Anthony Pompliano
Por qué Bitcoin sale ganando pase lo que pase con la inflación
Pregúntale al tutor sobre este vídeo
Entra con un email verificado y pregúntale al tutor lo que quieras sobre este vídeo.
TL;DR
Resumen de investigación
▶ Bitcoin, software e inflación en un mundo de escasez
La introducción anuncia una conversación sobre la divergencia entre Bitcoin y las acciones de software, inflación y deflación, cinco cestas temáticas y la búsqueda de escasez. Ante la pregunta sobre la fortaleza de Bitcoin frente a la caída del software, Visser dice que los resultados de IBM y ServiceNow fueron aceptables, pero que al mercado le preocupa que la IA agéntica reduzca el valor terminal de esas empresas. Observa que varios de los mejores valores del ETF IGV durante el mes estaban relacionados con cripto y que los mineros de Bitcoin se beneficiaban de la escasez de capacidad de cómputo. Afirma que los cuellos de botella, antes concentrados en memoria, se extienden a CPU y otros insumos; atribuye parte de la presión en químicos a Irán y anticipa que persistirá durante el año. Su tesis es que la inflación aumentará: cita PMI de servicios y manufactura en máximos desde 2022 y prevé que el IPC general supere el 4%, aunque aclara que no espera mejoras en vivienda ni salarios. Contrasta el mercado bajista de materias primas de los 17 años anteriores —salvo COVID— con un actual mercado alcista de materias primas y menciona fletes, energía y falta de oferta de memoria, CPU y semiconductores. Considera Bitcoin sensible a los PMI y espera que el IPC interanual supere el 4%, que las letras a tres meses permanezcan por debajo del 4% y que haya rendimientos reales negativos. El interlocutor pregunta si los compradores de Bitcoin serían los mismos bajo regímenes inflacionarios y deflacionarios.
▶ Bitcoin ante presiones inflacionarias y deflacionarias
Visser presenta, siguiendo a Jeff Booth, la innovación y las dificultades económicas como presiones deflacionarias inherentes a un sistema fiduciario basado en crédito. A su juicio, problemas de empleo, movilidad laboral y asequibilidad pueden impulsar estímulos gubernamentales; al mismo tiempo, una cesta básica cada vez más costosa —vivienda, alimentos y fertilizantes— añade presión inflacionaria. Cita como impulsos fiscales los reembolsos de impuestos, menores ingresos fiscales y la depreciación acelerada para empresas. Describe así fuerzas deflacionarias que mantienen bajas las tasas de corto plazo y fuerzas inflacionarias que elevan el IPC, combinación que puede producir tasas reales negativas. Sostiene que la competencia de la innovación ha eliminado márgenes del software basado en código y que Bitcoin no sufre directamente esa erosión. En su opinión, Bitcoin podría beneficiarse de la inflación y también de la deflación porque los inversores de largo plazo necesitan activos de crecimiento mientras otros activos vinculados al software y los hiperescaladores no rinden. Espera que esa combinación diferencie a Bitcoin en la segunda mitad del año. Sobre acciones, prevé crecimiento de beneficios y del PIB nominal; dice que el PIB nominal impulsa ingresos y beneficios, y que la IA podría sostener márgenes si las empresas controlan gastos laborales. Favorece los activos ligados a cuellos de botella físicos —semiconductores, materias primas y servidores— y cree que el software puede seguir rezagado tras su caída. Como opinión de largo plazo, plantea que empresas privadas emergentes podrían capturar más beneficios de la IA que las públicas, debido a la dificultad de integrar IA en organizaciones con personal, cultura y sistemas heredados. Compara esa adaptación con pedir a un atleta de 60 años que vuelva a jugar fútbol y concluye que las empresas no están en buena forma para la IA.
▶ Cestas temáticas: químicos, semiconductores y servidores
El entrevistador introduce cinco cestas temáticas asociadas a soluciones y escasez y pregunta por la de químicos. Visser dice que los químicos son sensibles a los PMI, los semiconductores y la fibra óptica. Sitúa sus temas de inversión entre noviembre del año anterior y comienzos del año en curso, como una transición hacia nombres vinculados a agentes de IA. Describe una secuencia en la que Nvidia se benefició primero de la construcción de centros de datos y las GPU; luego Micron ganó relevancia por la memoria, y con los agentes el foco pasó a inferencia y al tráfico este-oeste. En ese contexto, la fibra requiere tubos de Corning y los químicos sirven para fabricar componentes y unir semiconductores con memoria y otros elementos. Menciona a Marvell, Texas Instruments e Intel y atribuye el beneficio general del sector de semiconductores al avance agéntico. Afirma que los productores químicos estadounidenses se favorecen porque usan gas natural, cuyo precio dice que es bajo, frente a productores extranjeros que utilizan petróleo, y califica el momento como el comienzo de un mercado alcista en químicos. Añade que los químicos se usan en numerosos productos e insumos industriales. Para los automóviles, plantea un escenario hipotético: aunque las ventas totales podrían rondar los 16 millones anuales, una proporción creciente incorporaría componentes de IA; ejemplifica que pasar de un millón de vehículos con IA a cuatro millones cambiaría el crecimiento de esa categoría, aunque no el volumen total de autos. Eso requeriría más chips y químicos y podría generar un ciclo de actualización de vehículos. Después define la cesta de «whole rack»: servidores, memoria, CPU y otros elementos necesarios para ejecutar IA. Si una empresa como Morgan Stanley necesita alojar datos internamente por privacidad, podría requerir servidores propios; Visser dice que Dell y Hewlett-Packard han subido y los incluye en esa cesta.
▶ Del entrenamiento de modelos a la IA agéntica
Hay un anuncio publicitario de Consensus Miami que promociona un evento del 5 al 7 de mayo, una asistencia prevista de 20.000 personas y un descuento con un código. Luego los interlocutores comparan el retorno de las empresas desde la nube a servidores propios por motivos de privacidad con la transición anterior a la nube. El entrevistador relata que un laboratorio de modelos le dijo que ahora presta más atención a datos de posentrenamiento que a datos de preentrenamiento; interpreta que el trabajo se desplaza hacia ajuste fino y evaluaciones, aunque reconoce que el laboratorio no lo afirmó explícitamente. Visser responde que los modelos ya contienen gran parte del conocimiento humano, pero aún necesitan entrenarse para actuar en el mundo físico, por ejemplo en automóviles, y para abordar problemas aún no resueltos. Distingue dos vías: preentrenamiento para capacidades de razonamiento y resolución de grandes problemas, y agentes para la acción. Según él, la vía agéntica necesita más tráfico este-oeste y componentes como químicos y sistemas completos de servidores. Dice que creó índices temáticos porque incluso inversores sofisticados aún no han asimilado este cambio. La conversación termina con una breve broma sobre escuchar podcasts a velocidad doble.
▶ Información en tiempo real y apuestas en semiconductores de potencia
El entrevistador describe una crisis de ancho de banda humano para seguir el ritmo de la IA y de otros intereses. Visser dice que prefiere indicadores adelantados a las cifras retrospectivas, que compara con consultar el marcador final de un partido. Valora escuchar a personas que, según él, están «en el partido», como Dylan Patel en semiconductores y Craig Fuller en transporte, porque ofrecen información operativa más inmediata que un informe de economistas. Como ejemplo, cuenta que un reporte de medios coreanos sobre el interés de Nvidia en empresas de energía pesada y construcción naval encajó con su tesis de escasez eléctrica y le llevó a señalar Onsemi y Texas Instruments como posibles beneficiarios de la importancia creciente de los semiconductores de potencia. Atribuye esa lectura a información de esa semana y dice que esperaba que los grandes bancos tardaran más en publicarla debido a sus reuniones y calendarios de investigación. Explica que evita reuniones para dedicar tiempo a seguir información en tiempo real.
▶ Libros, IA y el valor de las experiencias personales
El entrevistador comenta que durante unos seis meses ha leído menos libros físicos —antes leía aproximadamente uno por semana— pese a consumir más información, y echa de menos equilibrar actualidad e historia. Visser recuerda que antes de ChatGPT defendía que los libros podían ser una pérdida de tiempo: propone pedir a varios modelos resúmenes de un mismo libro y consolidarlos, con la idea de obtener puntos compartidos y reducir alucinaciones. El entrevistador cuenta que usa modelos para generar guías breves, pero que busca conservar anécdotas y relatos concretos, y se pregunta si podrá generar videos explicativos a partir de libros. Visser matiza que le interesan libros experienciales, como las biografías de Steve Jobs y *The Art of Learning*, porque narran experiencias personales que, según él, la IA aún no puede reproducir. El entrevistador coincide en que las anécdotas permiten extraer ideas aplicables; cuenta la historia que oyó sobre Philip Anschutz, quien habría advertido que el público llegaba temprano al cine y aprovechó ese tiempo para vender anuncios antes de las películas. Dice que aplicó esa idea a anuncios en conferencias. Visser duda que la IA comprenda pronto los matices de la psicología y las decisiones humanas.
▶ Riesgos de Mythos, obsolescencia y financiación de la IA
Al hablar de Mythos, Visser se refiere a informes de que usuarios no autorizados habrían tenido acceso y a la posibilidad de que actores chinos obtuvieran capacidades mediante destilación; la conversación no confirma esos reportes. Opina que no debería sorprender que se pueda hackear cualquier sistema, que la IA misma será una fuente importante de riesgo y que podría ocurrir un incidente de hacking ese año. Cree que la criptografía recibirá más atención, lo que también podría beneficiar a Bitcoin. Advierte que la capacidad de IA avanza más rápido que la preparación de empresas y gobiernos. Cita la dificultad de elegir una arquitectura empresarial cuando un modelo puede quedar obsoleto en tres meses y señala que la ventaja percibida entre Gemini, OpenAI y Anthropic ha cambiado rápidamente. Considera que los modelos avanzados presentan problemas que habrá que resolver antes de establecer controles adecuados, aunque no cree que sean el fin del mundo. El entrevistador añade, atribuyéndolo a sus fuentes, que Anthropic está mucho más centrada en empresas que en consumidores, que Meta estaría comprando conjuntos de datos porque se siente rezagada y que xAI habría recurrido a contratistas para etiquetar datos. También menciona acuerdos de datos y un posible acuerdo de Cursor con pagos de 10.000 millones de dólares o una adquisición por 60.000 millones, según las condiciones descritas. Visser resume las necesidades de las empresas de IA como más capacidad de cómputo, capital para financiarla e ingresos. Menciona la captación de 122.000 millones de dólares por OpenAI y la búsqueda de ingresos empresariales, y distingue el caso de SpaceX, cuyos ingresos atribuye a Starlink, no a los vuelos espaciales. Sostiene que el cómputo y la monetización condicionan la expansión, y que los ingresos anualizados calculados multiplicando una cifra por doce aún no equivalen a dinero efectivamente recibido.
▶ Ingresos contratados y cautela con las cifras anunciadas
Se incluyen anuncios de Uphold y Figure, que promocionan respectivamente servicios de activos digitales y préstamos respaldados por cripto, junto con sus propios términos, cifras y afirmaciones comerciales. Luego el entrevistador explica la diferencia entre una tasa anualizada calculada multiplicando los ingresos de un mes por doce y los ingresos efectivamente sostenidos. Presenta el concepto de tasa anual contratada con un ejemplo hipotético: un acuerdo de tres años que cobra 100.000 dólares el primer año, un millón el segundo y tres millones el tercero, pero que permite cancelar tras doce meses; la empresa podría anunciar una tasa anual contratada de tres millones pese a tener solo 100.000 dólares comprometidos en el primer año. Advierte que inversores menos sofisticados podrían no advertir las condiciones de cancelación y que cifras llamativas pueden depender de contratos graduales o ingresos irregulares. Visser enlaza esa cautela con el riesgo de retorno sobre el capital invertido: si falta capacidad de cómputo, los ingresos no necesariamente seguirán creciendo. La aceleración tecnológica también hace incierto si la tecnología de un proveedor funcionará, si el cliente podrá adaptarse o si seguirá siendo la mejor dentro de un año.
▶ Escasez, sentimiento y asignación probabilística a Bitcoin
Visser considera que valorar empresas de software es difícil cuando no está claro que conservarán valor terminal ni que seguirán existiendo. El entrevistador caracteriza su enfoque como buscar escasez en áreas como energía, químicos, óptica y Bitcoin, y desplegar capital allí. Visser acepta parcialmente, pero añade que su formación como apostador le hace observar dónde se está apostando el dinero y el sentimiento; usa las conversaciones con clientes institucionales como una especie de tablero de probabilidades para evaluar temas como Marvell y la fotónica de silicio. Dice que la escasez y la competencia limitada, incluso en monopolios, importan para el capitalismo. También ve un problema conceptual en un mundo donde todo fuera gratuito, aunque reconoce incertidumbre sobre cómo serían el dinero y el empleo si la abundancia y los humanoides transformaran la economía. Plantea como hipótesis que, si la innovación avanzara cada año como diez años y en veinte años llegara una sociedad de abundancia, cambiaría el significado del dinero fiduciario y del S&P 500. En ese escenario ve a Bitcoin y al sistema cripto como posibles vías de intercambio de servicios y valor. Propone que la asignación a Bitcoin refleje la probabilidad personal de ese futuro y del cambio del sistema fiduciario; da ejemplos hipotéticos de probabilidades y porcentajes de cartera, y dice que una probabilidad del 30% podría justificar una asignación cercana al 30%, en vez de 1% o 5%. Es un argumento de Visser, no una recomendación basada en datos de cartera del interlocutor.
▶ Generaciones, política, sentido de vida y cierre
El entrevistador dice que le inquieta que Elon Musk y Mamdani parezcan coincidir en la posibilidad de una ruptura de la relación de confianza entre personas y capital, aunque aclara que no coinciden necesariamente en políticas. Sostiene que cuanto más se considere inevitable ese futuro, más probable podría volverse. Visser lo relaciona con el cuarto giro generacional y cuenta que su abuela, nacida en 1920 durante la Gran Depresión, veía cualquier deuda como mala y valoraba tener comida en conserva; contrasta esa experiencia con la de sus hijos. Los interlocutores comentan las preferencias electorales de jóvenes en East Village y la posibilidad de que las generaciones aprendan por experiencia, a veces de manera difícil. Visser dice que evita la política partidista y los noticieros, que valora a los buenos líderes y que su decisión de comprar Nvidia siguió a una entrevista en la que Jensen Huang respondió a preguntas difíciles de Dwarkesh. Recomienda *The Daily Stoic* y reflexiona sobre la persistencia histórica de las emociones humanas. Relata que el 11-S afectó profundamente su vida porque murieron su mejor amigo y el padrino de su boda; dejó Morgan Stanley menos de un mes después, pues no quería pasar su vida despidiendo gente ni permanecer en un trabajo que no le diera alegría. Dice que sus discursos fúnebres para ese amigo, muerto en sus treinta, y para su abuela, que murió a los 98, le recuerdan que nadie sabe cuánto vivirá y que conviene estar agradecido. El programa termina invitando a buscar y suscribirse al canal de YouTube de Jordi Visser y despidiéndose hasta la semana siguiente.
Transcripción completa
[0:01] innovation. When you want to invest in
[0:03] innovation in a deflationary world,
[0:05] you're trying to find what Jeff Bezos
[0:07] said during the last 15 years, which is
[0:09] when Bitcoin was created. And what did
[0:10] Jeff Bezos say? Your margin is my
[0:13] opportunity. There's no more margin now
[0:15] in code-based stuff. It is in a free
[0:18] fall. That is why software stocks are
[0:20] getting up. So,
[0:21] where Bitcoin benefits is it doesn't get
[0:23] hurt by that. What's going on, guys?
[0:25] Today, we got a great conversation with
[0:26] Jordi Visser. In this conversation, we
[0:27] talk about the decoupling between
[0:29] Bitcoin and software stocks. We talk
[0:30] about inflation versus deflation and
[0:32] what his expectation is. And then we get
[0:34] into the five different thematic baskets
[0:36] that he's been paying attention to, why
[0:38] they're up so much, and what exactly is
[0:39] happening in each one of them. And then,
[0:41] of course, we talk about the scarcity
[0:43] trade and why Jordi is surfting through
[0:45] all of the different markets trying to
[0:46] find things that are full of shortages
[0:48] or scarcity, and how he's thinking about
[0:50] investing his portfolio right now.
[0:52] Here's my latest conversation with Jordi
[0:53] Visser.
[0:55] All right, Jordi. It looks like software
[0:56] stocks have taken a beating into the end
[0:58] of the week, and Bitcoin has stayed
[1:00] pretty strong here. So, help me
[1:01] understand are software and Bitcoin
[1:03] decoupling, and is that a good sign for
[1:05] Bitcoin, or is that more of a bad sign
[1:07] for software stocks?
[1:09] Yeah, I think uh I think the reaction to
[1:12] Well, first of all,
[1:13] IBM reported, ServiceNow reported, and
[1:16] uh the market did not like either of the
[1:19] commentary in there. The earnings are
[1:20] still fine, but
[1:23] the overhang or the reality that I think
[1:25] uh probably started with just Silicon
[1:28] Valley recognizing that as the agentic
[1:30] world game, we have no terminal value on
[1:32] these companies,
[1:34] has set back in. So,
[1:37] I've posted about this a few times over
[1:39] the course of the last month. When we
[1:41] originally had the correlation break, it
[1:43] was a day where Oracle broke out.
[1:46] Software names were bouncing, but
[1:48] yesterday I or not yesterday, Wednesday
[1:51] I posted in X,
[1:52] and I said that if you look at what's
[1:55] performed so far this month within the
[1:57] IGV, which is the software ETF,
[2:01] almost all of the top 10 names
[2:04] were related to crypto.
[2:06] So, let's separate Bitcoin for a second.
[2:09] Uh what is happening is the miners were
[2:12] kind of the ones that led way before
[2:14] Bitcoin. And I mentioned them last week,
[2:17] uh I think here, but definitely on my
[2:18] weekly where
[2:20] I just said we've reached a point of
[2:22] compute shortage. And if you can
[2:24] scramble and get anything related to AI,
[2:27] that's where you want to go. We have
[2:28] bottlenecks throughout the world now. Um
[2:31] it was only memory 4 months ago, but now
[2:33] it's spread to CPUs. And because of
[2:36] Iran, it's spreading to chemicals and
[2:39] other places. You're going to have
[2:40] bottlenecks the rest of this year. So,
[2:42] software still has the issue of AI
[2:44] progress.
[2:46] But then the Bitcoin miners
[2:48] in recently have started to benefit from
[2:50] the reality that we don't have enough
[2:51] compute. So, the question is where does
[2:53] Bitcoin sit? Well, first of all, with
[2:54] the miners getting a bid, well, that's
[2:56] obviously good for Bitcoin and for no
[2:57] other reason with the ecosystem.
[2:59] But I think an important dynamic is
[3:01] shifting. And you and I have differed on
[3:03] inflation. There is really no doubt in
[3:06] my mind that inflation is going higher.
[3:08] Now,
[3:09] I want to separate this again because I
[3:11] think we talked about this last week.
[3:13] And so, people hear this.
[3:15] I do not think the housing market's
[3:17] going to get better. I do not think
[3:18] wages are going to get better. I do not
[3:20] think the things that traditionally are
[3:22] correlated with inflation are going to
[3:24] get better.
[3:26] But there's no way to refute what came
[3:28] out in the PMI numbers this Thursday.
[3:30] Service and manufacturing PMIs are
[3:33] moving higher.
[3:35] And most of them are at the highest
[3:36] levels since 2022.
[3:38] So, you are getting back into a world
[3:40] where inflation has peaked on the survey
[3:42] side for all of these things, which has
[3:44] a very high correlation as a leading
[3:46] indicator. And this is the thing I want
[3:48] to say to people. I don't care what the
[3:51] trueflation number is today. I care
[3:53] about what it's going to be like in 3
[3:54] months.
[3:56] And maybe their number will stay low.
[3:57] Headline CPI is the one that I have
[4:00] confidence in will be above 4% as we
[4:02] keep getting this data. And the reason
[4:04] is
[4:06] because the manufacturing bottlenecks
[4:08] are real and they are big. And I heard
[4:10] this today in listening to a podcast
[4:12] with Craig Fuller.
[4:14] And everyone should listen to this
[4:16] podcast because I like hearing people
[4:18] that talk about the economy and what's
[4:20] happening. This is a very unique
[4:22] economy. If I wanted to figure out where
[4:24] inflation was over the last 17 years, we
[4:27] were in a bear market in commodities for
[4:30] 17 years except for COVID. So, the
[4:33] reason I kind of took a shot at people
[4:35] fitting things to historical data is
[4:37] today's world is not the same as it was
[4:39] from 2010 to 2015. We are in a commodity
[4:43] bull market. We have shortages across
[4:45] the globe. And what Craig Fuller talked
[4:47] about was freight is out of control all
[4:50] because of AI. All because of the one
[4:52] big beautiful bill. All because of lower
[4:54] energy costs here and higher energy
[4:56] costs around the globe. So, natural gas
[4:58] is low. That'll keep help inflation a
[5:00] little bit down. Oil is higher. Gas is
[5:02] higher. Diesel's higher. That'll push it
[5:03] up. But the reality is memory prices,
[5:05] CPU, semiconductors, that stuff there's
[5:08] no there's no end in sight. And the
[5:09] reason I bring this up for Bitcoin for
[5:11] people, at some point Bitcoin is either
[5:14] in the abundant bucket or it's in the PI
[5:16] PMI sensitive
[5:19] bucket.
[5:20] It's a PMI sensitive. Its returns are
[5:22] there. The only thing missing, which I
[5:23] still think will happen, is
[5:25] year-over-year CPI will get above 4%.
[5:27] 3-month bills will stay below 4% and
[5:29] we'll have negative real yields. And I
[5:31] think that's what's happening is
[5:33] software's in a deflationary problem.
[5:35] So, your world
[5:37] Bitcoin's now moving into the
[5:39] inflationary world, my world, which is
[5:41] more related to commodities and
[5:42] scarcity. One thing that's interesting
[5:44] is you and I have talked in the past
[5:46] about Bitcoin being valuable both in an
[5:48] inflationary world and a deflationary
[5:50] world. And in the inflationary world, I
[5:52] think that's the one people are used to
[5:54] and saying, "Okay,
[5:55] uh if there is global liquidity
[5:57] increasing, this thing's very sensitive
[5:58] to that, and so it should be able to
[6:00] kind of sniff that out and go and and uh
[6:02] increase in uh price." Deflation, we've
[6:05] talked about this like abundance and
[6:07] scarcity and kind of value proposition
[6:09] from that standpoint. Are those the same
[6:11] buyers of Bitcoin, or is there like uh
[6:15] if you take a you know, 100% of people
[6:17] who are uh in the investment community,
[6:19] some of them are allocating capital in
[6:21] an inflationary environment, but they'll
[6:22] actually go to cash if we move to a
[6:24] different regime, or is it no, doesn't
[6:27] matter, you know, kind of who you are,
[6:28] you're going to end up at Bitcoin
[6:30] regardless of the regime, right? I
[6:31] always think about this idea of like an
[6:33] asset being different things to
[6:34] different people. And so, how do you
[6:36] think about Bitcoin's buyer in an
[6:38] inflationary versus deflationary world?
[6:40] You know, this is a great question. Um
[6:43] and I and I want to kind of use the Jeff
[6:45] Booth
[6:47] for this, cuz I think he does the best
[6:48] job of saying that there is always
[6:52] deflationary pressures in a credit-based
[6:55] fiat fiat system.
[6:57] Innovation is deflationary. We both
[6:59] agree on that.
[7:00] >> Yes.
[7:01] Ooh.
[7:03] If people are not getting jobs as
[7:05] easily, if they can't move up the
[7:07] corporate ladder, if there's
[7:08] affordability issues,
[7:10] well, that's the deflationary pressures
[7:12] that usually lead to more government
[7:14] stimulus. Well, we have government
[7:16] stimulus happening. So, when I say
[7:18] negative real rates, that may be some
[7:20] kind of economic wonk to people, and
[7:21] they're not really thinking about it.
[7:23] That is these two forces at the exact
[7:25] same time. To have negative real rates,
[7:28] you have deflationary pressures, which
[7:30] are keeping short-term rates low, and
[7:33] you have infla- inflationary pressures,
[7:35] which are keeping CPI high. Now, in the
[7:38] US, we don't have this, but in Brazil,
[7:40] they have what's called a basic basket.
[7:43] The basic basket that people need to
[7:45] survive on. Well, I think the basic
[7:47] basket for
[7:49] young educated people in the US, where
[7:51] is my housing? Can I get an apartment in
[7:53] a city I want to live in?
[7:55] Nope, not good. Um where are food
[7:58] prices? Okay, well, we have commodity
[7:59] inflation right now. Fertilizer prices
[8:01] are going up. Food inflation's not
[8:03] coming down. That's going to be an
[8:04] issue.
[8:05] Can you get a job anywhere you want?
[8:06] Yeah, you can get a job, not anywhere
[8:08] you want. You might have to take a job
[8:10] not in the education based on the
[8:12] education you have because of disruption
[8:14] happening out of nowhere in the labor
[8:15] force. And so, you might not be able to
[8:17] do this job. You might have to go do a
[8:19] different job even though you have an
[8:20] education in this job. I think we've
[8:22] taken the basic things of, let's say, an
[8:24] advanced society and made it very
[8:26] challenging. And that to me is the
[8:27] deflationary pressures on the one side
[8:29] that Bitcoin
[8:30] usually brings the anger out of people.
[8:32] This is when people would want Bitcoin.
[8:35] On the other side, when the government
[8:36] needs to have excess spending, and
[8:38] regardless of what's happening on the
[8:40] fiscal side, we have a fiscal impulse
[8:42] right now.
[8:43] Tax refunds, very high. Tax receipts,
[8:47] very low.
[8:48] Bonus depreciation for companies, which
[8:51] is another form of stimulus, is having a
[8:53] huge impact. Craig Fuller talks about
[8:55] this. I think all of these kind of half
[8:57] deflation, half inflationary pressures
[9:00] are creating an issue. Here's the one
[9:02] thing I will say about innovation. When
[9:04] you want to invest in innovation,
[9:06] in a deflationary world, you're trying
[9:08] to find
[9:10] what Jeff Bezos said during the last 15
[9:12] years, which is when Bitcoin was
[9:14] created. And what did Jeff Bezos say?
[9:16] Your margin is my opportunity.
[9:20] There's no more margin now in code-based
[9:21] stuff. It is in a
[9:24] freefall. That is why software stocks
[9:26] are getting up. So,
[9:27] where Bitcoin benefits is it doesn't get
[9:29] hurt by that. So, it's got the one side
[9:32] now, the inflationary side, which it
[9:34] will benefit from.
[9:36] And on the other side, where it benefits
[9:37] from deflation is from
[9:40] the opportunity cost that an individual
[9:42] investor has. I need growth assets and
[9:45] this is the Rick Edelman argument. How
[9:47] do I invest for the next 40 years cuz
[9:49] I'm going to live longer. What growth
[9:51] assets can I have cuz those are the ones
[9:53] that I can be in.
[9:54] Growth assets are not working.
[9:56] Hyperscalers and all of the things
[9:59] related to software, I think this is
[10:01] where Bitcoin separates itself in the
[10:03] second half of the year because of that
[10:04] dynamic playing out both inflation and
[10:06] deflation at the same time.
[10:08] What is the thought process in terms of
[10:10] Bitcoin price action? Like when you say
[10:12] breaking out, uh that could be Bitcoin
[10:13] doesn't move and stocks fall, but it
[10:16] also could mean Bitcoin goes up a lot
[10:17] and stocks stay constant or go down.
[10:20] Like how do you think of the
[10:21] relationship of these two and and how
[10:23] big maybe is the separation?
[10:25] Uh no matter what my views have been
[10:28] this year, one thing has stayed
[10:29] constant. We will have earnings growth
[10:30] and we will have nominal GDP.
[10:32] End of story.
[10:33] Uh
[10:35] we might not have real GDP to the level
[10:37] people are used to, but if nominal GDP
[10:40] seven and inflation is five, then you
[10:41] get 2% real GDP and everyone goes, "Oh,
[10:44] it's not
[10:45] Nominal GDP drives revenues. Nominal GDP
[10:47] drives earnings. Plain and simple. Um
[10:50] if companies are able to control their
[10:52] expenses via
[10:54] AI
[10:56] through labor, then that's where profit
[10:57] margins are sitting up at high level.
[10:59] So, I think what'll end up happening is
[11:02] you want to be long the stuff tied to
[11:04] the bottlenecks in the physical hardware
[11:06] world going forward. So, this is where
[11:08] I've talked about semiconductors and
[11:10] commodities and servers and anything
[11:13] physical. The software stuff I think
[11:15] will be in trouble and will remain in
[11:16] trouble. It has done such a big fall
[11:18] already that I'm not sure how much lower
[11:21] it can go overall, but I think it'll
[11:24] underperform. But when you look at
[11:26] stocks relative to nominal GDP, that's
[11:28] where I've said, if I had to guess, I
[11:30] think 10 years from now.
[11:32] Public companies
[11:35] are not going to be the ones benefiting
[11:36] from AI. It's going to be private
[11:38] startup companies that actually never go
[11:40] public. There's going to be a change in
[11:41] the capital structure. The financial
[11:43] guardrails of the world are shifting and
[11:44] they're shifting towards crypto. That
[11:46] combination of AI disrupting public
[11:48] companies cuz public companies just
[11:50] can't adopt AI because having a lot of
[11:53] people is very difficult and I think
[11:56] they're all learning that and I got to
[11:57] be honest, one of the stories that'll
[11:58] happen before the end of the year.
[12:00] I think a lot of these big companies are
[12:02] not going to see the benefit come
[12:03] through the way they think cuz it is
[12:05] just so hard and I'm sure you've got
[12:07] your own experiences. How do we
[12:08] integrate this in a way? The costs are
[12:10] going higher, the speed of it is going
[12:12] so fast and startup businesses don't
[12:14] have that friction of people inside the
[12:17] business, culture inside the business,
[12:19] legacy systems inside the business. It
[12:22] is a very difficult thing and I just got
[12:24] to tell you, it's like it's like a
[12:26] telling a 60-year-old, you know,
[12:28] athlete, "Hey, why don't you go play
[12:29] football again?"
[12:31] They might be in great shape, but
[12:32] they're not in great football shape. I
[12:33] don't think companies are in great AI
[12:35] shape.
[12:36] You have these five thematic buckets or
[12:40] baskets that you've been writing about
[12:42] to the 20 22 V platform into the
[12:44] subscribers. I want to go through each
[12:45] one of them and if you can kind of just
[12:47] help us understand because they I think
[12:49] the common theme is they are potential
[12:53] solutions or they are potential names
[12:55] where there is massive scarcity. And so
[12:57] you're really just taking the same idea
[12:58] and applying it to these different
[13:00] articles, it seems. Um maybe we can go
[13:02] backwards and start with chemical cuz I
[13:04] don't think we've talked a lot about
[13:05] chemical companies, the chemical theme.
[13:07] Explain this one a little bit.
[13:09] So, chemicals are very PMI sensitive,
[13:12] but they're also very semiconductor
[13:14] sensitive and also optical fiber. So, in
[13:18] there is optical fiber. So, one of the
[13:19] things all of these themes
[13:21] I've written about really from November
[13:23] of last year into the early part of this
[13:26] year.
[13:27] And this was a transition point. These
[13:29] are all agentic names. So, when you get
[13:32] back to pre-training and you think about
[13:34] getting AI up to this point,
[13:37] what was the major winner? It was
[13:38] Nvidia. Mhm. Um so, people can hear
[13:40] these amazing stats. The S&P 500 now,
[13:44] they've got different levels of you hear
[13:46] sectors, but then there's industry
[13:48] groups.
[13:49] Level two industry groups, the largest
[13:51] weighting in the S&P 500 is now
[13:53] semiconductors. It's now 17%.
[13:56] S&P's about $60 trillion, which means
[13:58] you're talking about $10 trillion. Of
[13:59] the $10
[14:00] Of the $10 trillion of semiconductors,
[14:03] seven and a half of the 10 are three
[14:05] companies, Nvidia,
[14:07] Broadcom, and Micron. Those were really
[14:09] the three major benef-
[14:11] They benefited the most
[14:13] in the early part. Now,
[14:15] Broadcom and Nvidia were the main
[14:17] beneficiaries from the data center
[14:19] buildout and the GPUs, and everyone
[14:20] heard that. But beginning in November
[14:22] when Opus 4.5 came out, we started to
[14:24] shift towards AI agents. Micron really
[14:27] started to benefit because of memory. I
[14:28] was talking about memory all year last
[14:30] year is we're not going to have enough
[14:31] because agents are coming.
[14:34] Once that agent world kicked,
[14:36] everything shifted to inference. So,
[14:39] Jensen Huang announced a partnership,
[14:42] almost a takeover of Grok, because
[14:45] his business is focused on the data
[14:47] center GPUs, but he realizes, well, now
[14:49] there's going to be a lot of agents, and
[14:50] this is the action world. This is not
[14:51] the thinking world. The action world
[14:53] takes a lot more east-west traffic. So,
[14:55] chemicals are necessary because of the
[14:58] Corning tubing. So, Corning has fiber.
[15:01] Okay, they need tubing. Well, chemical
[15:03] companies benefit from that. Bonding all
[15:06] the semiconductors together. So, when it
[15:07] was just GPUs, not as important, but now
[15:10] you're packaging the GPUs with memory
[15:12] and with all of these other components.
[15:14] That's why when I talk about Marvell,
[15:16] Marvell is another one. You saw Texas
[15:18] Instruments last night. What happened to
[15:19] Intel? Those That's GPU. One's power
[15:22] semi- All of the semiconductors are
[15:24] benefiting and that's because of the
[15:25] agentic side. So, in that first chemical
[15:28] basket, or not the first one, but
[15:29] chemicals, PMI sensitive,
[15:32] does really, really well with this. And
[15:34] right now, US chemical companies are
[15:36] benefiting cuz the chemicals here made
[15:37] with natural gas, and a lot of the ones
[15:39] overseas are with oil, and natural gas
[15:42] is very low right now in the US. So, US
[15:44] chemical company. So, it's the beginning
[15:46] of a bull market in chemicals. I wonder
[15:48] how much like a Coke Industries is
[15:50] benefiting from this, but it's private.
[15:52] And you know, they got a big chemical
[15:54] business, and some of these players that
[15:56] you would never think are AI-centric
[15:59] companies, but because they are the
[16:01] inputs,
[16:02] obviously, it's probably pretty good for
[16:03] them. Yeah. And the reason I want people
[16:05] to go listen to the Craig Fuller
[16:06] podcast, he specifically says in there
[16:09] that chemical shipments are through the
[16:11] roof.
[16:12] So,
[16:13] people have to understand that chemicals
[16:15] are used in almost everything, but this
[16:17] massive industrial build-out, and this
[16:19] is just the beginning cuz chemicals are
[16:21] going to be used in the auto upgrade.
[16:24] And just so people hear this cuz I've
[16:25] started to talk to more and more
[16:26] institutional investors, we may never
[16:29] sell more cars than we did this year.
[16:31] Meaning, we did 16 million. Okay, maybe
[16:33] next year we'll do 16. We've been around
[16:35] 16 million.
[16:36] We got close to 16 million in the '70s.
[16:39] So, then people go, "Well, we're never
[16:40] going to sell more, so why would this be
[16:41] important?" And it's like, "Okay, here's
[16:43] what's going to happen." And this is big
[16:45] for Qualcomm, leading-edge thing for
[16:47] people here. Qualcomm's not ready yet,
[16:49] but it's getting close. If we do 16
[16:51] million next year,
[16:53] a good portion of that 16 million, let's
[16:55] assume 1 million this year were AI
[16:58] components. Meaning, you could speak to
[17:00] the car, the car could do things. Hey,
[17:01] move the wiper, do this. So, Alexa
[17:03] within side the car.
[17:05] That takes a lot more chips. Takes a lot
[17:08] more chemicals for that. Well, next year
[17:10] maybe we do 4 million. So, instead of 0%
[17:13] growth rate of autos, we're actually
[17:15] doing 3-400%
[17:18] of AI autos.
[17:19] >> Smart smart cars. Exactly. And that's
[17:21] what's going to start happening every
[17:22] year. And so what people need to think
[17:23] about with semis is Jensen Huang saying
[17:26] it's going to be an 85 trillion-dollar
[17:28] recycling. Eventually what happens is if
[17:30] we have 100 million cars owned in this
[17:32] in this country, which is less than
[17:34] there is, but if we have 100 million
[17:36] by the time we get 5 years out, maybe 80
[17:38] of them are AI because no one's going to
[17:41] want the older models. So that process
[17:43] is a lot more dollars that goes into a
[17:45] semiconductor. This is endless, the
[17:47] upgrade cycle. And this is happening
[17:49] fast. So that's where chemicals fit in.
[17:51] Let's talk about whole rack as a theme.
[17:55] So this really gets into a combination
[17:57] of the GPUs to the rack of things that
[18:00] go into a data center now. And this
[18:03] includes servers, it includes memory, it
[18:06] includes CPUs, it includes all of that
[18:09] stuff. So if Morgan Stanley wants to
[18:12] have some of their AI come from the
[18:14] cloud, so one of the providers, but then
[18:17] they go, "You know what? We need to
[18:18] also, because of privacy issues, we need
[18:20] to house this stuff here." Well, they
[18:22] need to go back to the old world of
[18:23] servers. And so all of the Dell, the
[18:26] Hewlett-Packard, all of those names have
[18:28] just broken out. Those are all part of
[18:30] the whole rack. So it's that it's it's
[18:32] literally not just semis, it's
[18:33] everything that people would need for
[18:35] the whole rack to actually be able to do
[18:37] AI inside their own device. Today's
[18:39] episode is brought to you by Consensus
[18:41] Miami. I'm going to be speaking there on
[18:43] the main stage in a couple of weeks.
[18:45] This is the event the entire industry
[18:47] shows up for, Wall Street, the White
[18:49] House, all of crypto and Web3. This May
[18:51] 5th through May 7th, you can discover
[18:53] everything from crypto at scale to
[18:55] institutional integration and agentic
[18:57] commerce. It's the forces driving
[18:59] trillions on chain and reshaping global
[19:02] finance. 20,000 decision-makers are
[19:04] going to be in attendance. Three
[19:06] action-packed days, deals get signed
[19:08] here, funds get raised here, and the
[19:10] next cycle starts here as well. You
[19:12] can't afford to miss it. I'll be there
[19:13] speaking and you can use the code Pomp
[19:16] Liano to get 25% off your pass and join
[19:19] me there. Go in the description and look
[19:21] how to spell my name and use code Pomp
[19:23] Liano to get 25% off your pass to join
[19:25] me there.
[19:26] You know, it's funny to me is there's
[19:28] always these stories of like a huge
[19:30] inflection point Silicon Valley was when
[19:32] you no longer had to have like set up
[19:33] the server. You just could like you
[19:35] know, cloud get started whatever.
[19:37] The full circle of like now there's a
[19:38] bunch of businesses be like this cloud
[19:40] thing, we're out on that. I don't want
[19:42] you have access to my data for training
[19:44] purposes or whatever. Do you remember
[19:45] how long it took to get companies to go
[19:47] to the cloud? Oh, you mean you had a
[19:49] bunch of people who didn't trust it,
[19:51] didn't understand it, whatever. I will
[19:53] give you one interesting data point. I
[19:54] talked to one of the major model labs
[19:56] this past week and
[19:58] we were talking to them and and I just
[20:00] on offhand mentioned the data labeling
[20:03] startups and how you know, we've seen
[20:04] all these from the micro ones to the
[20:06] handshakes. They just been exploding in
[20:08] revenue etc.
[20:09] I started asking a little bit about the
[20:11] data labeling and it
[20:12] one of the interesting things they said
[20:13] is yeah, we actually are much more
[20:15] focused on post training data now than
[20:18] pre-training data. And so you know, I
[20:20] asked a couple more questions and and
[20:21] basically it sound although they didn't
[20:23] explicitly say this, it sounded like
[20:26] they already have done so much training
[20:28] that now we are entering a place where
[20:30] it's all about the fine-tuning and and
[20:32] the evals and
[20:34] it does to me at least it was like a
[20:36] reminder like we have come a far you
[20:38] know, very long way even though it feels
[20:39] like it's still the starting line.
[20:41] 5 years ago, I mean almost none of this
[20:43] was being discussed. Well, we we kind of
[20:46] talked about this before and so people
[20:47] here it for for use for us, this thing
[20:50] is already smart enough.
[20:52] What it's not smart enough, so the
[20:54] pre-training, the brain building, what
[20:55] it's not smart enough for is
[20:58] going through the physical world and
[21:00] making decisions in an automobile
[21:02] completely. So it's not there yet. So
[21:04] there needs to be a lot more training on
[21:06] interacting with the physical world. The
[21:09] memorization of all human knowledge it
[21:11] already has, but figuring out things to
[21:13] cure cancer, figure out things that we
[21:14] haven't done yet, it needs more work for
[21:17] that. So, I want people when they think
[21:19] about this to to really break it down to
[21:21] two separate things.
[21:22] There's now two tracks. There's still
[21:24] the pre-training that's necessary for
[21:26] all of the things that Elon Musk wants,
[21:29] that Demis Hassabis want for
[21:31] the world's greatest problems, energy,
[21:32] all of that. At the same time, we're now
[21:34] entering the agentic when people hear
[21:36] agentic, maybe their eyes gloss over and
[21:38] go, "I don't know what that means."
[21:39] That's the action side. So, you've got
[21:41] the thinking side and then you have the
[21:42] action side. For the action side, it's
[21:45] more east-west traffic and that's why
[21:46] with chemicals, with the whole rack,
[21:49] these are different components that are
[21:50] necessary. And for people listening,
[21:52] like the reason I put these indices
[21:54] together, I talked to the most
[21:56] sophisticated investors in the world.
[21:58] They are still behind this change. So,
[22:01] one of the reasons that we do the show
[22:02] together, one of the reasons I won't
[22:04] work for anyone again, is because I need
[22:07] the time to listen to
[22:09] Dillon Patel was on a podcast that I
[22:11] listened to today. While you were in
[22:12] your office and I was doing a thing, I
[22:14] was listening he was on a podcast today.
[22:16] >> You see him getting an edge on me? He
[22:18] literally he was camped out in the
[22:19] office next to me and he he knew I was
[22:21] on a call and I'm going to get an edge
[22:22] on him right now. I'm going to listen to
[22:23] the thing that he hasn't had time to
[22:25] listen to and I'm going to go bring it
[22:26] up on the podcast. You're in there
[22:28] having your meeting. I look at my watch
[22:30] and go, "I got 25 minutes. This is a
[22:31] 45-minute podcast." 2x
[22:33] >> Exactly, perfect. I already know. Look
[22:35] how fast you did that now. You know
[22:37] what's You know what's interesting
[22:38] though? Is I saw a tweet and I I wish I
[22:40] remembered who who tweeted so I give him
[22:42] credit for it, but they said actually
[22:44] a great way to think about modern life
[22:47] is that we are in a bandwidth crisis.
[22:50] And they were talking not about
[22:52] hardware, software, they're talking
[22:53] about human bandwidth. And I think AI is
[22:56] a perfect example of it is nearly
[22:59] impossible to keep up with everything
[23:01] that is happening. And so when you get
[23:04] the overwhelming I don't have enough
[23:06] bandwidth
[23:07] human brain goes into how do I
[23:08] prioritize? How do I 2x, 3x, you know,
[23:11] all these different things that we try
[23:12] to work around. Mhm.
[23:15] But that's just an AI.
[23:17] Then if you're somebody who also happens
[23:18] to be a sports fan or happens to be a
[23:20] pop culture fan or wants to read books
[23:22] or
[23:23] how do you keep up with everything? It's
[23:25] impossible.
[23:27] Uh this is the beauty of the decision I
[23:29] made in being able to sit there and
[23:31] listen to people. And I want to use an
[23:33] analogy of of how important these
[23:35] podcasts and and this news is. So
[23:38] if you go to work and you want to go
[23:40] find out the the final score of the Nick
[23:43] game and you go to a box score and you
[23:45] look at the final score, you look at all
[23:47] the quarters, when the game was, who
[23:50] scored the most points and you go
[23:52] through all this, you actually know the
[23:53] result.
[23:55] Well, to be honest with you, that's what
[23:56] economists do.
[23:58] So no offense to the economists
[23:59] listening, but I always wanted to build
[24:02] my own models that were based on leading
[24:03] indicators and lagging indicators
[24:05] because looking at the box score doesn't
[24:07] tell me anything about the next game.
[24:08] Did someone get hurt? Did someone leave
[24:11] limping but they're still going to play?
[24:12] Is their jump shot off?
[24:14] Let me go through and see if someone was
[24:17] seven for 10 but all you know, the seven
[24:19] makes were dunks and the three misses
[24:22] were from three points. Okay,
[24:24] person didn't have good shooting game,
[24:25] just sent him to go through it. You
[24:26] don't get the data. By listening to
[24:28] Dylan Patel and Craig Fuller. Dylan
[24:31] Patel is on semiconductors like no one
[24:34] else. So he knows all the box score but
[24:36] he was at the game. Craig Fuller is at
[24:39] the game. I'd rather talk to those
[24:41] people and listen to those than read the
[24:42] box score. But for people that have jobs
[24:45] managing people doing this, the box
[24:46] score is all they can do cuz they don't
[24:48] have the time. So they depend on the
[24:49] economists. In this day and age with
[24:52] podcast NX
[24:55] it takes a lot to go get it. But that
[24:57] information is so real time and I'll
[24:59] just give you a live example. I was
[25:01] doing a webinar this week for the
[25:02] subscribers and I had read a media
[25:06] report that was going viral through X
[25:10] around some
[25:12] issues, not issues, it's probably the
[25:15] wrong word. Nvidia really focused on
[25:18] Korean heavy power companies
[25:21] and it even extending into shipbuilding
[25:24] companies. They're kind of find ways to
[25:25] get more power. Mhm. So that fits my
[25:28] power shortage issue that's happening,
[25:29] but it also leads to power
[25:31] semiconductors. And these stocks have
[25:33] started to go through the roof. Now this
[25:35] was before Texas Instruments. So when
[25:36] people ask me yesterday, what are some
[25:38] names? And I'm like on semi, Texas
[25:40] Instruments. And why now? And I just
[25:42] said Jensen Huang is now ready to
[25:44] release this. He's looking for new
[25:47] partners on this and power semis are
[25:49] going to be really important. That is
[25:51] all from an X thing that was in the
[25:52] Korean media this week. It's crazy. It
[25:55] won't be news for for the Goldman Sachs
[25:58] and Morgan Stanley, honestly, until
[25:59] later. They can't do a report. They've
[26:01] got so many calls and meetings already
[26:03] set up. So I don't like to have
[26:05] meetings. I don't want to be there. So
[26:06] real-time news and real-time information
[26:08] from critical people.
[26:09] >> Can I admit something that pains me, but
[26:11] I got to be honest with you and with the
[26:12] audience?
[26:14] Do you know the number one activity that
[26:16] I find personal enjoyment in that has
[26:17] been sacrificed in my attempt to keep up
[26:19] with all this?
[26:21] Is reading physical books.
[26:23] I have found that over the last 6 months
[26:26] or so, I used to read about a book a
[26:27] week and I would read everything from
[26:30] things that were work related to things
[26:31] I just enjoyed and everything in
[26:32] between.
[26:34] I've noticed that I have been reading a
[26:36] lot less, but I'm probably consuming
[26:39] more information. Mhm. So it's like
[26:41] total consumption is going up, but most
[26:44] of the reading I used to do was things
[26:47] that were talking about the past. And so
[26:49] I would barbell it. I want to be as
[26:51] current as possible and I want to be as
[26:53] rooted in history as possible. I find
[26:56] myself consuming less of the what
[26:58] happened in history or the, you know,
[27:00] biographies of people, etc., because I'm
[27:02] so inundated with the like every single
[27:04] day there is something new. Mhm. And
[27:06] maybe it balances that back out at some
[27:08] point, but as I noticed that I started
[27:10] to like I don't know if that's a good
[27:12] thing or not, right? But I just
[27:13] naturally see myself going that way. So,
[27:15] let me let me give you some um
[27:18] before you and I did a podcast, I
[27:19] actually did a podcast. It's called In
[27:21] Search of Dream Marbles, okay? I
[27:23] remember. You remember that. On that
[27:25] podcast, one of the episodes was why
[27:28] books are a waste of time. Oh, god.
[27:30] >> Now, this was pre-chat GPT.
[27:33] >> things that we disagree on. Okay.
[27:34] >> So, here we go. No, no, no.
[27:37] Remember, I'm I'm a person of nuance and
[27:40] kind of, you know, I got a little George
[27:41] Carlin in me, like, read the words.
[27:44] You already admitted it's a waste of
[27:46] time. You don't have the time for the
[27:47] books. So, that means it takes a lot of
[27:49] time, so it's a waste of time. Now, if
[27:51] you ever want to play a game, pick a
[27:53] book that you haven't read yet on
[27:54] history, okay?
[27:56] And look at what it is. Take the
[28:00] the details of the book, put it into
[28:03] chat GPT, and say, "Hey, give me a
[28:06] three-paragraph write-off of the what
[28:08] this book is about, okay?
[28:10] Now,
[28:12] hit a new chat.
[28:14] Ask it the same prompt again. You know
[28:16] what you're going to get? Mhm. Two
[28:17] different versions of the same thing.
[28:20] There are There are so many problems
[28:21] with a book. It's one person's opinion.
[28:24] Mhm. If you get stuck in a world of
[28:26] trying to figure out what something is,
[28:28] when I do my AI training videos uh that
[28:32] some of you guys helped me with here,
[28:34] part of my process is to take one thing,
[28:38] which think of as like a book, and let
[28:40] five separate LLMs do a deep research
[28:42] report on them. It's like five different
[28:44] people giving you another book version,
[28:46] and then I take those five and I
[28:48] consolidate them. It does a bunch of
[28:49] things. It gets rid of hallucinations,
[28:51] but then it gives you kind of a more
[28:53] in-depth view that takes the key
[28:56] components. So, if you ask five
[28:57] eyewitnesses about a crime that happened
[28:59] outside,
[29:01] and five of them will give very
[29:02] different accounts. The Venn diagram of
[29:05] where they all agree is usually the most
[29:07] useful information. That's what the
[29:08] green marbles means. That's what I do
[29:10] with AI. So, that's why books were a
[29:12] waste of time.
[29:12] >> So,
[29:13] now you're really going to pull my
[29:16] me admitting things.
[29:17] Uh in my understanding and
[29:20] exploration of why I was not reading
[29:21] more books, I actually did something
[29:23] similar where
[29:24] um when I was in high school, my best
[29:26] friend was SparkNotes. I don't know if
[29:28] you had this when you were in school.
[29:30] So, SparkNotes was basically
[29:31] >> was in school a long time ago, my
[29:33] friend.
[29:33] >> Yeah, well, so when I was in school, you
[29:35] could read the book they told you to
[29:36] read, or if you were like me and you
[29:38] spent more time trying to not read the
[29:39] book, you would go find a SparkNotes.
[29:41] And then We were candlelit in my school.
[29:42] >> oh jeez, okay.
[29:44] Um and so, uh I asked, "Hey, can you
[29:47] create the SparkNotes for this? I want
[29:49] to be able to read in 15 minutes or
[29:50] less, right?" And it would go and it'd
[29:51] give me a thing. And um
[29:54] I realized though one of the things I
[29:55] love about some of these books is the
[29:57] anecdotes. And so, I've been trying to
[29:59] figure out, can I basically have the
[30:00] model not give me the summary, but give
[30:03] me the anecdotes? Go and find five
[30:05] stories in this thing that you know,
[30:07] would be surprising or whatever. It's
[30:09] not perfect, and there's some things
[30:11] about like don't let it do web search,
[30:13] instead have it, you know, actually get
[30:14] the uh like the Google book text etc.
[30:18] In 6 months,
[30:20] you're going to be able to do all this
[30:21] stuff in a pretty interesting way. And
[30:24] maybe the part I'm most interested in is
[30:26] and then what happens when you tell it,
[30:28] "Okay, now create a video that's 15
[30:30] minutes long that explains to me all the
[30:31] major concepts of this." And it's like
[30:33] having a you know, somebody who read the
[30:34] book and then tells you all the answers.
[30:36] And so, to me like as we head this way,
[30:39] like maybe Maybe go sell all my physical
[30:41] books. Like I'm
[30:43] I'm intellectually short
[30:46] and shouldn't be. All right. So, let let
[30:47] me since all the writers hate me now,
[30:49] let me let me let me let me give um So,
[30:52] I love I love the Steve Jobs book, okay?
[30:55] I love Walter Isaacson's book.
[30:57] >> Well, yes, Isaacson's book. And and Josh
[30:59] Waitzkin wrote The Art of Learning,
[31:00] which I love.
[31:01] >> book.
[31:01] >> So, if I use those two, the common
[31:03] thread between two of them, which AI
[31:05] cannot do,
[31:07] they're experiential. Yes. So, the Jobs
[31:10] book is both the history of Jobs, but
[31:13] it's also his experience with Steve
[31:15] Jobs.
[31:15] >> Mhm.
[31:16] I like personal experiences because I
[31:18] learn from those. So, I don't want
[31:20] people to think that like I'm not a
[31:21] fiction writer because I am I'm an
[31:23] insatiable learner,
[31:25] and there's just something that fiction
[31:27] doesn't connect with me. I think it's
[31:28] ADHD, and I'm constantly looking to
[31:30] learn.
[31:31] It just is. I I don't rest that much. I
[31:33] don't need a lot of sleep. I get my
[31:35] sleep cuz I have major RV and I want to
[31:37] stay young, but I do love the concept of
[31:40] sitting with certain books that the
[31:42] experiential side grabs me. And that's
[31:45] why when you read my Substack or you
[31:47] read my works, there's always something
[31:49] personal in there because my own
[31:51] experience of things in life becomes the
[31:54] trigger point or the dot connection to
[31:56] explore in a book and hear other people.
[31:58] So, you're you're using experiential,
[32:00] I'm using anecdotes, same thing. Like
[32:02] that's a
[32:03] I actually I'll give you a good example.
[32:05] Um
[32:06] I forget
[32:07] uh
[32:08] there's a podcast called Rainmakers uh
[32:11] my friend Ram uh put together. And in
[32:13] it, he talks about Philip Anschutz, who
[32:16] uh AEG, like they own a lot of like the
[32:18] uh sports arenas and stuff like this.
[32:22] Um
[32:22] At a time There was a time where he was
[32:24] buying up all of the like Regal Cinemas,
[32:27] etc. And the movie business was the the
[32:30] first time the movie business was
[32:31] tanking, and everyone said it was over.
[32:33] And everyone was like, "What is this guy
[32:34] doing? Why is he buying up all of the
[32:36] movie theaters? And in that
[32:39] telling of it, he realized that nobody
[32:42] gets to the movie theater late.
[32:44] Everyone shows up at least 10 minutes
[32:45] early. So, he was the first guy who
[32:47] realized have a captive audience of, you
[32:49] know, a couple hundred people. So, he
[32:50] started playing ads before the movie
[32:52] started and he completely changed the
[32:54] economics of the movie theater and, you
[32:56] know, was able to revive this thing.
[32:58] So, I was like, wow, if you have a
[33:00] captive audience, you can play an ad.
[33:01] And so, literally, if you come up to our
[33:03] conferences, you will see everyone
[33:04] tomorrow, we will play ads during the
[33:06] conference and I got it from that book.
[33:07] And so, like, that's the stuff that I
[33:08] love is the anecdote that you can pull
[33:10] out and then say, "Hey, how do I apply
[33:12] this?"
[33:12] AI is not yet there to to be able to
[33:14] grab that. No, and I I I I do not
[33:16] believe that AI
[33:18] it's going to take a long time for it to
[33:20] understand the the nuances of the of
[33:22] what drives people's decisions, the
[33:24] psychology of people. I just don't think
[33:26] it's going to be there quickly. Let's
[33:27] talk about mythos, mythos, whichever we
[33:29] want to pronounce it. Mythos, mythos?
[33:31] >> I've made the decision. I'm I'm drawing
[33:33] a line. It's mythos.
[33:35] Take that.
[33:36] Mythos, you think that this story should
[33:39] scare a lot of people. Why?
[33:42] I
[33:43] So, the story is that apparently
[33:45] unauthorized users had access to it.
[33:48] Uh again,
[33:49] >> What does that even mean?
[33:50] >> Yeah, that probably means they think the
[33:52] Chinese have them cuz there was a report
[33:53] today that whatever the case is because
[33:56] the Chinese have apparently been
[33:59] going through the distillation process
[34:01] with all the whatever the case is.
[34:03] I think it says two things. One is it is
[34:05] ridiculous for people to not think that
[34:08] people can hack into anything already.
[34:11] It's just
[34:13] it's going to happen. Um number two, it
[34:16] does mean that people should expect
[34:18] that one of the biggest dangers from AI
[34:21] is AI itself. And I do think there's
[34:23] going to be a hacking situation this
[34:25] year. I do think cryptography is going
[34:27] to become a place that is more
[34:29] respected,
[34:30] uh which will help Bitcoin as well, but
[34:31] I do think that
[34:32] >> Bitcoiners have been all over that one
[34:33] for a half a decade and a half. I And
[34:36] again, um,
[34:38] you're going to have issues for sure
[34:40] with artificial intelligence. When you
[34:41] get to this much power in it, um,
[34:45] it's just we're accelerating so fast
[34:47] that we're not ready for it. So, the
[34:48] same thing I said about enterprises,
[34:51] they don't know how to use it. Uh, there
[34:53] was a great uh, post by Aaron Levie
[34:57] at from Box. Mhm.
[34:59] He's excellent on the AI stuff. He's
[35:01] great and he his ex-posts are very
[35:03] thought out. And again, you're you're
[35:05] talking about someone who's at the game.
[35:07] Um, if you strip out I mean, software
[35:09] cares about software, but
[35:11] his whole thing about if
[35:13] the arc How how do you set up an
[35:15] architecture of AI for your company if
[35:17] the architecture you're using that you
[35:19] decide on today is obsolete in 3 months
[35:22] from now? So, think about where Open AI
[35:24] was 6 months ago. I think Gemini was
[35:26] ahead of everyone 6 months ago. And 6
[35:28] months before that it was Open AI and
[35:30] now it's Anthropic.
[35:31] Well, if Anthropic doesn't have enough
[35:33] compute and all of a sudden Open AI
[35:35] rolls out some of that excess spending
[35:36] they did in their Blackwells allow them
[35:38] to get to the agentic side,
[35:40] is moving to Anthropic the best idea? I
[35:43] think it's very difficult for people to
[35:46] figure this out. And I think
[35:47] governments,
[35:49] everyone is going to have a hard time
[35:51] with it. So, with Mythos,
[35:53] the fact that this model is such a step
[35:55] change over the last one, how do you
[35:57] deal with this? What do you deal with
[35:59] it? And that's why they've been giving
[36:00] it to banks, not just in the US, but now
[36:02] they're giving it to banks in Europe for
[36:04] the same reason. I just think it's going
[36:05] to be an issue that people should be
[36:06] ready for. It won't be the end of the
[36:08] world cuz we'll figure out the fences
[36:10] for it, but I think to get to a solution
[36:13] to the problem, we're going to have a
[36:13] lot of problems first.
[36:16] When you look at these new models and
[36:18] how fast they're coming up, um,
[36:20] there's two things I've been told over
[36:22] the last 2 weeks that I think are
[36:23] interesting. The first is a an
[36:24] investment banker who covers many of the
[36:26] large model companies explained to me
[36:28] that there is a very large divide. What
[36:30] we generalized and and thought we knew
[36:32] about Open AI is going after consumer,
[36:34] Anthropic is going after enterprise.
[36:37] He hammered home for me like, "Oh,
[36:39] whatever you thought was the focus it's
[36:41] like 10 times more of a focus." Like
[36:43] Anthropic, if you are not part of the
[36:44] enterprise, they do not care. And so
[36:45] this whole idea of like giving it to the
[36:46] banks, giving it to these people,
[36:49] they also in a weird way by giving them
[36:51] access to a model that is, you know, the
[36:53] greatest best model, whatever, it's kind
[36:55] of marketing for also you should be a
[36:57] customer of ours. And so if we can build
[36:59] this thing that you're scared of, then
[37:00] maybe you'll come to us for the
[37:01] solution. And so I do find that, you
[37:03] know, somewhat interesting is like the
[37:04] marketing component.
[37:06] The second thing is um
[37:09] do you know who is buying lots of data
[37:11] right now, which is pretty interesting,
[37:13] is Meta, from what I understand. So they
[37:16] are out trying to get tons of different
[37:18] data sets that they almost it it least
[37:21] what I'm being told, they feel like
[37:23] they're a little behind. And so how do
[37:24] they accelerate? Well, let's go get a
[37:25] bunch of this data, start training it,
[37:27] etc. Uh my understanding is somebody who
[37:29] is not buying a lot of data
[37:31] is XAI. They've been hiring kind of
[37:34] contractors to go and do data labeling,
[37:36] etc.
[37:37] But now SpaceX and Cursor.
[37:40] Yep. And so it feels like everyone had a
[37:43] different strategy.
[37:44] >> Yep. And now it's not just a land grab
[37:46] on power and infrastructure and all
[37:47] this, it is now how do we get the data
[37:49] sets we need? And then also the creative
[37:52] deal making going on in Silicon Valley,
[37:54] whether it's how do we, you know, buy
[37:55] Scale AI but not buy it, to this like
[37:58] Cursor deal where you basically get, you
[37:59] know, hey, we'll pay you $10 billion in
[38:01] the worst case, in the best case we buy
[38:02] your company for $60 billion.
[38:04] I mean, this is like the dream, right?
[38:07] Yeah, and just so people understand this
[38:08] cuz what you're saying is true, I think
[38:11] people need to simplify this into why
[38:13] these companies are doing this. Number
[38:15] one, they need more compute. Mhm.
[38:17] 100%.
[38:19] Well, they also need capital for the
[38:21] compute. And that's why the raises and
[38:24] SpaceX is going to the market because to
[38:26] build Terafab and to do and I think they
[38:28] need
[38:29] >> Does he need some money? Yeah, I mean
[38:31] they all need money and they're using
[38:32] the capital markets. So they're using
[38:34] bond issuance. Like they're going out
[38:36] there to raise a lot. OpenAI just raised
[38:38] $122 billion.
[38:40] For startup private company? Yeah, I
[38:41] mean it's bigger than the bottom 300
[38:43] companies in market cap of the S&P 500.
[38:45] That's how much money they raised for.
[38:46] So you're dealing with just an insane
[38:49] amount of money that's necessary.
[38:51] And they need revenues. So they are in a
[38:54] what do we do? Where do we get the
[38:56] revenue? So Anthropic is generating
[38:58] revenue. So the competition migrates to
[39:01] enterprise. We all need enterprise. So
[39:04] it's it is capital needed for the
[39:06] compute which is then necessary for
[39:07] this. Now Elon has a different story.
[39:11] Where's his revenue coming in from
[39:12] SpaceX? Well, it's not coming in from
[39:14] flying rocket ships in the space. It's
[39:15] Starlink. So
[39:17] Starlink is enough of a profitability at
[39:20] this point for that company to be
[39:21] judged. It's going to have a very high
[39:22] multiple at where it's being done. But
[39:26] Tesla does too. And you go through this,
[39:27] it's like okay, how is he going to raise
[39:30] the capital except from
[39:32] individuals and company we're reaching
[39:34] that point where when you get that many
[39:37] companies that need this much capital to
[39:40] generate the revenue and they believe
[39:41] the revenue is going to come from the
[39:43] enterprise. And I keep saying
[39:46] it's really weird how this goes, but
[39:49] annualized revenue rate
[39:52] is not real money guys yet. Meaning
[39:55] you're annualizing it, which means
[39:57] you're taking it on okay, we had this
[39:59] much this times 12. Okay, great. Today's
[40:02] episode is brought to you by Uphold. Are
[40:04] you someone who's tired of juggling
[40:05] multiple apps just to trade, earn,
[40:07] stake, or spend your crypto? Then listen
[40:09] up because Uphold does all of that in
[40:11] one single unified platform. You can
[40:13] access 300 plus crypto and fiat
[40:15] currencies with an interface that works
[40:17] for you, whether you're a beginner or an
[40:19] expert. Uphold also features any-to-any
[40:22] swaps, where you can swap crypto to
[40:24] fiat, fiat to metals, and tokens to
[40:27] tokens directly in the app. If you
[40:28] prefer self-custody, Uphold's vault
[40:30] gives you multi-sig security, key
[40:32] recovery, direct trading access, and
[40:35] peace of mind without giving up
[40:36] convenience. Uphold is also 100%
[40:38] reserved, meaning no fractional
[40:40] practices, and proof of reserves are
[40:42] updated every 30 seconds, so you can
[40:44] verify your assets anytime. For US
[40:46] users, you can even earn yield on
[40:48] dollars with a USD interest account. No
[40:50] fees, no minimums, and funds are insured
[40:53] up to $2.5 million
[40:54] through the Atomic Cash Sweep program.
[40:57] If you want one app for your entire
[40:59] digital asset life, check out Uphold
[41:01] today. Go to uphold.com to learn more.
[41:05] uphold.com,
[41:06] go check them out today.
[41:09] Today's episode is brought to you by
[41:10] Figure. We're living in a world of
[41:12] higher for longer rates, tighter credit,
[41:14] and fewer places to earn real yield.
[41:16] That's why Figure's interesting.
[41:17] Figure's the largest non-bank mortgage
[41:19] lender in the United States with over
[41:21] $19 billion unlocked on their lending
[41:23] platform. They're now applying the same
[41:25] institutional infrastructure to
[41:26] crypto-backed loans and real-world asset
[41:28] yield. If you're holding crypto, Figure
[41:30] lets you borrow against it at 8.91%
[41:33] interest with 50% loan-to-value. It
[41:36] gives you liquidity without selling,
[41:37] without triggering taxes, and without
[41:39] stepping out of the market. On the risk
[41:41] side, they use decentralized MPC
[41:43] custody, so assets stay in segregated
[41:45] wallets, and they've introduced
[41:47] liquidation protection to help manage
[41:49] downside volatility. And for investors
[41:51] looking for yield, Democritized Prime
[41:53] offers up to 8.5% APY, paid hourly and
[41:56] backed by real-world private credit,
[41:59] real cash flow, not speculative token
[42:01] emission. In a market where capital
[42:02] efficiency matters more than ever,
[42:04] Figure gives you real options. Check
[42:06] them out using the link in the
[42:07] description, or go to
[42:09] figuremarkets.co/pomp.
[42:12] Again, that's figuremarkets.co/pomp.
[42:16] Well, have you seen the um
[42:19] controversy with C A R R, contracted
[42:24] annual run rate?
[42:25] >> No. Okay. So, what the point you're
[42:27] bringing is um
[42:29] companies and and this is not
[42:30] necessarily a nefarious thing. They're
[42:31] clear about it, but they will say,
[42:33] "Okay, I did $100 of revenue in the
[42:35] month of March. If I times that by 12,
[42:37] that means I am doing $1,200 of annual
[42:40] run rate." Now, if you're in a
[42:41] subscription business and you can prove
[42:43] churn and stuff, that's kind of where it
[42:44] emanated from. But, now people are just
[42:46] taking like the monthly revenue and it
[42:49] could be really spiky or lumpy and they
[42:50] just annualize it. Okay. So, I think
[42:53] that's like investors are smart. They
[42:54] they understand some of the perils of
[42:56] that. But, now there's this new
[42:58] contracted annual run rate. And my
[43:01] understanding of how these deals work is
[43:03] let's say that I am a model company or
[43:06] I'm an AI company and I come to you as
[43:07] the customer and I say, "You know what?
[43:09] You want this thing that I have.
[43:11] It's really important to me that we sign
[43:12] a multi-year deal. So, let's sign a
[43:13] three-year deal.
[43:15] The contract in the third year is going
[43:17] to be $3 million.
[43:20] But, let's make sure you like it. So, in
[43:23] the first year, I'll give it to you for
[43:25] 100k.
[43:27] And then in the second year, it'll be a
[43:29] million and in the uh third year it'll
[43:31] be 3 million. Mhm.
[43:33] You also can cancel after 12 months.
[43:37] And so, you're
[43:38] contractually obligated to give me 100k
[43:40] in the first year.
[43:41] >> Yep. And you can leave after 12 months.
[43:44] But, my contracted annual run rate
[43:46] >> Yep. is 3 million because in the third
[43:49] year you're going to pay me 3 million.
[43:50] And I we're signing a $3 million a year
[43:52] contract is the way it's positioned. And
[43:54] so, I go and I say, "Well, I was doing
[43:55] 10 million. Now, I'm doing 13 million in
[43:56] contracted annual run rate."
[43:59] Unsophisticated investors Mhm. may not
[44:02] realize that really only got 100k or
[44:04] they could get out after a year. And so,
[44:07] I think people have to be very cautious
[44:09] when they see some of these headline
[44:10] numbers and it is pervasive now, not
[44:12] just in AI companies. I mean, this is
[44:13] becoming a how do you market, you know,
[44:15] how good your company is doing, but
[44:16] there's a lot of this type of stuff
[44:18] going on and I think that's where people
[44:19] are getting caught up with like, how did
[44:20] a company go from, you know, zero to
[44:22] some crazy number? It's like, was it
[44:24] like real revenue or is it, you know,
[44:26] fugazi, you know, type math? And the key
[44:29] thing out of what you're saying what
[44:30] people need to understand and this is
[44:32] why the ROIC is going to remain a risk
[44:34] no matter what. So, the reason I was
[44:36] taking a shot at the annualized run rate
[44:37] is just a fact, which is if they run out
[44:39] of compute, guess what guys? It's not
[44:41] going to go higher. Um, you've run into
[44:44] a point where exponential change has an
[44:46] impact on the on value on the way people
[44:47] think of things. I was just on a call
[44:49] and someone said, so at what level will
[44:51] you care about SaaS companies? And I
[44:53] literally said,
[44:56] in fact, I'll use something here. Books
[44:58] are waste of time. Spending time on
[45:00] software to try and figure out where
[45:02] valuation is is a waste of time.
[45:05] This stuff is moving so fast that when
[45:06] there's no terminal value, how do you
[45:09] value something? So, you're asking me
[45:11] where I see value in the future when I
[45:13] don't know if they're going to exist in
[45:14] the future. So, do the reverse with the
[45:17] contracted annualized revenue. You're
[45:19] doing the same thing, it's just a
[45:20] different version of it, which is, okay,
[45:22] I'm only going to pay you 100,000 now
[45:24] because I don't know if your technology
[45:26] is going to work and I don't know if I'm
[45:27] going to be able to change my business
[45:28] to do it and I don't know if this will
[45:30] be the best technology in a year. That's
[45:31] all because of exponential change. It's
[45:33] different than software.
[45:35] How long have we been doing this podcast
[45:37] show every week? A year now? A little
[45:39] more than a year? A little more than a
[45:40] year.
[45:41] I don't have the smartest brain, which
[45:43] is why it took me this long to come to
[45:45] this conclusion, but I just realized
[45:47] what your entire world view. You're a
[45:49] scarcity trader.
[45:51] Like that's pretty much what you were
[45:53] looking for. You were looking for
[45:54] shortages and scarcity, whether it is
[45:57] power, whether it is chemicals, whether
[45:59] it is, you know, optical, what whatever,
[46:02] whether it's Bitcoin, like you
[46:04] essentially are searching through all of
[46:06] these markets looking for areas where
[46:08] there are shortages or scarcity and then
[46:10] you're deploying capital into it. Is
[46:11] that fair?
[46:13] You left one part out. So, as I
[46:15] mentioned, I was told you I wasn't that
[46:16] smart.
[46:17] I was trained by a handicapper.
[46:20] Everything to me, regardless of whether
[46:22] it's scarcity or abundance, has to do
[46:24] with one important thing, where's the
[46:25] money being bet right now, which has to
[46:27] do with sentiment. So, the odds on the
[46:29] tote board are based on the way people
[46:31] are betting. So, one of the the great
[46:35] things about talking to institutional
[46:37] clients, mutual funds, hedge funds, the
[46:39] sharpest people that are investing
[46:42] at tens to hundreds of billions of
[46:44] dollars
[46:45] is if they tell me why Marvell, and I
[46:47] just wrote a piece on it, and I go,
[46:49] "Well, because of silicon photonics and
[46:51] they're one of the" and they go,
[46:54] "Is that going to start kicking in now?"
[46:56] When I start hearing, I'm looking at the
[46:58] tote board going, "Oh, the odds on this
[46:59] are much higher than I thought." So,
[47:01] you're right that I think you're looking
[47:05] for places where like competition could
[47:07] be scarce. So, you know, when you get
[47:10] monopolies, you don't have much
[47:13] competition, so it's hard to break into
[47:14] their model. It's all about scarcity.
[47:16] Capitalism at the end of the day and
[47:18] economics is is all based on something
[47:20] having to do with scarcity. The reason I
[47:22] say abundance is a problem is cuz if you
[47:26] get to a world where everything is free,
[47:27] there is no capitalism.
[47:29] So, in this theory of abundance, it gets
[47:32] in, but there's still an exchange of
[47:33] services, they're just free. And this is
[47:36] where, if you listen to Elon Musk, he
[47:37] eventually gets, "I don't know what
[47:39] money means in the future." I'm kind of
[47:41] in that situation too, where if I look
[47:43] 20 years out, if I believe people are
[47:45] going to live
[47:47] a lot longer than the current lifespan,
[47:49] like
[47:50] much longer than the current lifespan,
[47:53] and I don't know what jobs are going to
[47:55] exist because humanoids will be here and
[47:57] Elon's phrase that I like to run with,
[48:00] which is oh there'll be jobs. It's just
[48:02] a question of whether you want to work.
[48:04] >> Yeah. And if that's the world we live
[48:06] in, then what does fiat money mean? What
[48:09] does the S&P 500 mean? What does that?
[48:12] And if that's only 20 years ahead
[48:14] because of how fast we're going. So you
[48:15] have to think if every year is like 10
[48:18] years of innovation. So take Joseph
[48:20] Schumpeter's destruction. That means in
[48:22] 20 years you're talking about
[48:24] two centuries worth of innovation.
[48:27] If I believe in 20 years that that world
[48:29] of abundance is here, then the only
[48:31] thing that I want to have as kind of a
[48:33] thought is why I think Bitcoin in the
[48:35] crypto world, the exchange of velocity
[48:37] of services through this
[48:39] value thing is the way people I should
[48:42] be. So if I think that's a
[48:44] 30% chance of happening and in my net
[48:47] worth if I have 5% in Bitcoin or 1% in
[48:51] Bitcoin, that's the wrong number. The
[48:53] right number is 30%. It's 20% and this
[48:56] is my pitch to wealth managers out there
[48:57] and our RFAs going it's a probability on
[49:00] if this fiat system's going to be the
[49:01] way you think it is and you should have
[49:03] a certain percentage in there.
[49:04] So
[49:05] we do a very good job of avoiding any of
[49:07] the political nonsense that goes on in
[49:09] the world. But what scares me about what
[49:11] you're saying is that Elon Musk and
[49:14] Mamdani agree.
[49:17] Hassan
[49:18] uh was it And Elon agree.
[49:22] Basically it is this breaking down of
[49:24] the high trust relationship between
[49:27] humans and capital
[49:29] in a world where
[49:31] you kind of get into undiscovered
[49:33] territory of like a free-for-all.
[49:36] And people have very different view. I
[49:38] mean I don't think Elon and Mamdani
[49:39] agree in terms of like, you know,
[49:41] explicit policies etc. But it's actually
[49:44] everyone sitting around saying hey this
[49:46] future world we're headed towards I got
[49:47] a different idea of what we can do to
[49:49] prepare for, or for, help people etc.
[49:53] But the more people that agree on that
[49:54] world being where we're headed, the more
[49:56] likely it is we head to that world.
[49:58] And that I think is a little
[50:00] nerve-wracking, right?
[50:02] Okay, so two things. One, you've pretty
[50:04] much described the fourth turning.
[50:06] Correct. Um okay.
[50:08] >> I read the book. It wasn't a waste of
[50:09] time. So, but I I the reason, you know,
[50:12] I've I've talked about my grandmother
[50:13] both with you and when I've sat down
[50:15] with with Natalie Brunell, um
[50:17] arguably the most important kind of
[50:19] person in the way that I think about
[50:21] markets other than my father. And the
[50:23] reason is cuz she was born in 1920
[50:25] during the Great Depression. So, if
[50:26] everyone goes back and says, are my
[50:28] kids, so that's the fourth, you know,
[50:31] I've got my grandmother, my mother,
[50:33] myself, and my kids. Great, they're the
[50:34] four turnings. They're They're the four
[50:36] generations.
[50:38] The difference between my kids and my
[50:39] grandma My grandmother was born in the
[50:41] Great Depression. To her, any debt was
[50:43] bad.
[50:44] She lived in a trailer home, a mobile
[50:45] home, I should say now. She She lived in
[50:47] a mobile home in Florida when she died,
[50:49] or not when she died, but when she had
[50:51] to eventually move to assisted living.
[50:54] Um
[50:55] if I think of about the way she thought
[50:56] about money,
[50:58] she had enough food money if she had a
[50:59] canned good in this. She's good. Well,
[51:01] my kids don't have that attitude. So,
[51:03] Mondani has existed for 80 years. It's
[51:06] just that the voters decided now is the
[51:08] time for him to be elected.
[51:10] >> You saw what happened in Manhattan, in
[51:11] the East Village? What? Uh the stat is
[51:14] 70% of people in the East Village voted
[51:16] for him. Right? Cuz all And for those
[51:18] who don't know New York City, it's
[51:19] basically a lot of young
[51:20] >> It's kind of like Williamsburg. That's
[51:21] kind of like Williamsburg, right? Yeah,
[51:23] yeah. It's uh it's basically a lot of
[51:25] young people. They first move to New
[51:26] York City, it's a little bit cheaper to
[51:27] live there. Um a lot of fun bars, you
[51:29] know, all the whole thing. Um but now
[51:31] they want to move. Uh I think it's one
[51:33] of the mental institutes
[51:34] to that neighborhood. And they're like
[51:36] right They're like suing him, and
[51:37] they're signing petitions, and like all
[51:39] this stuff. And of course, people on the
[51:40] internet are like, "Hey, like you kind
[51:41] of get the policies that you vote for."
[51:43] type thing.
[51:44] Um but But do think I mean, this is the
[51:46] whole game, right? It's like every
[51:48] generation's got to go through and kind
[51:49] of relearn these things and um
[51:52] maybe it is good that they learn rather
[51:54] than from a book from experience. It's
[51:55] just a little bumpy, you know, it's a
[51:57] bumpy landing when when they're doing
[51:59] it.
[51:59] >> You know you know what the best part of
[52:00] what you said? So, yeah, we don't get
[52:02] into politics here. There's a reason why
[52:03] I don't get into politics.
[52:05] Because I I I'm not only an independent,
[52:08] but I I love great leaders. That's what
[52:10] I love. I I'm and I I
[52:14] I'm not saying that no president has
[52:16] been a great leader, but when people are
[52:18] trying to get votes and they're doing
[52:19] things based on what will get them
[52:21] elected, there's a conflict that I think
[52:24] in the modern day has just become kind
[52:26] of an issue, especially when you bring
[52:27] social media in because these are
[52:28] one-line things. When I listened to
[52:30] Jensen Huang speak with Dwarkesh, I
[52:33] bought the stock Nvidia the next day. Um
[52:37] and the reason was because I actually
[52:39] love the way that he handled himself. I
[52:42] love that Dwarkesh pushed him.
[52:45] Every interview he's ever on, he's just
[52:47] very nice and affable and everything is
[52:49] a nice conversation. We love you. You're
[52:51] the you know, have the best company in
[52:53] the world. And Dwarkesh kept pushing
[52:54] back and it got into China versus the US
[52:57] and all this stuff and I thought he did
[52:59] a great job. So, I think one of the
[53:00] reasons that you and I don't talk about
[53:02] politics even off the air. It's just
[53:05] it's not something of my makeup. I don't
[53:07] watch CNBC. I don't watch Fox News. I
[53:09] don't watch news. And the reason is cuz
[53:12] I want to just go through and figure out
[53:13] what I want to believe in based on what
[53:15] goes on. I am very uh I I I I I I I
[53:18] I'm in the middle on everything. I make
[53:20] decisions and I'm I'm a gambler at heart
[53:22] in terms of my my risk reward, but I
[53:25] don't get into the thing. I just believe
[53:28] the Daily Stoic. And you and I have
[53:30] talked about it, but for people who have
[53:31] never bought the book, this is a
[53:32] shout-out to Ryan Holiday. Uh I I think
[53:35] Matt has the book, too. Yeah, he's
[53:36] showing it to me right now. Um this is a
[53:38] plug for that book.
[53:41] All of the things that you're talking
[53:42] about and all the emotions people have,
[53:43] the voting they do,
[53:46] reading a book or a passage in a given
[53:48] day is about something someone wrote
[53:50] about 2,000 years ago, and it was the
[53:53] same as what's going on in the East
[53:55] Village today, that's really cool to
[53:58] know that the human brain is doing the
[54:00] same anxiety, the same fears, the same,
[54:03] I could have a better life if they did
[54:04] this. Marcus Aurelius was going through
[54:06] that with the Roman Empire a long time
[54:08] ago, so I don't want to say who said
[54:10] this because it'll taint the way people
[54:12] view this, but there's a person who is
[54:14] very well known who
[54:16] gave an interview one time, and they
[54:17] asked him,
[54:19] you know, how do you deal with stress?
[54:21] And he basically was like, it doesn't
[54:22] matter. And they're like, what do you
[54:23] mean? He was like, you can be doing the
[54:25] single most important thing in your life
[54:27] and you know, focused on it and stressed
[54:28] and this and that, whatever, and then
[54:29] all of a sudden there's an earthquake in
[54:31] India and 400,000 people die.
[54:34] And it doesn't matter. And so again,
[54:37] very like kind of pessimistic view
[54:38] almost to it to a degree, but
[54:41] what is Marcus Aurelius, right? You know
[54:42] what I mean? Like it's I mean it's a
[54:43] very similar trend all throughout
[54:45] history. I think people are going to ask
[54:46] a lot of these questions because of the
[54:48] whole AI thing and like, what do we do
[54:49] with our time? You know, what what is
[54:51] the role of a human? What is the meaning
[54:52] of life? All this like crazy stuff that
[54:54] I don't know. We're going to find out.
[54:56] Uh we've I don't know if I mentioned
[54:58] this here, but um I think 9/11, the
[55:01] aftermath of 9/11 for me, because I was
[55:04] so impacted by it, because the best man
[55:06] at my wedding died in 9/11 and my best
[55:08] friend growing up. So, this was a major
[55:11] event for me where I questioned life. I
[55:13] left Morgan Stan, made the decision to
[55:15] leave Morgan Stanley no no more than a
[55:17] month after, um because I didn't want to
[55:20] spend my life firing people. I didn't
[55:21] want to be in a job that didn't bring me
[55:23] joy. I wanted to focus my attention on a
[55:25] very Buddhist philosophy, what does it
[55:27] bring me joy? Do they bring me joy?
[55:29] Whatever it is, it needs to bring me
[55:30] joy. I I made a very conscious decision
[55:33] in my life that I didn't want to be in a
[55:35] stressful situation with people forcing
[55:37] me what to do. Now, at that point, I
[55:39] didn't think I'd ever work for anyone
[55:40] again. I set up my own business. I ended
[55:42] up in another business. I told myself I
[55:43] didn't want to manage people, and
[55:44] eventually I was managing people again.
[55:45] So, it always tends to happen. Not this
[55:47] time, people. It's not going on. But,
[55:49] the reason I bring it up is
[55:51] those events in in in in life, A, they
[55:55] go on. That one had a huge impact on
[55:57] exactly what you were saying to me. When
[55:59] I ever get worried about anything,
[56:01] there's two things I think about. I did
[56:02] the eulogy for my friend, or one of the
[56:05] people I did the eulogy for him, and I
[56:07] did the eulogy for my grandmother. So,
[56:09] someone who died at 98, and someone who
[56:11] died in their 30s who had a long life to
[56:13] live.
[56:14] And in both cases, the same message came
[56:17] out, which is you don't know how long
[56:18] your life is going to be. You don't know
[56:19] if it's going to be 98. You don't know
[56:20] if it's going to be 33. You have no idea
[56:22] how long it's going to be. You get one
[56:23] chance,
[56:24] and if you ever start to stress about
[56:26] things, just be grateful because these
[56:29] people went through the Great
[56:31] Depression, and died in the towers
[56:34] having to make a decision on what to do.
[56:36] It's just It's crazy. I agree.
[56:38] All right. Where
[56:40] Where do you want us people to go?
[56:41] YouTube?
[56:42] Search on YouTube, Jordy Visser. Go
[56:44] there. Hit the subscribe button. And as
[56:46] a digital thank you, it's like sending
[56:48] me a gift card, you know? But, this is
[56:49] not money. It costs you zero other than
[56:51] 30 seconds of your time. If you got Open
[56:53] Claw, you can have your bot go do it. If
[56:55] you got Cowork, you can have your little
[56:57] bot go do it. Or you can be old school,
[56:59] you know, like an artisan. You can go
[57:01] and actually do it yourself, you know?
[57:03] Maneuver on over. Use your little
[57:04] keypad. Go and hit the follow button or
[57:07] subscribe button.
[57:08] See you guys next week. See you.