jail sentences for developers of superintelligence, and they want corporate death penalty for companies that build superintelligence. Or they want to have some extremely draconian regulatory regime. that would feature a federal department of AI or federal department of SI, I guess, that would review and approve every single model before its release. Basically, they want to have a DMV. for models. Let me challenge you. Look, that is the Democrat agenda on this. Now, could that be shifted through... oligarchs like, I don't know, Reid Hoffman or maybe some of these new anthropic oligarchs, like maybe a Dustin Moskowitz, something like that. Maybe they can, through their massive influence in Democrat circles, could... effectuate a change. But I tend to think that Chamath is right, that Democrats want to do anything they can to sabotage the Trump economy. And this whole SI boom is what is driving the Trump economy right now. So I tend to think that's going to be the partisan – That's going to be the partisan – Impetus. So you don't need to do much, I think, Freebird. to scuttle the Trump economy since... The war tariffs and all that other stuff have driven inflation and all those problems. Wouldn't it be smarter for the Democrats to – Well, hold on. I mean just hold on a second. My opinion, yeah. Jake, I think the latest numbers from like Fed GDP now, I think it was 3.7% in Q3. And it was two and a half percent in the first half of the year. And you could also look at all the CapEx that's being spent right now on this build out. And it's roughly 3% of GDP. So... You could say that all of the economic growth in the United States right now [25:00] is coming from this world super intelligence build out. Concur with that. We can have fun with numbers, but the Trump economy is... a disaster according to Trump's own supporters. So let's just call balls and strikes here. His own voters, the independents who flipped over and voted for him, they are very displeased with the economy. And that can be seen very clearly in him having the worst approval rating of his entire career. And there's been some doozies in that career. Friedberg, what should the Democrats? I don't think even even those critics, even first of all, I don't know what Trump supporters you're talking about. I'm talking about the America first people who feel. That he didn't deport the 20 million people that they still have inflation. I'm just talking about that cohort. You could put Tucker in there. You could put Megan in there. You know, all that sphere. Yes, there are definitely people who don't like the war and they recognize that there is some inflation being caused by the war. But I don't think they've said the economy is a disaster. I don't want to quibble with you about words. If you're not an equity holder, I think you look at this economy and say both parties. Biden and this Trump 2.0, I think that the bottom half of the economy believes that both parties don't care about them. That's what all the feedback that you're getting. And we'll confirm it all next Tuesday and see what happens with the actual voting. Chamath, let's continue your teardown. So that was section one, which is you always read the risk factors first, get a sense of what is management concerned about, right? So again, the takeaway is management is concerned really only about compute. this is a compute problem okay the next thing that i always look at is i look at the revenue side of the ledger and i try to understand what kind of business they have. And this is an incredible... Incredible business. Exactly what Freeberg said. Why? Because at the growth that they have and the revenue that they have, They have barely scratched the surface of the commercial working world. And so this is a little bit more of a nuanced chart, because what it does, it starts to really break down what we think the revenue stratification is. by customers inside of Anthropic. So there's about 40 million individuals and small businesses. that are spending under $100K, $40 million. Then there's about 10,000 that spend between $100 and $1 million. There are about 1,650 that spend between 1 and 10 million, and only 250 customers spend 10 million and more. So to your point, I think what Freeberg said is right. The setup is is that these folks can negatively churn into these existing customers and grow and attract new customers at an incredible rate, which I think is just… Crazy. This allows me to think about what is the upper bound of revenue. You don't need to get to 100% of what's possible. You need to get to 25% or 30% and then you need to have a reasonable distribution of negative churn assumptions. What you start to see is that this can be a very large revenue business in the hundreds of billions of dollars. in sort of this three to seven year time frame. Now, what slows that down? As far as I can tell, and this is more me putting the 80-90 hat on, The reason why you have so much traction in the million and under is, When a company gets large enough, they allocate responsibility and budgets down. And at the director manager VP level, There are millions of humans running around with kind of million-dollar budgets. And so there's a lot of experimentation that can happen inside of that bucket. They're willing to sign up for three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine things. The minute you sort of transition from a million to like multi-million dollar deals, and this data sort of confirms it, It's a much more thoughtful pitch. It's much more cross-functional inside of a company. And you have to show some form of ROI or total cost of ownership advantage. Right. So what's interesting about this, Jason, is 1900 companies have been able to make the case. that's what i would say i think there's a ton of experimentation And I think about 1900 companies can clearly see an ROI where they can now start to rip in big checks. Now of that 1900, a big portion of those are going to be ai natives right folks that are venture funded so you have to strip those folks away And then what's left over is probably a couple of hundred global 2000 type companies. So I think the ROI case is still a little speculative. But the potential is there. And as long as the potential is there, I think the market's going to price it up. So now that's revenue composition. So then the next thing I think about is capitalization. And I said this before. I said Ant needs to have 200 billion. And I really hope that they actually get close to 250. First of all, let me just say the CFO of Ant, Krishna Rao, has done an unbelievable job. The fact [30:00] that he entering June already had $125 billion is unbelievable. And there's a chart I didn't include, but their total net burn to get there has been like $9 billion or $10 billion. It's just infinitesimally low relative to the market cap. So I thought that they had a lot less cash than this. So when I said they need to raise between 200 to 250 and they need to price closer to a trillion, I was assuming they had 30, 40, 50 billion on the balance sheet. I was wrong. So these guys need to raise between, I would say... 80 to 120 billion to get to that quarter trillion. And I think in order to do that, the price is probably now going to come in between 1.3 on the low end to 1.7 on the high end. So call 1.5 the midpoint. So if I had to price the IPO, just eyeballing this, I kind of think it'll come in around 1.5 if I had to if I had to just kind of guess. And the other thing that I noticed is how much cash Alphabet has and also how much cash Meta does not have. I was shocked to see that I had 2 billion of cash. This must be a mistake. But if you look at the 10 Qs, as of the end of September, this is what it shows, which net cash. I don't know. Net cash. Maybe it doesn't include short term investments. I'm going to take a look at Meta's numbers. It doesn't make sense. Yeah, I'll tell you in one second. But, Jamal, your larger point is right, that Anthropic, like you said, over $100 billion of cash they're sitting on. They've burnt very little of the money that they've raised. Again, their company's been a model of capital efficiency. They're about to raise $100 billion in this IPO. I think they've got about a debt facility with another $80 billion. So you add it all up, and this is a company with over $300 billion of dry powder, or it will soon have that. commitments in the future that they're never going to be able to live up to. Actually, this secures those commitments because they've got the capital now to basically back up all of – those compute orders, all the forecasted CapEx spending, So, I don't know, 2030? You're exactly right. And because they only have to raise 80, right or 90 or 100. That's a lot different than trying to raise 150 or 175 or 200, which is where I thought they needed to be. And so the demands they're going to put on the capital markets into the IPO are going to be less, which means that they'll have more pricing power, they'll be able to manage the float better. All of these dynamics, I think, give you a constructive read going into the IPO. Okay, now let's move on because I think here's my biggest takeaway. MetaNet cash is negative two. It is 80 billion of cash and short turns and 82 billion of debt. Wow. Okay, now go back to this. What is my big takeaway? It's bigger than Ant. I'm going to build on what Sak said. The entire United States economy is levered to the AI complex. So very narrowly, we're talking about seven or eight companies that sets the tone for the entire country. And whether we like it or not, that is where we are. Why do I say that one? The most important companies in the world are in a massive spending binge. These were highly profitable, highly cash accretive, highly cash flow generative businesses that have said we're going to put the foot down on spending because we believe in what's coming into the future. That's what drives GDP, and it's what drives growth. Okay, next chart. Now, as they do that, though, they deplete their cash, and they have to raise debt. Okay, and this is what you see. All but Microsoft. By the way, what an incredible job Satya has done. He's halved his debt while everybody else has just gone to an unbelievably crazy high number. So the AI complex now owes $340-400 billion to the market. And you'd say, okay, why is that important? The problem is this. These companies are raising so much money. It starts to crowd out the capital markets. And the most important part of the capital market that it starts to crowd out is the appetite for government treasuries. And what you can see here is that when you look at these AI firms, the amount of money that they need to raise through the end of 27th, It's 30% of all of what Treasury is about to issue in that same period. So there, whether we like it or not, they are going to start competing for demand. Isn't this nuts? It's like you have seven companies that are crowding up the treasury market. You know, Chamath, a lot of people are looking at that number and they're trading these stocks down based on that. I kind of view it the opposite, which is I don't, these are smart companies. I don't think they'd be making those kinds of investments unless they thought there was ROI there. Well, there obviously is ROI based on the [35:00] spoken usage and the fact that only one or two percent of people in corporate America are even using these tools. We are greatly underestimating the uptick here. Claude hasn't even launched. a bot yet a grok bot and opening i just launched theirs and it's in like a small use case when 100 million or 200 million white collar workers who subscribe to say the office suite right the similar office 365 thing happens in corporate america everybody's got five agents running I think the utilization of these things is going 500x. The token usage is 500x. That means we're going to have not enough compute and everybody's got the build out. completely wrong. There won't be enough And people are going to look back on this moment and say, why didn't you build more compute? Why didn't you spend more on CapEx? You're absolutely right, Jason. The problem is the regulatory pushback. The amount of approvals and the ability for utilities to find the staff and the ability to actually turn these things on and then the ability to get the capital equipment you need it just isn't there right now so we as a country are sort of clogged up we can't do it even if we wanted to do freeberg you know the the other issue here is if we are not spending enough building this out, And the country, a large percentage of the country, believes in socialism and is against the oligarchs. both Republican, independent, and Democratic oligarchs, there's a This is what they think of us and of the leaders in our industry and other industries. this is really dangerous because we're not going to be able to build out the compute we need. And what does that do to the entire industry in the next... three to five years if we if we can't build out this and how do we turn that narrative around so people are like yeah we should have data centers I have a view that... humans try to organize and to Groups. organizations, to try and Create power. that benefits the members of that group. So, we form tribes, we form communities, And in a sense, governments are a form of, of an organization. It's an organizational coalition of individuals to achieve an objective for, in the case of a democracy, the majority of the voters. And as a result, organizations in a world of call it pseudo-limited resources, compete with each other for those resources. nonprofits, for profits, governments, they're all effectively competing for resources because the individuals that they represent are, the interests are going to be served if they get more resources, get more power, get more influence. So to some extent, the power of AI and the influence it enables in terms of media, in terms of capital, accumulation, in terms of changing people's minds and, terms of aggregating resources through its competitive capacity, productivity, and Et cetera. makes it a bit of a threat. to government organizations. And so to Chamath's point, If one of the manifestations of that is that AI is now accruing more interest from capital than governments. Governments aren't going to want to let that happen. And the governments, whether they're right or left, are going to fight for the AI to become either part of the government or the government to subsume the AI. or control the AI. organizations. And this is why I've kind of argued the case. I think that you're going to end up seeing compute get regulated in the future where compute capacity is going to be assigned by government and they're going to pass laws to try and do that post-production that is like meaning they're not going to control the chips they're compute layer and they're going to determine who's going to get access to what amount of compute. I think for governments to compete. And I think one of the ways this is going to play out, to Chamath's point, is in the near term in capital. There's more capital going to the AI organizations and the government. The governments aren't going to want to let that happen. So they're going to try and stop the data centers because then I've never seen something in my adult working life where. A complex of a handful of companies are effectively competing with governments now for capital. Because you've never seen companies in an organized manner have one very narrow thing that they need money for, that is a one-way bet on something that attracts the same amount of money that would otherwise go to a traditional two, three, four, five year, 10 year bond auction. It's kind of nutty actually. And by the way, the story you're going to hear from both sides is a story of which side benefits the people more. And that's going to be the narrative argument, which is going to be every side is going to say the other side's lying. Because remember, if one side's lying, and another side's not lying. Yeah, the side that's not lying, [40:00] says, "Hey, those guys are lying," and they're correct. The side that is lying de facto says that the other side is lying because they're liars. And so you'll hear both sides screaming, we are the better path for society, we are the better path for humanity. It's either government or private market AI, And that'll be the huge battle that's going to brew over the next half decade. And we'll see which one politicians are for sale and Dario and Anthropic should start buying just like the right did. Oh, they already have. I don't see them with champions. Where are their champions? Do they have champions yet? For sure. Listen, Anthropik, even as a startup, prioritize government affairs. They were very active during the Biden administration. All those former Biden officials who are doing AI in the Biden administration, immediately joined My point, Sachs, is that you don't see them doing what you guys did, hosting a fundraiser for Trump, being out there publicly in front of it. You don't see them out there doing it. Oh, sure. But they've created PACs and all sorts of entities and nonprofits, NGOs, all that kind of stuff. and they have been massively funding it. They have a huge government affairs operation. Why aren't they doing what you guys did, like, you know, getting out there in front of any champions? Well, I don't know what you mean by you guys. I... I did. You went public about your support for Trump. I've never seen Dario publicly come out for any politician. I'm not a corporation. Yeah, exactly. I'm not. I'm not. Can you let me explain? I'm not a corporation. Of course. I'm just one person who has views. And yeah, I support certain candidates and I do fundraisers for candidates. I'm not like seeking regulatory capture. I'm just one person. I'm saying why haven't Dario or the other founders done that? Why haven't they said we choose this candidate? We choose these candidates. We don't know that they haven't. We know they haven't done it publicly because we've never heard them do it. That's my sure. But they have given huge amounts of money. I agree. They've done it. Which is public information. And those packs have supported candidates. If they're going to make a run at this, they should do it publicly. door where Anthropik has been snapping up Every former official first was a Biden administration. Now, frankly, they're hiring a lot of former Trump administration. Oh, really? And this is all public information, but they are building a massive government affairs operation. And look, I think you can expect that as they power up through all of this capital, having a $2 trillion market cap. That's my point. they're going to have even more influence in Washington, or they're going to be capable of buying a lot more influence in, And I think that is concerning. One thing I will say, though, is that As they go from being a startup to being a public company, that's one of the top handful of companies by market cap on earth. It's going to be very obvious that they are a big tech company and therefore they should be treated as, like other big tech companies, which is to say with suspicion, as opposed to this being some poor little startup that, you know, has – innocuous views or is not the 800-pound gorilla they actually are. So I do think it'll be clarifying on that level for them to be seen correctly as what I've been saying is that they are the most powerful monopoly or duopoly, ever in human history, which is they're creating AGI, right? I've been saying that for a long time. So I do think that them going public will actually right-size them in the public consciousness. Yeah, that's my point. And one thing you're seeing already, actually, is there's starting to be a Doomer-Anthropic split There's a very interesting article in Vox, which is this huge Doomer publication over the past week, and it was quoting a bunch of these NGOs, kind of Doomer NGOs, that were basically pointing out that, you know, like Anthropic, actually, if you, if you separate their rhetoric from what they actually do, they are the ones leading the charge on recursive self-improvement. There's no single company. in the world that is doing more to race towards full RSI. than anthropic they are hell-bent for leather on getting to full recursive self-improvement in fact A lot of the reason why they are becoming so efficient with their compute, the reason they're able to cut costs, offer the same capability at one tenth the price is because they've increasingly been using their own models to to generate these algorithmic improvements, to create these compute multipliers. If you go back to August, Anthropic published a very interesting blog talking about how they were using RSI, and 26% They had a chart showing that 26% of their tasks that are involved in basically trying to create the next generation of models, they were already... We're using... RSI to do that. Now that was back in August, so who knows what they're at now being in October. So look, they are pursuing RSI very, very quickly and one way to think about that whole pacing letter, that Dario published a few months ago [45:00] is it's almost like they're creating an alibi for themselves where they are acknowledging that, hey, we are pursuing RSI as quickly as anyone. And it's almost like they're saying, hey, to the world, well, we want it to stop, right? Like we want it to slow down. We tried to get you all to agree to pace, but you guys wouldn't agree to do that. So therefore we kept going. And it's almost like creating an alibi in advance for themselves If this RSI thing goes really bad. All right. But I think that they had to know when they published that pacing letter that they're not going to get the whole world on board with pacing. So the whole thing was sort of an exercise in virtue signaling. But... In any event, I think what it shows again is I do think that it's possible that an anthropic doomer split is coming, because there's no way for them to maintain their lead as the number one super intelligence company without continuing to advance the frontier very rapidly. and to continue to pursue recursive self-improvement. And that is something that the doomers are most afraid of. of all the of all the various risks right they are most worried about a breakaway superintelligence. So I do think that this is the beginning, maybe, of a divorce between... Anthropic and the Doomers, but we'll see. Okay, let's get back to your breakdown, Chamath. You had the... the greatest revenue, greatest business ever built, yada, yada. They have a ton of cash. They have the cash for the build out. They're going to raise some cash in the IPO. And they are the all of this bond activity is crowding out treasuries is where you left off, I believe. So let's get exactly. So I think you have to go to these risk factors now and think if you're going to price the IPO, or if you're going to buy the IPO, how would I decide to buy the IPO? And I think at the $1.4, $1.5, $1.6, it's kind of priced fairly. So there's no deal. But they're giving you an entry price into the future. So then you have to sort of have a view on the future. I think there are two risks. The first risk was what I showed you on their revenue composition, which is How long does it take for Ant to show those 10,000 customers the ROI math that they will need to move from less than a million to single digit millions to tens of millions right that's one very simple thing that you can check quarter after quarter after quarter as those numbers swell The reason they will swell is that they'll have defensible use cases and white papers and analyses that make it very straightforward for a corporate infrastructure to sign off, a multi-person executive team to sign off on a multi-million dollar spend. So that's an ant risk. And I think that you can price that risk. The second though is what I teased here, which is the risk you cannot price, which is this market risk. The AI complex has gotten so big that it now competes with US treasuries. Why is that an important thing to note? And why does that create market risk? Nick, if you just go back to the last chart, please. So when you look at this, what does it mean for Treasury having to compete with Facebook and SpaceX and Anthropik and OpenAI for Money. Well, It means that somebody is going to have to pay more. Now let's play out one example. If it's the hyperscalers that have to pay more, because people believe the flight to quality and the durational risk of the government is better. then all of the money that the hyperscalers and the AI complex and anthropic and open AI have to raise, will have to come in at a higher coupon. If that's true, then Friedberg's chart is also true, which is that those rates cascade through the ecosystem. The NeoClouds will have to pay more. All these other folks have to pay more. What that means is that you increase and you pull forward the risk of defaults, which we talked about last time. So you have this negative reflexive cycle there. Let's say the opposite is true. Let's say that the AI complex is able to raise money at reasonable rates And it's the US Treasury. that has to actually go through an auction and pay more. Now you have the broad-based cost of borrowing goes up because every other part of the United States economy is levered. to the 2s through 5s and 10-year complex. That is a huge market risk that I don't understand because I've never seen before. What is the market risk? Explain it just crisply here as we as we wrap. What is the market risk? If interest rates go up because the US treasuries have to pay more for people to buy their bonds, then everything else in the economy has a higher cost of borrowing. [50:00] has negative implications. If the opposite is true, the AI complex has to pay more, and then there's a bunch of negative repercussions narrowly to the complex. The problem is we're trying to buy an AI stock. So many roads lead to downside risk more than upside risk. Now there are versions in which this all works out and everything is off to the races. But I guess my structural takeaway maybe Jason is we're entering this very weird. phase in the US economy where We've seen this before and we're seeing it now. This complex is too big to fail. and i think when you start to see these guys representing 40 50 percent of all capital market equity and debt flows which then in turn represents 30, 35, 40% of all treasury assets, issuance as well that this competition happens These guys are too big to fail, which means that there's a different problem at hand, which is a more systemic problem. So I'm not saying that there is. I understand you're highlighting this is confusing to you as a market participant who's on the inside. I get it. What I'll say is, I you could actually argue the opposite Shema This is the greatest business ever created. It's an American business. The American economy is still the greatest economy in the world. You could argue versus China, etc. But we are running the table on super intelligence. And if you look at the history of the greatest franchises ever made. I did a little bit of research and just this is first seven years of revenue to back up what you're saying here. If anthropic hits the targets they've set out, you know, ballpark here is getting to 100 and then 300. billion dollars in revenue, eventually 600 billion in revenue. They're well on their way. They're at about 100 billion in revenue this year, which is like a third of a Google, you know, a quarter of an Apple. And you look at the cumulative revenue in the first seven years of the best franchises America has ever made, which would be Amazon, Google search, cost per click search, free breaker, alma mater and the iPhone franchise. it's going to become clear that the three best franchises in the history of business in my mind iphone Google cost per click search and Amazon, which will this doesn't include AWS. This is just books and retailer. You put the books into the AWS into it until later years. It gets even more interesting. It's possible Anthropics business. is bigger than the top three franchises in the history of business put together. And that is something we've never seen, which means you have no choice but to buy American debt and this debt. If you're a global participant, where are you gonna put your money in France? You know, in China, you can't put it into China. I'm confused. Yeah. Haven't you been saying for like the past year that open models are going to eat anthropics lunch? Have you changed your tune on that? In the face of new evidence, you would have to say that they are lowering the prices and the opportunity in the enterprise. is, um, is so great that they're not being dramatically impacted by it. You will see anecdotally, startups and enterprises exploring it, but it's obviously not enough now that we know their numbers, that it's slowing them down. It's not slowing them down yet. I do think it's still the biggest risk factor. I'm not debating revenue traction at all or business quality. What I'm saying is there are moments where there's systemic risk in markets where everybody goes risk off. I think that what I am saying very explicitly is I've not seen in the last 15 or 20 years. The last time we came close to this was in the GFC. where you have a narrow part of the economy represent basically all of everything that's happening in the capital markets. All that means is that everybody has to pay a lot more attention. It doesn't matter what side of the AI trade you're on, whether you're long it, whether you're short it, I don't think that's important. I'm saying something more structural. which is about 10 companies collectively to fund one thing, will be competitive with global governments on borrowing. I don't know what the implications of that is because I have not seen that. To the point, Sax, that you made in challenging me, which is great, Their revenue is slowing down dramatically. You know, their quarter over quarter revenue is decelerating. So... Obviously, it's not a big number. We don't know Q3 yet. I mean, the Scuttlebutt on X, and who knows if we can totally believe this, is that things did slow down in Q3 a lot. But some of that may be attributable to the fact that they eliminated Q3. 99% of distillation, right? So they... voluntarily took a big hit to the revenue from people stealing from them yeah yeah to prevent the copycat models from from basically distilling them so there was that and then I think The scuttlebutt is that since they cut their token costs considerably, they're [55:00] which was done pretty recently, now the demand is re-accelerated. Yes, Javon's power is in full effect, yeah. Yes, it seems like they're back to resuming their previous growth after a couple of hiccups. in Q3. But I think the thing that's really impressive is just that the way they're able to cut their token costs. It's not just because they're giving up pricing power, right? It's not that they're losing margin. They're actually gaining margin. The reason they're able to do that is because all the algorithmic improvements Efficiency. They're making. in order to make their models much more efficient. Yes. And just to dovetail with that sex, what's happening with the models is, is even... more impressive. the they're lowering the price of tier two and tier three models right your sonnets your opus those are getting cheaper But enterprises are saying, that's enough for me. So as they make that cheaper, they're then businesses get more value, they solve more problems out of it, and they don't feel the need to be on the latest greatest fable. If you're a hollow, maybe you need that to do science. If you're a mathematician, you need it. If they can keep making their second and third run models this much cheaper, 10x cheaper each year, the Jevons paradox is going to get even more pronounced because enterprises will use it more. Token cost matters, right? We're sitting here with the token max and cost. What we're seeing is that, I mean, we keep seeing Jevons paradox play out at every level, which is as you cut the cost of tokens or more and more use cases, enterprises use it more and more. And the net result is that the total demand just keeps going up and the total revenue and market size keeps growing. Also, just to reiterate a point that you made earlier in the program, The new applications that are coming all consume a lot more tokens than... the ones that we started with, right? Like agents use a lot more tokens than prompting. and Cyber Defense is going to use a lot more tokens than just doing you know, a pen test once a year, right? You're going to need continuous monitoring of agents, attack surfaces, all that kind of thing. So all the new applications are going to be using exponentially more tokens. 50 to 100 times the number of tokens, yes. Exactly. So the price will keep going down, but the market size keeps increasing. I think the biggest risk factor to Anthropic. I do think it is some version of the open source models, maybe not catching them, but sort of saturating intelligence at a low price point for certain... Commoditizing it. Commoditizing it for things like coding or, you know, where there is a big chunk of the market. That is still a risk. I would say sort of a second order risk is that In order for Anthropic to stay ahead and to keep making their models more and more efficient. they have to keep using more recursive self-improvement, right? You see this. in the charts that they publish, that they are using their latest models more and more to discover these compute multipliers, to discover these new algorithmic efficiencies. So they have to kind of push the limits of what they themselves call risky activity. I don't know if I fully believe in the Doomer story about RSI, but they themselves say, that RSI is very risky, but they have to keep pushing RSI in order to keep delivering these algorithmic improvements in order to stay ahead of the open models. And I just wonder, how sustainable that is. At some point, Do you get a breach with the doomers that becomes irreconcilable Do the Doomers want to basically shut down RSI or basically slow it down to the point where then the open models truly do catch up. I don't know the answer to that question. It's sort of just a more nuanced take on this idea of open models catching up. Yeah, and I think this chart is super illustrative. If you can pull it up, Nick, Gallup's been keeping a survey of who's using AI at work daily, versus frequently defined as a few times a week and you know the people using it like frequently versus daily we're still talking about 10 and 20 percent here it's nascent a lot of the top enterprises are not letting their employees use this in an unconstrained fashion, and they're certainly not letting them connect their email, their knowledge bases, their notions, their slacks, big corporations are not letting people actually use the power of ai because they're scared about cyber so once the cyber threat chamoff gets mitigated This is going to go from 10% of people being daily users to 60, 70, 80%. There's so much growth left here. When every single employee has an agent. I saw just last week, Uber bought open a open AI chat GPT for every employee. That's going to be the next shoe to drop is do you buy these things for every single employee? Okay, I think we beat that one to death. Congratulations to the Anthropic team and all the investors on [60:00] Making an incredible business. Extraordinary. And yeah, shout out to Sachs, who predicted this would be the greatest business ever on multiple programs. Turns out you got that one correct. And we'll see. We'll see what happens. But like I said, I said two things. Number one, best business ever creating this AGI monopoly. Second, they're going for regulatory capture. And we should definitely not allow that to happen, especially in light of number one. Right. It's just kind of unseemly and gross for them to be seeking red capture when they already have such a good business and they're in such a dominant position. And I think actually that this IPO will be very helpful and clarifying on that because, again, once they're seen as a big tech monopoly or part of a huge duopoly, the arguments for giving them like regulatory moats just go away. In fact, we should do everything we can to make this market more competitive. long before we have the breakup anthropic movement break up anthropic separate the lab it could happen from the tokens from the subscription it will like if and the who said gavin that they were claiming they were building the last business ever you know when you look at the other franchises said that well gavin Well Gavin said somebody he said Dario said it Yeah Gavin said that Dario said that But Dario did not deny it remember He had this lengthy response. Yeah, he said it might have been kind of said. Yeah, so yeah. I mean, I think they obviously believe it, and if you look at that chart I made with the other franchises, they obviously have an incredible franchise that's theirs to lose when we get the open AI data, Man, then we're going to have all three of the major players in this space disclosing the key information we need. And that's going to be really interesting when we have all of the hands turned over in this poker game when OpenAI files. All right. Google got smashed on Thursday, 10, 15% down. We record on Thursdays, obviously. Q3 earnings wiped out about $500 billion in market cap. Why? For two straight quarters, Google missed on search revenue. Even though searches are growing massively, the people clicking on the ads is not, which leads to a little bit of shenanigans and trying to get people to click on more ads. They're negative on free cash flow, even though cloud is ripping. Cloud doubled year to year billion That the AWS business they have It called Google cloud it quite nice and overall revenue is still strong they growing 25 year over year the issue is people are looking at that google cost per click advertising network and saying well obviously that goes away at a certain point if you just give people the answer right chat gpt anthropic rock they just give people the answer in some cases they go solve their problem if it's an agent so that is pretty disruptive search business is what pays for everything and that grew 12 down from 17 so it's decelerating but it's still growing nicely freeberg this is your alma mater you witnessed the cost per click greatest business ever this was the previous one that we said was the best business ever created along with the iphone franchise what are your thoughts here are you worried about that franchise or do you think they've done a good enough job with the other businesses google cloud and YouTube come to mind, Android, in terms of diversifying their revenue? Are you worried about Google as a buy opportunity or is this stay away? It's a complicated story. I think the core services the core Google ad revenue is a real challenge right now in terms of can they keep the momentum up Overall the business trades at roughly 21 times operating income And you get that sort of a multiple based on reliability of future cash flows and effectively growth of those cash flows. I think the Google Cloud business is looking really tremendous. I mean, I don't know if you guys remember, it wasn't too long ago and this thing was not making money. Last year, the Google Cloud business for this quarter was generating $3.5 billion of operating income. This quarter, it's over $11 billion of operating income. And this is a lot like the SpaceX AI story, where the value of the compute infrastructure that's been built is just tremendous. The question is, does Google actually have the models that sit on top of it? And in many cases, they do, so they can make a higher margin on that piece of the stack. So when I say it's complicated, I think there's a story you can build in the cloud business that shows the next couple of years of really progressive growth in that business. The core Google services, I think, is when it becomes challenging, where over the last year it grew from 33 and a half to 39. And as some people have pointed out, this may largely be driven by a change in the pricing algorithm for ads and how Google is now, in some cases, over-earning. [65:00] for those clicks. And over time, advertisers will see that they'll experience that. they'll reduce spend, they'll attract some dollars. and it won't look as good of a business. So the question then is, do they have a consumer AI business that catches up and accelerates? to support that. That's the thing I think everyone needs to be watching is what is the AI replacement look like on the consumer side for Google's core business? The core cost per click advertising network and you type a search into Google. That's the core business you're talking to. That's the core consumer business. So the question is, is there a consumer AI alternative that starts to generate meaningful revenue to replace that revenue? And what is the revenue ramp look like there? relative to the flattening or decline that may arise. and course search. And how quickly does that happen? That is a dynamic and challenging process. question to answer now. Internally, I think there's a bit of Turmoil. There's a bit of like, what are we? not just overall as a company, but just even within the business segments. What is Google search? Is it AI? Is it search? What is Google Cloud? Is it the models or is it just the compute, the rental of the compute? And I think we saw this battle play out recently where Jeff Dean and others left Google. And I don't know this for sure, But the theory is that the computer scientists that have been building models at Google maybe aren't getting the resources that they had hoped to get, because Google can make so much more money renting that compute out. to others. And so it's a really hard question of what do we want to be at Google right now? And I don't think that they have a great answer. And I don't think it came across well in the report. It didn't come across well, obviously. And people reacted, Shamath. But they did know this was coming. They did plan for it. They renamed the company Alphabet. And they said, they've got this great CFO. Let's make all these other bets. Fend for themselves. The Waymos of the world have to make their way in the world. Raise outside capital. So they did prepare for this, in fairness to the team over there. YouTube surging, Android surging, Google Cloud surging, and then you have the franchise slowing. searches up. But, revenue growth slightly down so do you think they can fix this or should they just do a bending spoons and get as much money as possible out of the search and put it into other things like consumer AI, corporate AI, and their future models and hosting of other people's models. What are your thoughts here, Chimam? I don't think that's what bending spoons does. And not everything is an analogy to bending spoons. Well, no, no. I'm saying manage it. This is the best business. I'm saying manage search. Let me be clear. I'm saying when I say bending spoons. I'm saying manage it for earnings, not for like growing it necessarily. Just get as many dollars out of it as possible. I think that's what they've been doing in the last quarter. That's why people didn't like that. I mean, there was a very interesting tweet. Nick, maybe you can put it up here. I think a lot of the consternation came from people reacting to what Max Anderson wrote, which got 5 million views, by the way. He wrote this through the lens of somebody – and these are his claims, so I don't know if they're true or not – spending half a million dollars or more a month on google for for years, and he itemized all the ways in which things have changed. And the most important thing that I pulled out of here, was what freeberg mentioned which is the change in the auction model so typically in a victory auction what happens is Freebird... bids, I bid. If I'm the underbidder, What happens is Freeberg gets filled at my price because he was the high bidder. And so it's a really great way of doing price discovery at Facebook when we built the first ad system. That's essentially what we copied. We copied Google's feature for feature. But if now what they're doing is they've abandoned the victory auction, Freeburg's right, you're over-earning, and if the market starts to smell that out, they're going to start to wonder what's actually happening underneath the hood. So these claims, which are now well syndicated, have been out there since July. And I'm not sure that Google IR has necessarily nipped these in the bud. Because I think what happened was, at least the information war that happened post earnings was recirculating Max's post here and saying this has been going on for a while and when you look inside the comments it's a bunch of other people seconding his analysis as accurate. Without knowing the details Jason because they don't spend money in the Google ecosystem. I think it's really important for Google IR to get in front of this and Because I think if this momentum builds, this idea that this franchise is essentially a robbing Peter to pay Paul like pulling money from the future into the present to kind of smooth out earnings and The market will react badly to it. You're seeing it today, but then this other problem starts, which is to your [70:00] point, the composition of ad revenue as a percentage of the overall will fall below a threshold and then they do look like more of a structured conglomerate where now you have a youtube revenue block a gcp block and other bets block and a search block none are dominant which in some ways i actually think is better because then you're more diversified and you're less lever to any one single business But they'll have to go through this complicated process where a bunch of folks may not want to own that kind of a business. And there's a different buyer pool. So you have to go through transitioning out the folks that wanted to own a single stock bet on search or ads or whatever it was. and now have to move to this other kind of business model. And when you switch buckets like this, a bunch of folks kind of say, oh, it's too complicated. So problem number one is what I would say is if you were Google IR, please read this and refute it or try to figure out how to get in front of it. Because every analyst now will try to figure out whether this is true. The second though is very narrow. How do you keep Demis at Google? That's it. That's the only task. Okay. There's nothing else. Pay Thomas Currie and whatever he wants. How do you keep demos at Google? It's actually looking at this business It's been obviously a a journey for the past 10 years, to make Alphabet. have resiliency in revenue streams, diversify the revenue streams, You think there's some great risk here? And would you be long, short or neutral? Well, I'm seeing people post that Alphabet's Google search revenue drop below 50% of total revenue for the first time, and they're making it sound like that's a catastrophic situation. basically playing into the narrative that the search business is going to be disrupted by SI. And that's what it seems like on the surface. But when I dug into the numbers, it didn't really seem that bad at all. So it's true that... Google searches relative share decrease, but its absolute revenue still increased. So if you look at Google search revenue year over year, it was still up 12%. It increased from 56 billion to 63 billion. So there's still a roughly $7 billion year over year increase. in Google search. So Google search is still thriving I think you could say it's not growing that fast relative to other businesses but you're not seeing it deteriorate yet and again the reason why the share fell below 50% is because Other Alphabet businesses are simply growing much faster. And the main one is Google Cloud, which basically doubled year over year to 30%. 0.7 billion. So it's the rise of the Google Cloud business. That has made... Google search seem like it's on the decline, but I tend to think it's a good thing that Alphabet is now finally getting some of these other businesses to really work and to really grow fast and to finally diversify the revenue. Diversifying from search has been something they've wanted to do for a long time. They now have all these other segments. You've got YouTube. You've got G Suite subscriptions. So in any event, I tend to think Google is a little bit oversold on this news today. I agree. Although I'm certainly not telling anyone to buy anything. Since inception and maybe past 10 years, you can pull both charts up. We'll go through them real quick here. But this is just this franchise. The number of searches is still going up. The revenue per search and that issue is obviously the one people are concerned with but The other side of the coin is absolutely correct, David. The other businesses, they're now only 50% dependent on this business. And that will continue. So for me, I just literally bought some shares. So I'm long. I just bought more shares of Google while doing the show. Just remember, Alphabet owns 6% of SpaceX and like 15% of Anthropic as well. I think 85% of Waymo as well, right? Like that's the... the other piece of this puzzle. Amazon also owns a big piece of Anthropoc. They're going to be a big winner. All right, listen, that's our time here. Do you guys want to talk about the election ahead of Tuesday night and predictions or anything like that? You've been shepherding this. Go ahead. What are you guys watching on the midterms? Anything you're keeping an eye on, Chamath? Any big contrarian predictions on what might happen on Tuesday? It's so interesting. I'm like really confused. I've started to stop paying attention just because there's so much misinformation that I... I thought that we are going to have, and I still think, what Socks call the spritz. You have a little spritz? I think it's more of a democratic spritz. But when you look at some of the early data, I don't know if Bret Baier was doing this just to kind of hedge his bets or not, but he did a clip which went viral on X where it just looked like it was going to be a bloodbath [75:00] the Republicans. and they were going to lose both sides. both the Senate and the House. I think it's still set up to have the Republicans keep the Senate, and the Democrats to have a narrow majority. And just going back to maybe where we started, the mandate from the Democrats then becomes obvious, which is how do you introduce FUD And there's one way to do that, which is to start subpoenaing everybody and start to do disclosure, discovery, release document after document after document, and let people, You know, the... the masses start to churn through this stuff going into 28. So number one, create FUD. And then number two is I think a economic slowdown benefits the Democrats going into the 28 election cycle. And so whatever they can do to kind of like influence power permitting and data centers, because as we talked about earlier, that's the lever bet. So to me. It almost doesn't matter what happens at the federal level except for the FUD part. I think we now should be paying a ton of attention to what's happening in these governorships and some of these other races. Sachs, has your view changed? Look, I think that you can't trust any of these polls. First of all, a couple of these polling firms have come out and admitted that they are fake. I mean, we literally have a couple. Yeah, there was a hoax, right? Fake polls. There was literally a hoax. And those people were included. Yeah. in you know those averages so some of the polls are outright fraudulent and then the rest of them are well known to have a bias. Patrick Graffini did a study of the last three elections and found that three quarters of the polls all... you know, erred in favor of Democrats. So we see this as a recurring pattern. We saw this in 2024. You had and seltzer was supposedly the gold standard say that trump was going to lose iowa by like 10 or something like that and it turned out to be total nonsense so the pollsters have a history of bias, of fraud, or you could just say, for some reason, oversampling progressives in their polls. So I think that people should shut that out. I think that some of them are a tactic designed to depress and suppress turnout. and Republicans should just go out there and vote. The economy is not a disaster that is Total fake news. We know what the growth rates are. It was 2.5% in the last quarter, and it's tracking at 3.7% right now. Median household income is almost $90,000. It's at an all-time high. Poverty is at an all-time low. I think the percent of people below the poverty line is like 12%. It's the lowest it's ever been. It's not just a case-shaped recovery. You're seeing real wage growth. in real terms, by the average household which was not true during the biden years so I don't think people should get psyched out by this media operation to make people super depressed about it. What's going on? J. Cal, any views? Oh, well, I agree. The polling data has been, you know, a suspect for a long time now across many elections. Wedgwood did this like they're claiming performance art, but they were kind of serious. I don't know who they're working for or what the shenanigans are, but I do trust polymarket. I think when you look at the polymarket, pretty clear what's going to happen here. By the way, Polymarket was wrong on Bolsonaro, although I think maybe he got robbed. It was wrong on Netanyahu. So poly markets are just a reflection of public sentiment or public sentiment that's willing to place a bet. Yeah, that's what it's the matter. So they were totally wrong about those two national elections. By the way, I'm not I'm not predicting some sort of, you know, miraculous. Republican win here, it would be very unusual for the Republicans to win. midterm election when they're in the White House, right? And you remember that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both suffered horrendous midterm losses. Bill Clinton, remember, lost In 1994, he lost to Newt and Grits, the whole contract with America. That was the first time Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years. With Obama, one of his midterms was the shellacking. So it's quite customary for the out-of-power party to do very well in the midterms. I'm just saying that The media is already portraying this as a tsunami. or a bloodbath, and I think it might be a more normal... Midterm result. That's all I'm saying. So in any event, I think people should just go out and vote and not get – depressed or psyched out by whatever the media is telling them because the media has a long track record of being wrong and biased. And J.K.L., any view that's different than where we've been in the past? I think polymarket is going to get it right. I think Democrats are going to win the Senate, 68% chance right now on polymarket, I believe that, and House, obviously, everybody believes that, 92% chance. [80:00] So when that happens, and the reason I'll back that up is if you look at the net approval rating of Trump, uh all-time low the country is very upset And, The libs are going to come out in force. to vote anti-Trump. the uh the the moderates are either not going to show up and they're not going to be trump curious like they were for the second term and you know oh kamala was such a disastrous candidate they were like okay i got to try something else here and they went for trump reasonably if you were going to have a choice between kamala and trump i think trump's the better choice for most americans and then you have the fractured uh republican party where the american first people feel really The worst didn't get solved. And he started another work. so that group's kind of pissed off so when you put all that together I think it's a very easy sweep. for the Democrats. Then I think, you know, if we want to look at what the next two cards are, if you look at impeachment, you know, that process from what I understand is a house and then Senate and it's a legal proceeding. I think we're going to go right back. to Trump being impeached. And then both houses are going to do that. It's gonna be absolute chaos. And then the Dems are going to start putting legislation out there in force, Republicans to vote against it in order to scuttle. J.D. Vance's chances. So this is obviously going to be a chaotic two years. You and I are live. Let me finish. Hold on. So what's going to happen is it's going to be a chaotic two years. And I think what will come out of that ultimately is we're going to need some new candidates on the Republican side. And they're going to put the Trump. Um, They're going to put the Trump... Error. to bed and then i think that means they put jd vance uh and marco rubio to bed and they're going to need a new champion that is more populist and actually executes on the populist agenda, which they feel Trump represented but didn't execute on. That's And that's not my personal belief. That's just my analysis. Go ahead, Shema. No, I think what I'm saying is you think there's going to be a Democrat FUD campaign. They could control the House. They're just subpoena everybody. They're going to subpoena everybody. They're going to look into every single accusation of grift they can think of and ones that are valid, ones that are not valid, everybody in between. And so, yeah, and then I, you know, we have a really good group, by the way, coming. So join us for the all in midterm live stream, 8 to 10 p.m. YouTube X and Polymarket. Shane Copeland, Tim Dillon, Rahm Emanuel, Taylor Lorenz. It's going to be chaotic and fun. Taylor Lorenz, she's on a redemption arc, I have to say. She's actually been great on certain topics lately. What is going on? Full redemption arc, I have to say. Wow, Bass Lorenz coming on the pod. Love it. It's going to be a fun time. I love Tim Dillon. He's coming on. I'm not going to be there. What? Where are you going to be? What do I need to do a midterm live stream for? Because your party is going to lose, so you're not coming. If we outperform, I'll pop in and spike the football. Otherwise, I'm not showing up. That's not cool. Everybody wants to hear you. Come on. We can drink some tequila. We'll have fun with this, Zach. Come on. You can't cry. We should all be drinking, by the way. Chamath, maybe we should get together at Chamath's house and drink and do it live. what will happen if the Democrats win J. Cal because, They have not changed their stripes. Okay. People are just forgetting who the Democrats are and what they were like during COVID, all the lawfare that they perpetrated, all the crazy woke stuff. It's all there, ready to come back. They have not really analyzed why they lost in 2024. They have not really... changed or adjusted anything, if anything, they become more extreme, right? The DSA is ascendant in their party as even Gavin Newsom. acknowledged. So I think that if the Democrats do take Congress, you're likely to see how nutty they are And the American public will be reminded of that. And that will be really interesting to see. But that's why there's a pendulum in politics, right? There is a pendulum. I think we need a... Yeah, I mean, I'm wondering who the champions are, if it's not JD and... Ruby, I wonder who the champion on the right will be. I think it's going to be somebody we can't even name right now. It's going to emerge. I think the same thing on... the left. Anyway, it's going to be exciting. We're going to get Saks to show up and we'll see you all next Thursday night for our live stream. Love you besties. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. [85:00] Queen of Kewa. I'm going all in. Besties are gone. That is my dog taking an ocean in your driveway. Oh, man. We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension, but they just need to release them out. We need to get merch.