Trump Brokers Gaza Peace Deal, National Guard in Chicago, OpenAI/AMD, AI Roundtripping, Gold Rally

All right, everybody, welcome back to the number one podcast in the world.

That's right.

It's your favorite podcast.

It's your podcaster's favorite podcast, the all-in podcast.

We're back, baby.

Chamath Paliapatia is here, our chairman, our dictator.

How are you doing, brother?

Great, yeah,

fantastic.

You know, you put the Uber stock price and the Robinhood stock price together: $150.

I'm annoying.

200, I'm insufferable.

And 250, we just hit.

I am off the reservation, officially hopping the fence.

So,

yeah, life's good.

All right, with us again, David Sachs, the czar.

By the way, what's the reason why your Robinhood stock is through the roof?

Because of the crypto policies of the Trump administration.

Yeah, it's fair.

Fair.

That's half of it.

That's why it's gone from, what is it, like $3 to $130 billion?

Two, $2.

I paid less than a penny for my shares, but yes, it went from $13.

Well, this is

liberal.

You benefit from our policies and then you trash them.

I'm a moderate, independent moderate.

Here we go.

Now it's starting already.

It's going to be a great week, everybody.

Buckle up.

And it puts the namaste in your payday.

Our fifth bestie is back.

Brad, welcome home.

It's great to be here.

Great to be here.

I went out and got a haircut.

Welcome back into the fold.

Welcome back.

I got a haircut on the occasion.

I mean, Jason, Jason, do you know how long it's been since I was last on this pod?

I don't know.

I've invited you like 12 times, but I think the emails, there's something going on with email.

I didn't get any of my White House invitations.

You didn't get any all-in invitations.

I mean,

it's been so long since I was on this pod.

I went back and listened.

The last show I was on, we were still talking about how great Chamas Fax were before they crashed the entire market, and he's already back.

I mean, it was before Saxi Pooh saved the entire crypto industry from from prison and certain bankruptcy.

And Jason, it was before you got so tilted with Democrats that you went completely off-grid, moved to Texas, and bought a bunch of guns.

There it is.

It's been a minute.

So much has changed in a fortnight.

My God.

Wow, here we are.

Well, we're all back and we're having some fun.

We'll have a little fun with our fifth bestie.

Only a $5 billion drawdown for me between those memories and things.

Who's complaining?

Who's counting?

Who's counting

memories for a certain number?

And it said, we open source it to the fans, and they've just called the recently.

Love you, West Indies.

We've got to start off with the Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal, thanks to President Trump, who announced it.

Just yesterday.

We tape on Thursdays.

He announced it on Wednesday.

You'll listen to this on Friday, hopefully.

And he announced the first phase of a multi-stage peace deal.

Notably, it was on the day after the two-year anniversary of the horrific October 7th attacks, which led, obviously, to the invasion of Gaza.

And this war has been particularly devastating for Gaza.

Most of the region's been destroyed.

2.3 million residents have been displaced.

And according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which I know some people will debate, over 67,000 Palestinians have been killed.

The deal is based off of Trump's 20-point peace plan, which the White House published last week.

And the Israeli government will vote on the deal today, maybe even before the show comes out.

Even with all this tragedy, something has gone tremendously right when it comes to these peace negotiations and the peace talks.

So, Sachs, tell us what went so right here in those negotiations.

I mean, right now it looks like both sides have agreed to this deal.

And the first phase of the deal is for there to be a ceasefire to end active fighting.

It's going to allow unrestricted aid into Gaza.

It's going to allow the release of all remaining Israeli hostages.

And Israel is going to release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and start withdrawing Israeli troops.

So that is what apparently has been agreed to.

And the Middle East has a way of disappointing you.

Sometimes these deals don't stick, but based on everything we understand to be the case right now, This appears to be a big breakthrough in terms of the fighting will stop and all the hostages will be released.

And I do think it is a big accomplishment by the president in terms of how this happened is because the president was willing to both cajole and coerce and use pressure with respect to both sides of the conflict.

Longtime diplomat Aaron David Miller, who advised both Republican and Democrat administrations on Middle East peace negotiations for the last three decades, he said that, I'll quote here, Donald Trump has demonstrated a degree of will, unlike any other president, Republican or Democrat.

He has pressed an Israeli prime minister in a way that none of his predecessors have ever done on an issue that that prime minister considers vital to his political survival and the way he would define Israeli security requirements.

So that was Aaron David Miller, who again was the U.S.

negotiator in Middle East peace negotiations for a quarter century.

And in fact, he wrote a very interesting article in 2005 called Israel's Lawyer.

in which he was a little bit self-critical of the U.S.'s previous efforts and his own efforts, saying that in the past, the U.S.

saw its role as being to represent Israel as opposed to being an objective negotiator.

And he critiqued the U.S.'s efforts, saying that we might be able to get more done if the U.S.

was perceived as more of an honest broker and perceived as willing to be a little bit more neutral in the negotiations.

And I think what he seems to be saying here is that Trump was willing to do that.

He was willing to pressure Netanyahu as well as Hamas.

I mean, obviously, you saw in the last few days that he said that if Hamas did not agree to this, all hell would break loose.

So he was willing to basically pressure both sides into accepting this deal.

And you have to give him credit for it for where things stand right now.

And you are seeing it.

It seems like virtually everyone's giving him credit, even the New York Times, even John Meacham was on the MSNBC this morning giving President Trump credit for doing the seemingly impossible.

And the reason I say even John Meacham is because Meacham is frequently criticizing President Trump as...

being a fascist or having authoritarian tendencies.

And even he had to acknowledge that Trump had pulled off the seemingly impossible here today.

All right, Shamath.

Obviously, this is going to have a pretty positive impact on the region.

So as we look at, you know, if this does, and again, you know, we've got to be cautious here because as Sachs pointed out correctly, in the Middle East, you know, sometimes these things fall apart and they're delicate.

But let's assume that this peace deal does make its way to fruition.

And what is it going to look like in the region post peace between these two nations?

I mean, I don't know.

So let's start with that.

Nobody knows.

Nobody knows, yeah.

I think it's been a very unpredictable place for a very long time.

That being said, what is the rational thing that has to happen?

I think that most of these countries are facing a very obvious

problem,

which is they have a resource that is becoming increasingly less valuable.

That resource is oil.

And so the practical reality is you want peace so that you can focus on the forward monetization of your reserves.

So when that oil sits in the ground, the longer it sits in the ground, the less valuable it is to you because it doesn't actually add to your balance sheet.

The faster you can monetize the oil, then the faster you can deploy it into other things, including services for your own citizens.

Now, the longer you wait to do that, the problem that we are seeing is that other solutions come around the corner.

Eventually, in the 10 or 15 or 20-year timeframe, you'll have an abundance of electrons from nuclear.

In the meantime, you have an abundance of electrons from net gas.

You have an abundance of electrons, frankly, from solar.

And all of these things will ultimately diminish the net long bid to oil.

So, if there's instability, you can't focus 100% on monetization.

If there's stability, then the entire focus needs to be on the monetization of the oil asset.

And I think that that's a very healthy thing because it starts to create market-driven incentives that will only accelerate all the positive things that are happening.

By the way, and the other thing I just want to say, which is personal, is shout out to a friend of the pod, Jared Kushner.

Ackman tweeted this, which I think is just so superb.

But in one week,

Jared did the largest LBO ever and then also helped negotiate Middle East peace.

It's unbelievable.

It's really incredible what these guys pulled off.

And it allows that region to be a real pillar of what happens in the next 50 to 100 years.

All right.

And I think it's well said, Brad, that some stability in the region will help them with the transition from an oil-based economy to what you and I learned in our trips there, and some of them together, that they're looking to transition to private equity, solar, renewables, AI,

owning sports teams,

venture capital, and so many, and tourism, building new cities.

All of that is hard to do.

And then also getting investments.

If people feel the region's unstable and/or dangerous, you know, it's not a good place to invest capital.

So

let's keep pulling the string as to what the best case scenario is here, if we have true stability in that region.

Well, I mean, you nailed it.

The conditions for all of those things, economic, right, are safety and security.

You don't have any economic growth in the region unless you have that.

You know, and I think you guys covered it pretty well, but maybe just highlight a broader feature, I think, of this presidency.

I think we might call Trump like the moonshot presidency.

If you think about everything he's trying to accomplish, even Hillary Clinton said if he pulls off peace between Ukraine and Russia, which is also going on simultaneous to these efforts, that she herself will nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.

I look at the presidency, there are moonshots going on everywhere.

China, AI, reindustrialization, India, Pakistan, Ukraine, you know, and Russia, what he's doing in the Middle East.

And if you think about moonshots, we all do these in Silicon Valley.

These are high-risk, high-reward efforts.

We want to back people who go for moonshots.

But the reality is most people don't have the courage to go for moonshots because there's a high probability that it won't work.

But if you think about this for a second, after the horror of the October 7th attacks, the chaos in Syria, the attacks by Yemen, the escalations fueled by Iran, the idea that the president, Witkoff, and you're right, Shamath, our friend Jared Kushner, could have overcome all of that.

Right.

And that could have been all-out war across the Middle East.

It could have plunged the entire Middle East into utter chaos.

But instead, he decapitated Iran.

We brought Syria into the fold.

We're on the verge of expanding the Abraham Accords.

And now you have this historic signing.

You know, we saw it with our own eyes when Sachs and I were over there on the president's visit.

You know, he is respected as a strong leader and liked in every one of these capitals that you go to.

You know, and it's paying off.

If this happens, Witkoff, Kushner, and the president all deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

If even 80% of it works out, I think it's worthy of a peace prize.

Well, and not to mention, we're probably going to have, at least the rumors are that there could be a a China deal coming up at the end of this month or into next month.

And if we could resolve the issues with Taiwan, even something like strategic ambiguity, and if there's a chance of Ukraine and Russia being settled, now you've got the trifecta.

You know, you've got the three biggest hotspots taken off the table.

If you can get two of those, it'd be great for humanity.

Polymarket showing a 90% chance, 90% chance that all Israeli hostages will be returned by the end of the month, month, which would be just tremendous.

And then also getting aid to these poor people suffering in Gaza

would also be nice to see.

Anyone else have any thoughts as we move on to our next story?

I'll just say that the funny part here is, to see if there's anything funny about the story, is watching the entire global left that's been demanding a ceasefire in Gaza for almost two years, they've suddenly gone strangely silent now that President Trump has seemingly engineered that ceasefire.

And I guess the Nobel Committee is, is, they are announcing this Friday.

I do think that a record like this would absolutely win any other president the Nobel Prize, or at least get him a nomination.

President Trump has ended seven wars in seven months before this one.

This would be the eighth if he pulls it off.

So seven.

Obama, Obama won with nothing.

Obama won just for being elected.

He just got elected and got the Nobel Prize.

It was just kind of like a gold star.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, let's move on to our next topic.

The National Guard has deployed troops into Chicago to protect ICE agents, and Portland might be next.

Obviously, a bunch of protests have broken out in Chicago after a number of these ICE raids have occurred.

And over the last month, DHS has been executing something called Operation Midway Blitz in the city.

800 illegal aliens have been arrested.

And there was a notable raid on September 30th by Border Patrol and FBI agents in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood, where 37 illegal aliens were arrested in an apartment complex.

Wow.

And this included flashbangs and a Black Hawk helicopter.

Similar to what we saw in L.A.

back in June, Trump has 500 National Guard troops standing by from Illinois and Texas.

And in case any protests get out of hand.

Trump says they are needed to protect ICE agents who are being targeted.

Illinois Governor J.B.

Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson are obviously opposed to ICE actions, and they are calling Trump an authoritarian and fighting for state rights in this regard.

They filed a lawsuit to try to stop it and a hearing is scheduled for Thursday.

Obviously, the president had some losses in

a number of these National Guard

activities, and we can get into the details of those.

Mayor Johnson also signed a couple of executive orders aimed at slowing down ICE agents.

They've established some ice-free zones across the city that prohibit ICE agents from using using any city-owned property.

And another one bans city employees from aiding ICE unless required by a criminal warrant.

The White House called this a quote-unquote disgusting betrayal and said Johnson was prioritizing illegals over U.S.

citizens.

Your thoughts, Sachs.

Well, I think the place starts with the Democrat attitude towards crime.

We've seen many examples of this recently.

You had the murder of that young Ukrainian woman, Irina, in a subway by DeCarlos Brown.

He was arrested 14 times, and still leftist judges and prosecutors refused to punish him or keep him off the streets.

There was a testimony of Stephen Federico before a congressional subcommittee who recounted how his daughter Logan was murdered by Alexander Dickey, a man with over 25 felony arrests in San Francisco here.

You got leftists are still trying to get diversion for Troy McAllister, who killed Hanna Abe and Elizabeth Platt on New Year's Eve 2020.

That was the case that activated all of us to get Chase Aboudeen recalled successfully.

So look, you have here so many examples of leftist prosecutors and judges and activists always trying to get repeat felons off, trying to get them diversion, never prosecuting them.

They're in favor of zero bail.

They've turned the jails into a revolving door.

And that's why you see in places like Chicago or Washington, D.C., enormous amounts of violent crime.

Now, in D.C.,

the president had the ability to clean up the streets, to clean up the homeless encampments, make the streets safer.

No one denied the feds had a right to go in, and they did.

And there have been immediate positive results.

Homicides and carjackings and so forth have fallen dramatically.

Everyone who actually lives in D.C.

is very happy about this situation.

The restaurants are full again.

People feel safe to go out.

So the question is: where else can the president basically help these cities and go in?

In Memphis,

they have been invited by the Republican governor to go in and help, and so they will.

Now, with Portland and Chicago, the problem here is that, frankly, you've got mayors and governors who are opposed to doing anything about the crime problem.

And moreover, they refuse to support ICE and DHS in their mission.

to enforce immigration laws.

And then finally, you've got violent leftist protesters like Antifa who've taken to the streets, and they are trying to thwart deportations of violent aliens by ICE and DHS.

In response to that, the president has sent somewhere between, I think, 300 and 500 National Guardsmen to support ICE in Chicago.

It's not a broad-based mission to clean up the streets because, you know, we still have to figure out what the legal authority to do that is.

They're just there to support ICE.

And yet you see all this hysterical bluster and rhetoric by J.B.

Pritzker and other Democrats basically claiming this is authoritarian.

It's not.

It's a very limited operation operation to support ICE and DHS in their lawful mission to enforce the immigration laws.

And there's no question that the president has this authority.

Both Eisenhower and JFK sent federal troops into the South to enforce federal desegregation laws.

For example, when James Meredith was barred from attending Ole Miss, University of Mississippi, JFK sent in 30,000 federal troops to bust open the doors of Ole Miss.

And by the way, they were not National Guardsmen.

These were the Army.

So presidents have sent in troops.

They have sent in National Guardsmen to enforce the law in American cities.

He absolutely has the right and power to do this.

But like I said, this is somewhere between 300 and 500 guardsmen sent to back up ICE, who is being assaulted by violent protests and riders by Antifa.

And what you're seeing by the mainstream media and by liberals is an attempt to mischaracterize the situation.

All right.

Just to put some numbers on that for the the D.C.

National Guard being called out, obviously, Trump and the president, whatever president is, clearly has the rights to do that for a certain period of time.

And

if you look at this Washington Post story, I'll send it to you for Post.

61% of people said in D.C., according to the Washington Post's survey, that

The people in Washington, D.C.

said the military police present has made them feel less safe.

79% of people polled in D.C.

in the same survey said they don't want the National Guard in the city.

So there is a lot of conflicting data here, but overwhelmingly in D.C., they don't data.

That's an opinion.

No, it's an emotional.

It was a survey.

I can give you a difference.

That's not data.

What about

data?

If we're going to do surveys.

Yeah, sure.

There was a poll last week from TIP Insights, which showed that Trump...

What's TIP Insights?

I've never heard of it.

T-I-P-P.

This was cited by Newsweek.

I can put the link on the screen.

Okay, I've never heard of it.

Well, they're a pollster.

Well, Washington Post was the one I cited, yeah.

Well, okay, and and I'm sure they're perfectly objective, right?

Next, you're going to be quoting the New York Times to tell me how objective they are.

Here's Tip, they're upholster.

These tip insights showed that Trump had a net positive rating among voters in cities 47 to 44 and that his numbers have improved recently.

So look, I think this is tremendously popular with the citizens of these crime-infested cities.

We saw this with D.C.

that the locals, the residents, including among the black population, were very happy with the fact that Trump Trump's end in the National Guard and crime has been massively reduced.

Sorry, can I say something?

You know why it's popular and it's working?

Because of what Wes Moore did.

Wes Moore is the perfect example of what I think a Democrat governor should be doing, which is, obviously, he has to lather on with his anti-Trump rhetoric, but what does he do behind the scenes?

He sends in state troops.

and he makes sure that there is a surge of policing in all of these crime-ridden areas because he knows that the policy works.

He just wants to get the credit for it, and he doesn't necessarily want somebody else to get the credit.

This is where I think what's happening in Illinois is a bit of a head scratcher, because if you see how badly run and how crime-infested Chicago is and the state of Illinois is,

why wouldn't J.B.

Pritzker do what Wes Moore does?

I think the honest thing that they should be doing is to recognize that the citizens on the ground in these places want to live in a safe and peaceful place.

And with more policing and with more troops, it's just statistically true that crime comes down.

And I think at the end of the day, probably the citizens of these places care less whether they're National Guards troops or whether they're state troops, but they just care that they're there.

This is why I think asking emotional reactions to me doesn't make as much sense because I feel it's a very partisan way of opining on the person who gives you the resource.

Because I suspect if you ask the exact same question inside of Baltimore to the state troops that were sent in by Westmore, a Democrat, you'd probably get a different response.

But the outcome is the same.

Crime goes down.

That's what everybody wants.

Brad, any concerns about the militarization in the country that is occurring from you?

Well, I think, listen, nobody wants abusive tactics, but let me just give you some numbers that cause me to believe this feels more like, you know, a bipartisan issue and we have kind of the pendulum swinging back more than something that should cause us concern.

Court-ordered removals and deportations averaged 200,000 per year, 1997 to 2000.

That's under Clinton.

200,000 a year.

They averaged 300,000 a year, peaking at 400,000 under Obama, right?

Deportations plummeted under Biden.

At the same time, we know that illegal crossings into this country kind of exploded higher.

And now they estimate that Trump is back to the trend line of 300,000 to 400,000 illegal deportations and removals.

These are court-ordered removals.

So I might have expected the Trump number to be way higher given that we just went through this massive step up in illegal crossings.

But I think it's really important to point out that this has been a bipartisan, consistent thing that has happened in this country for 30 years.

I'm not talking about tactics, exactly how it's going on, but the deportations have been going on by both parties, and we never, it hasn't been an issue before.

And so it is curious that it is more of an issue now.

And then the other thing I would just underscore is if you look at what Daniel Lurie is doing in the city of San Francisco, he is live blogging on Twitter and Instagram the arrests of 100 fugitives per night.

I think he's had three or four of these nights now in San Francisco to take these people off the street, following a mayor that wouldn't even arrest people and no prosecutions because he understands as a Democrat, what citizens expect first is safety.

They want the ability to walk their kids to school, to walk to dinner, to play in a park and not have to worry about being safe.

So I think, you know, I would build on what Chamas said, I think the smart Democrats are realizing this is a bipartisan issue.

This is what people want.

It's not inconsistent with what

Presidents Obama and Clinton did in their administrations in terms of deportations.

And so I don't think this is the hill that they want to die on.

Jay Cal, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what's going on with these deportations.

Well, I've been very vocal that I don't agree with the violent nature of the deportations and what ICE is doing.

But obviously, I am very much, since Sachs and I worked together on the ouster of Chesa Boudin, obviously I care coming from a law enforcement family about law and order.

I think it's super important, and I obviously agree.

But I want to level the conversation up a little bit and maybe talk a little bit about the president's approval ratings and how this all connects.

So I've got a couple of charts I'll share with you guys here and I'll get your reactions.

It's not pretty for Trump right now.

His polling is at an all-time low.

It's worse than the last couple of seasons of The Apprentice, in fact.

And when you look at this chart here of Donald Trump's approval rating, you'll see there are four dips here.

And this is the net approval rating.

And what you'll see is Liberation Day when he did the tariffs.

Obviously, he went a little too far on the tariffs, and that was pretty shocking.

Went down to a negative 10.

That's taking his approval minusing the disapproval, and that's how you get the net approval.

Then the LA protests, remember the violent protests, and the ice agents chasing people down in fields, and Americans didn't like that either.

Not releasing the Epstein files in July, another dip down to his lowest of his presidency, about 10%.

And then now we're with these Chicago ICE raids.

And the violent nature of him, I believe, is the cause of this.

And

going on a little bit, even from here, if you look at his wheelhouse, this is where Trump won the election.

I think we all agree in the Trump 2.0 platform, which won a lot of moderates like myself.

I know on this show, people like to say I'm a Democrat.

I've voted actually now Republican.

almost exactly as much as I've voted Democrat, and I am a strong moderate.

If you look at immigration, his net approval rating has plummeted from plus 10% down to minus about 5%.

The economy, he's down 15%.

He was up 5% at the start.

Trade, he's rebounded a little bit.

And inflation, he's down 27%.

And so this is his wheelhouse.

And if you look at from Bari Weiss's

organization, CBS News, congratulations to Bari on her taking it over and her sale to the free press to CBS.

Only 17% of Americans believe Trump is making them better.

This came out this week.

And 58% don't want the National Guard in our cities.

People oppose what Trump is doing right now, and he is at an all-time low.

So you have to ask yourself why.

And I think this is because he's drifted from the 2.0 policies.

Closing the border, very popular.

Lower taxes, no taxes on tips, extremely popular.

Pro-business, pro-innovation.

Thank you, Sachs.

You're correct.

This all is the best of Trump.

Doge, reducing spending, the best of Trump.

And relentlessly trying to stop wars and apparently on the cusp of succeeding with the one in Gaza right now.

This is what Americans, including myself, moderates, really like about Trump.

What don't we like about the Trump 1.0 platform, the violence of January 6th, ICE agents in masks beating powerless, hardworking immigrants, sending in the National Guards.

If you remember from the first administration, administration, the kids in cages, the Muslim immigration ban, partying all the January 6th riders who beat police savagely, trying to overturn election results.

This is what people don't like.

They don't like the chaos.

And what Americans do love is they love the Constitution.

And

they love the rule of law.

This is where he can do really well.

85% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Constitution, and 94% say it's really important to protect their liberty and freedom.

And what these actions, and when you see Pam Bondi and you see Stephen Miller, Trump's ratings go down.

When you see Luttnick, you see Besson, you see Sachs, you see Elon and Doge, his approval ratings go up.

And so I would like to lobby my friends who are in the administration or around it and the people I know in the administration to think through this.

Because what's at stake is the midterms.

The Democrats are going to shellack the Republicans in the midterms if this continues.

Nobody wants this type of violence.

Nobody wants to see people beaten.

Nobody wants to see mothers thrown on the ground as their children are crying just because they came here 20 years ago, 10 years ago, when Republicans, Republicans, who were the biggest proponents of letting people in from Mexico to work here because we needed cheap labor.

We as Americans have an obligation to these people who we brought into this country to treat them with compassion.

And we're not doing that.

And that's my little monologue here.

You heard from Brad that the deportations have basically mean reverted.

So do you think that there were the same category of people being deported before as in now and that there's just less press coverage and it was okay then and it's not okay now?

Or just explain.

this idea of mean reversion and whether we're getting the same and right people out of the country that we've been doing for the last week.

Yeah, so what you're seeing is many lawsuits now of people who are Americans or who are properly documented now suing ICE because the way they're pursuing this with their masks and just randomly going after people and racially profiling people is resulting in the wrong people being picked up.

And that's really what I find the most offensive about it.

I don't mind, obviously, the border being closed.

I've said that many times here.

I don't mind criminals being deported.

I think that's a great idea.

But I think we should look at the economics of this as well.

We're spending $30 billion on ICE now.

We've tripled the budget.

We're spending $100,000 to Moff per person deported.

Okay?

That's a large number.

If we simply find

that 79-year-old car wash owner $10,000 every time he hires

an illegal alien, this would stop.

There are much better ways to execute this.

And so I have to ask myself, what is the intent of this violence?

What is the intent of sending the National Guard in?

Is it actually a pure intent of wanting safety and security?

I don't believe

that's all that's at work here.

And then a follow-up question.

What do you think is the difference between Wesmore, the governor of Maryland, sending in state troops and Donald Trump, the president of the United States, sending in federal troops into a state to help diminish crime?

Yeah, it would be the Constitution and the United States of America, not

a federal government ruling over all 50 states.

The way this was set up by the founding fathers was that the states had rights.

And amongst those rights is the security of the people in that state.

It's a very rare situation.

So your issue, or not your issue, but your diagnosis would be what Westmore is doing is right.

JB should probably do that too.

I would even take it a little further.

I think actually the best thing to do if Trump is intent on saying, hey, the crime's out of control in San Francisco, which we all experienced.

And you guys continue to experience if you're in the city.

I don't live in the city.

I find that you don't even know.

But if people did go to the city, I think what I would do, if I was the governor, I say, you know what, we could use your help.

And we're going to call up the National Guard ourselves and we could use some help in these 17 locations.

We'd love to collaborate with you.

So it's not an outcome thing for you.

It's a procedural process that says it needs to go through a different pathway.

It's the violence and the cruelty of it that I object to.

And it's the inefficiency in terms of the cost of it.

I don't believe that mothers should be separated from

their children or their fathers should be separated from their children.

I don't believe it it should be done in a brutal way.

And it doesn't need to be.

It could very easily be done with other tactics.

And that is what I take great offense to is both of those things, the inefficiency of it.

And then also, I take offense to the derailing of the Trump 2.0 agenda, which I was in favor of.

And I will call balls and strikes.

When Trump tips back into those authoritarian tendencies, the Trump 1.0 agenda that I've talked about, I'm not in favor of that.

I don't like it.

I would much prefer to see us be compassionate to immigrants.

I would much rather see us take a softer hand and a path to these folks who've been here for 20 or 30 years.

I'd like to see a path to them to become citizens because I think this country was built by immigrants for immigrants.

And I believe we should continue that.

But it should be legal immigration.

And if people were here illegally because Republicans and Democrats who were super in favor of NAFTA wanted them here, we should take ownership of that and be kind and compassionate to them and give them a path.

If they're not criminals and if they pay their taxes, which almost universally they do, we should give them a path to citizenship.

All right.

Well, the first thing I want to do is point out that you mentioned that Doge was one of the most wonderful and popular things that President Trump did.

And I agree that it was a great thing that he did, basically trying to streamline the government and make it more efficient.

But it was not popular.

It had only a 35% approval rating while 57% disapproved.

Why is that?

Because the media pounded on Doge and Elon and turned him into a villain and tried to mischaracterize what he was trying to do and blamed him for every possible thing that was supposedly going wrong in the federal government.

So look, obviously the polling is not always a great indicator, even when it is accurate.

And I remember when Ann Seltzer told us that Trump was going to lose Iowa by 10.

So obviously these pollsters often have no idea what they're talking about.

In terms of the merits of this, you're completely ignoring the fact that there are lawless mobs who are the ones creating the violence, not our law enforcement officers, not ICE, not DHS.

In the city of downtown Portland, for example, you have literal Antifa terrorists who are extremely organized, they're aggressive, and they're well-funded.

This is not just some sort of ragtag bunch.

The White House uncovered a bunch of left-wing NGOs who are funding Antifa along with other leftist protest groups.

These NGOs have laundered over $100 million of our money to fund terrorist violence in our streets.

Antifa even has a safe house near the epicenter of the unrest in downtown Portland that local cops and local media know about, but nothing's being done.

And it's this group that has basically terrorized downtown Portland and led to violent assaults, not our law enforcement officers.

But when this violence breaks out because of Antifa, then the media blames.

the Trump administration for it.

So I'm not surprised that the polling reflects that because that's what the media does.

But look, the bottom line here is what is the policy that the Trump administration should pursue?

And previous administrations have pursued deportations, and so is the Trump administration.

I don't think you can have 10 to 15 million illegal immigrants allowed during the Biden years and then just say there's going to be an amnesty.

I mean, what are we supposed to do?

This situation was not created by Trump.

It was created by Biden.

They opened up the border.

There were holes in the border walls.

Millions of people streamed through.

They were bused all over the country.

Trump won on fixing that problem and deportations are part of the mandate.

Now he's doing it.

Can't just be a one-way ratchet.

When the Republicans are in power, they close the border.

And then when the Democrats are in power, they open it up, allow 10, 15 million illegals in, and then we can do nothing about it when we take power.

No, that's not the way this works.

There has to be a correction.

to what Biden did, which was outrageous.

And I remember plenty of liberals while that was going on, they were saying that the videos we saw on Fox News were cherry-picked.

They said that there was no real situation at the border.

We were gassing constantly about it.

Whereas every single person who actually visited the border said the same thing, that it was outrageous, that Biden had opened up the border, that people are streaming through.

They were running through.

And Trump won on a mandate of fixing this problem.

And now that he is fixing it, What we have people do is claim that he's the source of the violence.

No, Antifa and left-wing riders are the source of the violence.

You don't see this violence in red cities, and you don't even see it in the blue cities, which have offered to cooperate with Trump, like Memphis or like D.C.

So when you see cooperation from these cities, they are actually cleaning them up.

But in Chicago and in Portland, you have violent protesters, and that is the source of the problem.

And the media can blame it all on Trump as much as they want.

But fundamentally, that is what's going on.

Okay, let's move on to our next topic.

Anybody else?

I'm surprised as someone who normally supports law enforcement that you're not backing these guys up oh i support law enforcement i do not think they should um do it the way they're doing it it's the violence it's the cruelty that i object okay i don't mind people being held accountable for crossing the border i don't mind the deportations i do think how do you think it should be done jayco

yeah so a very simple method would be if you went to people who are employing and because the people who are here illegal are here to build a better life for their families and to live the American dream.

That's why they're here.

They're here to get a job and to have a better life for their children.

If they are working illegally, and so they're here, there's the most industrious people I've ever met in my life, immigrants, including the two of you.

Most industrious people are the immigrants.

We know that.

And so a very simple way to do this, if you wanted to do it without cruelty and without burning $100,000 per person is to go to where they're being employed.

And if you saw this terrible video of a 79-year-old man being tackled by two ICE agents and he's suing the government for $50 million, that's not the way to do it.

You go to that car wash.

You say, I'd like to see everybody's paper.

Everybody runs.

They show you the papers.

Whichever person is not actually employed there legally and who doesn't have their papers, you give a $10,000 fine.

And then you come back the next day and you give a $20,000 fine.

And if you did that, this would be...

incredibly effective and you wouldn't have the brutality you have.

Under no circumstances, and I've talked to many many of my relatives who are cops and many of my friends, they look at what ICE is doing and they see it as being unnecessarily brutal.

All you have to do is go to where they're working and give the fines and then round people up who are in fact criminals.

No problem with any gang members or any felons to be taken down.

And sometimes you have to do that with force, obviously, if they're criminals.

But for everybody else, we can do this compassionately and we can do it much more efficiently.

We could do it by just paying people to self-deport and we could increase that rate.

And actually, that actually has been working.

The story hasn't been told yet.

I think we'll see that in the statistics, that of the three or 400,000 people we wind up deporting, probably a third of them are going to be people who self-deported.

And we'll share those statistics here as we go.

But it's strictly the biological.

I'll just note that in D.C., D.C.

is the city where Trump was first able to basically get involved in trying to stop the crime because he was able to bring in the National Guard and everyone understands the feds run DC, so he has a free hand.

Have we seen any of the problems that we're talking about in D.C.?

No, we haven't.

It's calm.

People can go out at night.

They're going to restaurants again.

The citizens are happy.

Why?

Because the things you're talking about are the result of violent Antifa protests in Chicago and Portland.

Because the local politicians like J.B.

Pritzker have an incentive to blame everything on Trump, and they've been turning a blind eye to these local gangs who are creating all the problems.

Yeah, we're in a strong agreement that Antifa, and I'll add to it, the proud boys and oath keepers who brought tons of guns to the Capitol and

who ran January 6th.

I agree with you.

All of those radical organizations should be handled.

We're in strong agreement.

The fact that you're bringing up the non-sequitur of January 6th tells me that you've lost this debate.

I'm not looking to win a debate with you, Sax.

I'm not in the debate club, but you can win whatever debate you want.

I'm just giving my opinion.

But the more, and just to give a little nuance here, with the Doge thing, I agree that it was unpopular with the libs.

But what I was talking about was the moderates who won Trump the election this year, which you had a big part in, David.

You turned a lot of the moderates, you know, the fiscally conservative, but socially liberals in our community, the tech community.

You're directly responsible for that, I might argue, this podcast and you and Shamath and your support of Trump and the 2.0 agenda was a big part of him getting elected.

I've heard from people in and around the administration, they believe that that was a key part in their success this time.

So when I say that people were in support of Doge, I'm talking specifically about moderates and the people who backed the Trump 2.0 agenda.

Just to clean that up, I do agree with you that, yeah.

But you can roll your eyes.

Well, no, my point is...

I'm not trying to win a debate with you.

I'm just telling you my opinion.

Polls can give us interesting information, but they're also a snapshot in time.

And what really matters is the results of the policies.

And I think that if you look at D.C., hold on.

You look at D.C., just a couple of months ago, before Trump went in, the left was basically shrieking hysterically that it was authoritarian, that it was fascist, and so forth and so on.

They had all these arguments, it's going to be brutal to the population.

Trump goes in there, and it's worked amazingly well.

I will let you have a lot of people.

And frankly,

I don't think we should be abandoning the poor populations of these inner cities to the predatory crime that they've been subjected to for decades.

that their Democrat politicians have done absolutely nothing about.

Quite frankly, these cities are something like 90, 10 Democrat.

If we can just make them 75, 25,

then I don't think Republicans will lose elections anymore.

So I'm glad Trump is trying to do this.

We've seen these examples over and over again.

This is why Wes Moore is doing what he's doing.

Exactly.

I think the tactic works.

And I think, Jason, we are moving away from whether the tactic works or not to who is trying to frame themselves to take the credit.

And if you look at the Democratic path to the presidency, we've heard this before, but Wes is sort of at the front of the line.

And And I think he's seen that this is the right place to be on this point.

So I think it's like he doesn't want the success if it doesn't accrue to him.

That's why he sent in state troops in Maryland into all the hotspots.

I think what will be interesting is in three or four months from now, when we see the incremental crime stats data, and whether we see Wes wrap that up in a big bow and say, look what I did.

And I think if you do see that, then I think what you will have seen is a successful policy that was co-opted at the state level because they want to take the credit for it.

And you'll find an adequate number of journalists who will want to paint that as a, oh, wow, look at this invention that has happened.

But the artifact will be that Trump initiated and instigated it.

Now, if people copy it, that's a smart thing to do if it works.

Absolutely.

You cannot deny that

law and order is at the top of everybody's list in terms terms of just living a productive life.

All right, next up on the agenda, Bestie, Brad, you're going to love this one.

AMD and OpenAI just closed a massive GPU deal.

Could be worth $60 billion or more over the next five years.

Obviously, two companies are run by friends of the pod, Lisa from AMD and Sam from OpenAI, both been on the pod.

AMD stock rocketed up 35% since the announcement.

OpenAI committed to purchasing six gigawatts worth of AMD's next-gen GPUs.

A little bit of an interesting wrinkle here, AMD granted OpenAI warrants.

Okay, that's interesting for up to 160 million shares or 10% of the companies.

And with that massive increase in their stock price, Brad, I think this means that OpenAI is going to get a lot of GPUs essentially for free.

Big dialogue has started, Brad, around these round tripping, conflicted party transactions.

Is that how some people would describe them, specifically the SEC.

Do you have concerns about the

AI trade and the amount of circulation of shares, GPUs, and cash that's going on right now?

And I know you're in the thick of this.

Yeah, and maybe before we get into round tripping and circular revenues, which I do want to hit, I think it's super important that we talk about that.

Let's just break down the deal a little bit because there's a lot going on.

And I think it's important we put context around it.

So first, this is a bet the farm bet by Lisa Sue, right?

She's given away 10% of the company if the compute gets deployed.

She said a couple weeks ago, we're in year two of 10 of a compute build out across the country.

So, I have a couple of charts here.

Why would she make a bet the farm bet, Jason?

Right?

That's an important question.

Remember, NVIDIA just did a huge deal with OpenAI.

They didn't give away any of their company.

In fact, they got the right to buy part of OpenAI.

So, look at this chart.

This is pretty wild.

Just in 22,

in 2022, two and a half years ago, NVIDIA and AMD had basically the same revenue, $25 billion,

right?

This year, NVIDIA will do 10x that at roughly $210, $230 billion.

And AMD will do $33 billion, right?

Not much more than they were doing.

when the companies were tied in 2022.

So NVIDIA has captured nearly 100%

of the incremental AI data center revenues over the course of the last two and a half years.

And I think there's this notion that somehow NVIDIA just popped out this special AI chip.

But I think if you listen to gents and understand, study the company, it's because they have this ecosystem of software, networking, extreme co-design.

The unit of compute is no longer the chip, right?

It's the entire data center, which is composed of, you know, five to 10 different chips.

Performance per watt, right?

Power being the constrained resource here is everything.

And NVIDIA has just crushed the competition.

So now put yourself in the shoes of Lisa, right?

And she's clearly not on the wave.

This tsunami has come.

Jensen's riding it.

He's capturing 100% of the wave and she's not even yet on the wave.

Her MI350 was just not competitive.

And so they have one shot.

Either the MI450 gets adopted and they get back into the game.

Right.

Or or they're out.

She's a total warrior.

I think she believes in the 450.

She went to her board and she said, listen, this is, we got to take the shot here.

We got to bet the farm.

If it works, she's going to get 150 billion of incremental revenue just from OpenAI,

right, for building out five gigawatts.

And on top of that, of course, it could unlock a lot of the other market because now it will have validated that they have a chip that works.

But it's far from a done deal, far from a conclusion whether the 450 is going to work.

Can it compete against Vera Rubin?

Can it compete against against Ruben Ultra?

All super important questions.

So that's one, you know, that's the AMD deal.

Why have we switched from saying, oh, Colossus bought, you know, XAI's data center, 100,000 H100s, 200,000 H100s, to now framing these in gigawatts?

I think it's important for people to understand why that's now how deals are being framed.

Just in the last three months, this changed.

Yeah, I think there are a couple of constraining features.

Number one, chips change, right?

So 100,000 H100s is not, you know, is not apples for apples with the number of GB200s, you know, Grace Blackwell 200s or GB300s.

And so it's hard to talk about them.

You're comparing apples and oranges when you're comparing these data centers.

So a unifying metric of compare, right, is

the power that goes in.

Everything starts with the power.

It's the constrained resource.

So we can compare a gigawatt of power because it's, remember, it's power in and it's tokens out.

and we can compare that over time and normalize across all these different chips and it's not just these two companies you got tranium by amazon tpu by google surre cerebris rock etc there are a lot of folks in this game and so again i think what you saw this week in this flurry of announcements right is that you have the market leader that's basically captured 90 to 100% of the incremental demand for the biggest thing that the data center and the chip market has ever seen.

And every other player is looking at what they have to do to have a shot to capture part of this wave.

They're high risk, high reward bets.

The other thing I would say is, and again, shut me up and anybody can jump in if they want to, but I want to decompose.

We're hearing these estimates of 100 gigawatts, four to 5 trillion of build out over the course of the next four years.

If you look at that same chart I just showed you, that's not what Wall Street estimates are, right?

There is a lot of disbelief on Wall Street as to what's going to get built out.

So if you look at that estimate,

starting in 2027, it basically flatlines 27 through 29 for NVIDIA, right?

Less than 10% KAGR in terms of the growth for NVIDIA.

They have by 2029 them doing $360 billion in revenue compared to $210 billion of revenue this year.

To put it in gigawatt perspectives, that means going from four to five gigs per year in 25 to 9 gigs in 29.

That's a big step up, but a long way from the 100 gigawatts you were hearing bantered about on CNBC this week.

That's for a different reason.

Nick, put this quote up there, which is this famous quote from Nathan Rothschild, where he said, I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the empire on which the sun never sets.

The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.

Why is that quote so interesting as applied to AI?

I think that what you're going to see, and you're seeing it in those revenue graphs, is that there is a traffic jam that's happening in growth where it won't be the ability to actually build next-gen silicon,

but it'll be the energy inputs that will constrain it.

And it will be the ingredient inputs that constrain growth.

And so the companies that then control those elements of the supply chain will actually come into power and rise to power.

So, what is one example of this?

One example of this is when you look at the architecture of NVIDIA's chips, one of the things that they have made a huge bet on is HBM.

And this is a memory structure.

And what's so interesting about that is when you look at the HBM market, it is effectively NVIDIA

who takes up the majority, the majority, majority, and then Google.

And now AMD's next architecture actually needs to sit on top of HBM.

Now they're going to have to go and step into that supply chain and try to ask for share.

Where will that share come from?

And this is where the people that then control that supply, SK Hynix and Samsung, will have leverage.

Now, this is what's interesting about a deal that OpenAI announced two or three weeks ago.

Sam was in Korea, and you saw him shaking hands with SK Hynix and Samsung.

And my initial thought then was, why is OpenAI doing a deal with the memory maker?

And then it occurred to me, wow, he's buying forward capacity on HBM because now he can allocate that share.

So when I saw that deal and I saw that equity, it reminded me of this Rothschild quote.

Sam has allocation and now Sam can allocate allocation and then as a result, get a tax.

And I believe that the warrants and the equity are effectively that.

What's a different example?

Brad mentioned this before, but energy energy will be the gating item beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And so if you control electrons, any form of electrons, hydrocarbon to electron, electron to electron, photon to electron, doesn't matter, you will then be in a position to start asking for equity upside participation in these companies in a way that you could never do before.

You would just have been a linear member of the supply chain, a low margin participant.

So when I look at where we are, I think that the really interesting question now is to ask what is the second and third order degree inputs that are critical to allowing the big foundational model makers, to allowing NVIDIA, to allowing AMD, Broadcom to thrive.

And that is where I would start to look because those that control those resources are going to dictate the pace and the scale of this AI expansion.

Okay, coming around the horn here to you, our czar of AI, David Sachs.

When you see this massive amount of deal-making occurring, it's got to warm your heart a bit.

American exceptionalism at work here, people swinging for the fences.

What's your take on Brad and Chamat's overview of where we're at here in the fall of 2025 in the AI race?

Yeah, I don't really like to take sides on these deals for the obvious reason that we want to be supportive of everybody and just have a healthy environment for competition.

So as long as there's investment going on and as long as there's a lot of competition, those are good things.

That's what we want to see.

So I tend to think this OpenAI AMD deal is evidence of that.

There was the OpenAI NVIDIA deal.

There was the NVIDIA XAI deal.

There's just a ton of investment going on and that's what we want to see.

So that's all really good news.

I was struck by Brad's chart about NVIDIA's revenue in the out years.

The amount of CapEx or investment that's going to go into data centers and compute more than a few years from now, I think that's really hard to predict.

Impossible, right?

Yeah.

Very hard.

Because on the demand side of the compute, it's going to depend on new applications that get created.

So for example, the demand for tokens depends not just on AI chatbots, but on the new agents that are coming along.

You have these new video generation models, Sora, now XAI has just released something.

So we don't really know what the demand for tokens is going to be.

I think it's going to be huge.

I think there's a lot of applications that haven't even been invented yet, are in the very early stages, are going to drive demand.

And it's a little bit like in the early days of the internet, we had this dot-com bubble where everyone thought there had been too much fiber built out.

And then all the fiber ended up being used because, you know, social networking came along, Facebook came along, YouTube came along.

When all that original fiber in the 90s was built out, they didn't even know that photos and videos were going to be a thing.

So the bandwidth eventually all got used up.

I think in a similar way, all of the compute will eventually get used up by new applications.

I guess the thing we don't know is how much more efficient will the infrastructure get at producing these tokens.

So that would be the offsetting factor is the chips are getting so much better.

I mean, we're moving faster than Moore's Law here.

Every year, NVIDIA is releasing a new generation of chips, and it's doing inference at multiple times.

the efficiency of the previous year on, I guess, a token per watt basis or whatever you want to measure it.

So that's an offsetting factor.

And then there could be

more efficiencies created in the model architectures with sparser architectures.

So those will be offsetting factors is all the efficiencies we get.

But then you have to, you know, if I'm kind of arguing with myself, then you've got the Jevons paradox, which is as the cost per token comes down more and more, that's going to enable AI to be used in more and more contexts where previously it wasn't economically efficient.

Now it will be.

So that's going to fuel the demand.

I mean, David,

David, I think it's a huge boom.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Your point is a good, your point is a great one.

Everybody's looking for the bubble, right?

We've got this pattern recognition.

Everybody's like, what?

It's dark fiber.

It's got to be dark fiber.

There's no way that you can 10x your revenues at NVIDIA without it being a bubble.

But the reality today is NVIDIA trades at a lower price to earnings multiple than it did when it was $200 a share.

Think about what the term dark fiber means.

We were laying fiber in the ground that remained dark.

We did not have the demand for the fiber.

There is not a dark GPU in the world today.

There's not going to be a dark GPU in the world next year.

Wait, there's no dark GPUs.

I don't think that's the question.

I think the question is, what is the ROI

on input and output tokens per use case?

What is the ROI of a random use of a model?

And I think that that is a very good question.

How many of those tokens are generally gross margin negative?

How many of those are unprofitable?

How many of those are profitable?

And I think that's what they're trying to ask when they ask that question.

They may just not know the technical intricacies to ask it that way.

But I think that's what people are trying to debate when they're trying to guess.

And I don't think we totally yet know.

And just two things I wanted to add here.

There are other solutions which have not yet hit the ground.

I mentioned BitTensor.

I think it's an open source project that's worth looking into.

I started a little fund of my own with my own capital to start exploring this because there are going to be other solutions that come to fill all of this Jevons paradox that's happening.

Chamap, your thoughts.

Well, I think the thing to remember is token generation is this very complicated quadratic that just consumes a ton of power.

Yeah.

And there really is no way

to ignore the fact that even with more complicated capabilities, The models are becoming much more complicated.

These context windows are getting longer or bigger.

And so I just think that we are in this massive, massive capital race.

And unfortunately, I think what that will create is the need for all of these other things.

Like, for example, there may be architectures where you just have to use SRAM because you can't get HBM.

I don't think we know what that does to a whole bunch of these use cases today because it may just be completely unperforming.

Separately, I think Meta was the one that published this.

There's a big disconnect right now in the market around the failure rates of certain classes of hardware.

And not at the chip level, because at the chip level, these things are really performant.

But at the server, rack, system level, these things are failing nine to 20% of the time.

That's very complicated.

How do you deal with all of that?

And how do you deal with these cascading failures?

All these things, because we are pushing the boundaries of physics, we're at two and three nanometer scale.

Yields are good, not great.

All of these things, I think, have to get worked up.

And that's what makes it such a great opportunity.

It's so exciting, I think, Brad.

Let's talk about the TAM.

I've been working a bit on what is the TAM of this.

And in the modern developed world, what we used to call the first world, you got about 500 million business users.

They spend, on average, Brad, about $3,000 on SaaS products.

So if you were to just put those numbers together, it gets pretty large pretty quick.

trillions of dollars in revenue for those users.

And if you look at consumers, and just to use an analogy, maybe Brad, I think that I'm interested if you think this is a valid one.

Consumers pay for, you know, Netflix and Disney Plus, whatever it is,

probably a couple hundred dollars a year.

So then you have a billion users in the developed world.

I'm not counting frontier markets and the developing world.

We're talking about a TAM that's going to be a couple of trillion dollars a year, I think you would agree.

So the build out.

of a trillion dollars doesn't seem as farcical if that is in fact the prize.

And I think I've set the TAM very quickly.

Hold on, it's not a trillion.

That's just the capex.

Then you have to think of what the OPEX is.

The OPEX is probably the same multiplied by the useful life, which is probably 20 years.

So if you think there's a billion of CapEx going in, you have to expect that there's

tens of CapEx.

Sorry, a trillion of CapEx going in.

There's tens of trillions of OPEX over the useful life of all of this stuff.

Upgrade cycles, people, power, water.

So it's a much bigger spend than we think.

So we have to be careful that we're not underestimating, frankly.

Absolutely.

And then there's what the life of these are, right, Brad?

Like, what is the use for like Core Weave?

These things last four years.

Well, they underwrite to six.

They underwrite to six.

They're at six.

Other people are saying four.

So that seems a little challenged, too.

Here's a rule of thumb is that each gigawatt data center is about $50 billion of investment, roughly, between the chips, the land, power, shell.

It's about 50 billion per gigawatt.

And you have, you know, OpenAI, I think that's right.

Elon, they're talking about scaling to 10 gigawatt data centers.

That's a $500 billion investment.

I think that's right.

Per data center, if it gets that big.

I mean, to be clear, they're still working on the one gigawatt data centers, but from there, they're going to go to two or three gigawatts next year.

And then from there, probably to five over the next couple of years.

So you could get to a 10 gigawatt in, I don't know, probably five years, something like that.

Brad's kind of convinced me that we should all be taking the over on this as he usually does.

Welcome home, Brad.

We We appreciate you.

When I think about NVIDIA's market, I think the big question to me is: so I would bet the over on demand because I think that it's very hard to underwrite demand for applications that don't exist yet, but I'm confident they will be there.

The thing I don't know about their business is whether the GPU market bifurcates between training and inference.

I think everyone understands that NVIDIA has by far the best training chips, but there's a lot of competitors, including Jamathi or company Grok,

and there's Cerebris, and obviously AMD wants to compete.

And then obviously Huawei is kind of a wild card there.

We can talk about that.

And then obviously I should mention all the ASICs that the big AI companies are doing.

So yeah, using Broadcom IP, you've got the Google TPUs and, you know, Brad, you mentioned Tranium, which is Amazon's chip.

And I think OpenAI wants to develop their own chip.

So I think the question is, given that inference will be 99% of the market and training is only 1%,

could NVIDIA be in a situation where they've got training locked up?

But when it comes to inference, there's just a lot of other alternatives because people have developed cheaper inference chips.

I'm not saying that's going to happen.

To me, that would be the big question.

Well, I mean, listen.

You know, I think first, I go back to the point you made.

We're at this critical juncture in a global AI race.

And we should all be celebrating the fact that there is this level of investment going on in the United States.

This is the definition of creative destruction.

It won't all work.

But the risk capital, the entrepreneurial boldness of Sam and NVIDIA and Lisa, this is what's going to keep us ahead in the global AI race.

None of this would be happening if Washington had not unlocked power.

Jensen said this on my podcast, or our podcast last week, you know, on this, we've unlocked power, we've unlocked capital.

People are now able to underwrite to these deals.

So first, I just think that this is incredible.

We have this level of competition.

In terms of NVIDIA's ability to stay ahead of everybody else, listen, I think at the end of the day, it's power in and it's tokens out.

It's perf per watt.

I've talked to many CFOs of hyperscalers and they said you could price the competitor chips at zero.

Jensen said this publicly many times, price the competitor chips at zero, and it's still more effective and an economic decision to choose NVIDIA.

And I think that's what it comes down to.

They have to be at perf per watt because power is the constrained resource, going back to what Jamas said.

Okay, I want you to just give me a number, Brad.

The total TAM of this in five years, what's the in the modern world?

What's the spend going to be?

Just think about that for a second.

Jason, I think you made a great point about total TAM.

We see about $100 billion already in incremental generative AI revenue in 2026.

That has to grow to well over a trillion by 2030.

If you look at it on a top-downs basis, $125 trillion global GDP, if you get a 10% improvement in productivity, that's $12 trillion a year of productivity improvements.

If you get a 5%, that's $5 or $6 trillion.

That's what's leading MASA and Sam and others to place these heroic bets.

Okay, great.

We just have to lightning round this.

Here is the

round-tripping discussion that people are obsessed with.

NVIDIA at the center of this, a $4.5 trillion company, largest company in the world.

And as you can see here, between XAI, OpenAI making language models, AMD, Intel, Core Weave, standing up data centers,

and so many other companies.

Oracle's obviously in the mix with their cloud, Google with their cloud, Gemini, they have their own chips as well.

What do we take away from

what we all saw?

Tramath and I are close and personal with AOL and their partnerships.

And I guess I'll start with you here, Tramath.

Is this analogous to the round-tripping we saw in the dot-com era?

Are these conflicted party transactions concerning to you at any level?

Is CNBC and everybody hand-wringing about this over their skis?

Or is it a legitimate concern?

I'm not sure that they're framing the concern properly.

There are a lot of industries where these things are

standard practice and well accepted.

One example that was explained to me this week was how the auto OEMs dealt with car dealers, their car dealer networks, where you would give what's called a floor loan, where if you're trying to sell a Ford F-150, you give your dealership a loan.

They then buy the car, it pulls forward the revenue for Ford, then the dealer goes and sells the car to you, and they take the ARB and they pay the financing cost.

So this kind of stuff has been well established for a long time.

So I think what I would rather ask is, where is the PCAOB expert that says this is not good?

I just think that these are too complicated for me to understand.

They get into the vagaries of accounting law, but I suspect that these companies are

well

advised.

And I think that there are other industries that have been doing it for many years.

And I think that if there was a real issue, it would have been exposed much sooner, quite honestly.

You say PCAOB, public company accounting oversight board.

Yeah.

I mean, I just think there's just, and by the way, there's all the quarterly regulatory filings that are required, all the Sarbox compliance that's required, the umpteen numbers of auditors that are looking at these things.

I think it does come down to the fact that there are many industries that use this forward flow agreements, if you want to call it, factoring flowing agreements, if you want to call it that.

And I just think that it's newer in our industry, but it's important to acknowledge that it's very well established in many other legacy industries.

And there's a lot of it all of a sudden.

So I guess, Brad, the uniqueness to our industry is one piece, or I'll give it to you, Sax.

The uniqueness to our industry is one piece.

And the number of these is just making making people's heads spin a little bit and makes their mind wander.

But conflicted party transactions have to be very well documented, you know, in SEC filings, et cetera.

And these are largely public companies.

But go ahead, Sax.

Well, look, these companies all have lots of very expensive lawyers and accountants.

So I'm sure that from a gap standpoint or security standpoint or compliance standpoint, what they're doing is fine.

Now, when people talk about round tripping, if you want to talk about the spirit of it, the underlying concept behind it, I think what it comes down to is that NVIDIA is effectively extending credit to its buyers.

Why do they need credit?

Because this build out is so capital-intensive.

I mean,

every model is quadratic.

It gets worse.

They're all running around the world looking for capital.

There was a photo of Sam the other day.

I forgot what country he was in.

Might have been UAE or Saudi or something.

In any event, they're all looking for as much capital as they can get to fund this build out.

And in certain cases, obviously, NVIDIA is extending effectively credit in exchange for equity or whatever it may be.

And I think the question you have to ask is simply,

are these companies that are on the receiving end of this credit effectively credit worthy?

In other words, will this investment yield economically viable results, right?

Because if let's say NVIDIA extends credit to OpenAI and then OpenAI then buys chips from NVIDIA, NVIDIA recognizes that as revenue.

The question is, is there economic substance to that?

Or is it basically a shell transaction?

and my my view on it is that there is substance to the transaction because there is downstream demand for ai and the applications that are eventually going to get built and for the apis that are being put out there for basically the tokens that are being generated i mean brad will have the exact numbers but i think open ai's revenue ramp rate is it's something like 5 billion to 25 billion to 100 billion brad what you can you tell us the years on that i mean well i don't want to get over my disk about what's been disclosed but i think Rumor

has been

this year at over 20 billion run rate.

I think there are a lot of people who think they could hit 50 next year and 100 after that.

So this, again, gets back to your point, David.

There's no dark GPUs in the world today.

The tokens are being consumed.

Every consumer in the world wants answers.

They don't want to use 10 blue links.

Every enterprise wants to deploy this to make their enterprise better.

National sovereigns want to do this in order to advance their military and other things.

I want to come back to this very point.

We should be on the lookout for sham transactions.

When you have moments of excitement like this, they, of course, will lead to somebody on the edge doing stuff that is a sham.

What's a sham?

There's no economic substance.

There's no end buyer for your product.

So I call up Sachs.

I say, Sachs, I've got a bunch of inventory.

Nobody wants to buy it.

I'm going to wire you a billion dollars, buy a billion dollars of my product.

I'll post it to revenue and we're good to go.

It doesn't cost him anything, and I get to book a billion in revenue.

Clearly a sham, clearly illegal.

Not at all what's occurring in the case with NVIDIA.

Just put it in perspective.

25 through 27, NVIDIA will generate $450 billion, half a trillion dollars of cash flow.

What they're investing is mice nuts.

They are making equity investments in companies that are mice nuts.

It's not credit to these companies.

The companies don't, in the case of OpenAI, they don't even have to use NVIDIA chips.

They just told the world they were going to buy all this AMD, right?

They're rumored to be building their own chips.

So the point of the matter here is, of course, it lubricates the system by making these investments, but they're tiny equity checks in these companies.

I think about it this way.

You know, Google Capital is one of the biggest investors in Duolingo.

Duolingo is one of the biggest advertisers on Google.

Nobody's crying foul that Google is somehow round-tripping revenue back into, you know, Google advertising.

Right.

So long as there is in demand for the product and it's not a sham, I think these things are fine.

All right.

I think we'll leave it there.

There's going to be a lot more news on this.

But people love the picture of the plug plugging itself into its butt.

Or the or there's another one of a power strip plugged into the power strip.

Nick, can you find the plug plug?

The elephant.

Yeah, that's it.

Oh, there it is.

That's what we're talking about.

Yes.

Somehow, I don't think the on-off switch is going to make a difference here.

By the way, whenever I see this, I think, is it dangerous to do that?

And then I remember, no, there's actually no electricity or current.

No, it's not.

I think that could, but I always think that it is anyways.

I mean,

I think the concern we'll have is if there's a downdraft, and right now they're saying, hey, 10 to 30% of a correction the next year is, you know, what people are buzzing about.

And I guess it's always some percentage of a correction.

If there's a correction, some stocks go down, the tide goes out.

Then we figure out who has a sustainable business and who's wearing shorts and who's not.

And that's what happened exactly in the dot-com bubble.

The tide went out.

Amazon had enough revenue to continue.

Other people did.

And some people, maybe

they were caught with no shorts in the ocean.

Whenever you have a boom like this, there's obviously going to be winners and losers.

And there's going to be a lot of losers.

But the question is whether the winners will pay off the losers.

That's what venture capital requires.

But I just think it's amazing how much of a boom is going on.

And I think Brad's made the argument that it hasn't even peaked yet.

40% of U.S.

GDP growth this year is AI.

And AI companies have accounted for 80% of the gain in U.S.

stocks this year.

I know a lot of people are wringing their hands and pointing to this as like evidence that somehow we're in a bubble.

But to me, it's a wonderful thing that the U.S.

is on the forefront of building out this technological revolution and building out all of this infrastructure.

And I think it's ultimately going to pay huge dividends.

And we just need to not screw it up.

Yeah.

And there's just so many people who, I mean, to be honest, just want to screw this up with excessive regulation at the state level, excessive regulation at the federal level.

They want the bureaucracies in Washington manage and approve everything.

If we go down that path, we could sabotage this.

If we just allow it to happen, if we allow the innovators to do what they do best, I think this is going to drive 4% or 5% GDP growth for the next few years.

It'll be a really wonderful thing.

I mean, it's a great place to wrap.

And if only we had somebody who had decades of experience and had a really logical bent to them about free markets who could advise our president, we would be in great shape.

Oh, wait, that's you, Sachs.

Good job.

All right, right, everybody.

Gold rally is off the charts.

Shout out to our friend Vinnie Langham, who told us about this from the last year or two.

Geez, it just broke 4,000 for the first time ever this week, up over 50% for the year.

Gold's outpacing Bitcoin, which is up 30% itself, and all the other major indices.

NASDAQ's up 19% in the same time period, SP 14 Dow, 9%.

Silver is surging even more than gold.

There might be some utilization reasons for that.

Silver gets used in a lot of different components, whereas gold very rarely does.

At the same time, the U.S.

dollar down 8% year to date.

Here's a chart from our friends over at Visual Capitalist about gold versus U.S.

Treasury, something we talked about here, U.S.

Treasuries.

Chamatha, you want to take this and then we'll go to Brad?

What are we seeing here with gold?

Is this like a safety trade?

Is this an anti-USD trade?

What's behind this?

Too much money supply?

What's happening?

No, this is just people confusing correlation and causation and making stuff up to look smart.

Why is gold up?

Gold is up because there are many more net new buyers.

Who is the most important net new buyer?

It's Tether.

Tether has been issuing a stable coin called Tether Gold, where they will actually custody the gold on your behalf.

And it's the amount and volumes of it.

are rising.

At the same time, central banks are rebalancing.

And then yet at the same time, you have a lot of macro funds that have essentially essentially decided that central banks aren't to be trusted and they don't know what to do.

And so they're not necessarily long bonds, and they're not necessarily long currencies.

And so they're long

gold.

So I think it's a mixture of things.

There's no panacea explanation.

But if you had to put it into a couple buckets, it's net new speculation, net new stablecoin-related issuance, and a loss of confidence in central bank policy around the world.

Aaron Trevor Brandon, and this is, in some ways, a good backstop, Brad, for governments maybe to stop spending and maybe a little austerity.

You called austerity in the tech industry in 2021.

Thanks for that.

I bought a bunch of stocks that went all in on Facebook and a bunch of other ones when you were talking about this.

So also China seems to be flipping into gold too.

I've been reading about that.

So what's your take, Brad?

Yeah, I mean, listen,

there's one camp that says this is all because the world's falling apart and we're all panicked about global governments, balance sheets.

I think that's part of it, but I think Chamath nailed it, right?

You got a total change in the new demand picture for gold, right?

As evidenced by,

you know, we have a Bitcoin of gold, BTC, you know, Bitcoin, but we also have it in the form of tether, right?

You're now going to allow people to have exposure to the actual underlying gold by buying a crypto asset.

So you have new demand for it.

You do have people concerned about the state of the world, but it's always been a speculative asset plus a store of value, right?

And I've got a couple of charts here.

You can throw them up if you want.

One is simply looking at the correlation with the S ⁇ P 500 over the last 10 years, and the other one's looking at it with U.S.

debt.

And it's probably chart crime.

I'll go back to what Chamas said.

I can make up any story I want to make.

It tracks the growth in U.S.

debt.

It tracks the growth in risk assets in the S ⁇ P 500.

The fact of the matter is it's a combination of all of these things.

And hats off to the people who are up 50% this year on gold.

All right.

Is that simple?

Sachs, anything you want to add?

There is one other big factor.

I mean, maybe Jamath mentioned this, but China's central bank has been increasing its gold reserves for 11 consecutive months.

They added 40,000 ounces in September alone.

As of the end of September, China's gold reserves totaled 74 million ounces valued at 283 billion.

So they've been gradually substituting away from U.S.

dollars and U.S.

treasuries towards gold.

And, you know, some of this is geopolitical.

China is our chief competitor in the world.

They probably don't want to be dependent on the dollar and U.S.

treasury, so they're diversifying away.

Also, you can't forget that this trend really started during the Biden administration with the Ukraine war, because the Biden administration used the U.S.

dollar as basically a geopolitical weapon.

They cut off access to SWIFT, they froze Russian assets and the banking system.

And so a lot of countries looked at that and go, oh, geez, you know, if I am totally reliant on the U.S.

dollar complex, then I can be on the receiving end of U.S.

foreign policy that I don't like.

And so it was, I think, pretty natural that the BRICS countries would look at that and start to develop alternatives.

And just, by the way, when the BRICS talk about this currency that they're going to develop, they're not talking about a man on the street type of currency.

The best guess about what they're going to do is it'll be some sort of gold-backed

certificates where they can settle up huge international trade flows using gold certificates.

So that might be part of what's what's driving this as well.

That's a very long-term project by the BRICS countries.

I don't think we're going to see anything in the next few years.

And that's, Sachs, their way of sending a message to the U.S.

Hey, don't use USD to yank our chain.

Yeah.

Is that your interpretation?

Well, I don't know if they're trying to send the message or they just don't want to take that risk.

Right.

They understand that if they're part of the U.S.

dollar complex, then they can be affected by things like cutting off SWIFT, by sanctions, by banking sanctions.

Their assets, in theory, could be seized and so forth and so on.

So obviously they're going to try and reduce the possibility of that externality.

Yeah, makes total sense.

All right, let's wrap on Polymarket.

My guy, Shane, friend of the pod, announced that the New York Stock Exchange parent company, ICE, a different ICE intercontinental exchange, had invested $2 billion at a $9 billion post or somewhere in that range.

They will now distribute polymarket's data to thousands of financial institutions globally.

And it looks like Polymarket will be launched in the U.S.

imminently.

There's actually a polymarket for polymarket being available in the U.S.

for trades.

Polymarket was only founded in 2020.

They were valued at $350 million last year before the election.

and $1.2 billion earlier this year.

Founders Fund made a nice investment that turned out to be a pretty great trade.

98% chance now that Polymarket will go live in the U.S.

in 2025.

I think that's found money right there.

I mean, place a bet there.

Shamath, your thoughts on this new category and why it's so important

for it to exist.

I talked to Jeff Sprecher the day he did the investment just to congratulate him.

One of the things that he said, which I think is true, everything is becoming a market.

And you're going to see this convergence where eventually you'll have sports that look like markets.

You'll have knowledge that becomes a market.

And then you'll ultimately have equities and debt instruments also behave this way, meaning they'll be tokenized, they'll be very fungible.

You can just take a long or short position on almost anything.

And so I think you're going to see this convergence.

What does it mean?

I don't know, but it puts a lot of really interesting assets.

under the microscope.

If you built like a high-frequency trading organization, what does it mean when all of a sudden some crypto pool shows up and it can do HFT HFT much faster than you and basically chops the cost to zero because you don't have an infrastructure and a corporate org?

What is it going to mean to the betting sites like FanDuel and DraftKings, where now a bunch of these trades can happen here as well?

So I think what Shane is leading the charge on is democratizing this and financializing all this infrastructure to run extremely liquidly via tokens effectively on chains.

And I think that that is a huge deal, broadly speaking.

Yeah, I'm loving this for the Oscars when I was just thinking, wow, if you're a movie studio and you're releasing a film and you, if these markets become big enough, you could hedge your bet on your own film.

I mean, this could have

profound impacts on every industry.

Yeah, Brad?

How do you think about it as somebody who trades?

I just love the fact we now professionalize the wisdom of the crowds.

I mean, we've known for 150 years that crowds are smarter than experts.

And all these people hanging out in ivory towers controlling the conversation now the those emperors have no clothes right the reality is i think it was this guy francis galton who coined the phrase 1907 he got a group of 800 farmers together they had to guess the weight of an ox and then he had five experts and guess what the crowd got a got a lot closer than the experts to the weight of the ox and here we are 150 years later and you're going to have you know very very big companies right that are now taking it to the next level creating liquidity and when people put money on something the crowd gets even smarter.

So it's a, you know, kudos to you guys.

You really, your partnership with them, you've taken them to a higher level.

And it's awesome to see.

Well, just a great

lesson for entrepreneurs.

There was a website in trade.

I don't know if you guys remember that from like the early 2000s into like the 2010 that was doing this.

They had regulatory issues, but the idea was out there and people just didn't go all in on it, so to speak.

And here we are, Shane has crushed it.

Another amazing, respectful,

fascinating, insightful episode of the podcast.

Welcome home, Fifth Bestie, Brad Gerstner.

Go check out his other pod, BG2.

Great to have Brad back in the mix.

It's great to be chopping it up with you.

We have to get Brad and Friedberg on the same pod.

Oh, yeah.

Let's do it.

What do people prefer?

A science corner or a market corner?

Oh, you're

all even.

Tell us in the comments.

Tell us in the comments.

I will allocate my two votes, I can tell you.

Wow.

Freeberg taking astray.

He's not even here.

No, you're just, he's wondering out loud.

Science corner.

I mean, maybe there's an asteroid coming, or we could talk about the markets and have great charts.

I don't know.

Anything's possible on the worlds.

Number one podcast, your favorite, your podcaster's favorite podcast, the all-in pod.

We'll see you all very soon.

Allin.com.

Sign up for an email and get special information.

Congratulations on all your success, Jason.

Congratulations.

What success are we talking about here?

Congratulations.

On behalf of the Trump administration, congratulations.

Oh, thank you.

Well, I have a lot of people.

Congrats on your Trump-driven success.

Congratulations.

Absolutely.

Yes.

And Trump 2.0.

What else can we do for you?

Well, yeah, I want to bring that up.

What other stocks can we

have for you?

Actually, I do have one thing.

Do you talk about accreditation laws?

That would be a big problem.

What are the relatives you'd like to loop into this conversation?

What other people would you like to do?

I call balls and strikes here.

It's a very important role here to have a notice.

You know what I've noticed?

The man of steel is here.

The people that constantly say they call balls and strikes are never the ones that call balls and strikes.

I got my eyes on your balls, Jamon.

Don't listen to what they say.

Just look at what they do.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Welcome to Texas.

Come by the ranch anytime.

Welcome to Texas.

Exactly.

I have the great state of Texas.

How's that ranch tree?

It's so great.

I carry a pistol on my waist.

It's incredible.

This place is great.

You're welcome.

To quote Jack Nicholson and a few good men,

you live under the security blanket that we provide, and then you question the manner in which we provide it.

Absolutely.

That's called checks and balances.

To our amazing panel, great job.

And to our civil servant, David Sachs, get back to work for the American people.

You're doing a great job.

Give me a bus.

I love you, Bless.

Besties.

Bye-bye.

We'll let your winners ride.

Brain Man David Sachs.

And it said, we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it.

Love you.

I'm the queen of Kinwa.

That is my dog taking a notice in your driveway.

We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orange because they're all just useless.

It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release somehow.

I'm going all in.