0:00Agents are an existential risk to Door Dash because their number three competitor is Nobody. All these app platforms have a risk of slight disruption from agents. They we have Open AI's big fundrais. Trillion price down from 1.4. Then we have the AI trade hitting a wall.
0:15Alphabet w $500 billion off the market cap overnight. Intel falling 29%. Then we have Door Dash buying Instacart for 17 billion. This and so much more in the show today. Calry is a money deal. If you want revenue velocity right now, nothing gives you revenue velocity like inference. Physical intelligence company with relatively little revenue is worth 20 billion. Dropbox company with billions of revenue ain't worth a lot.
0:39It just shows revenue muzzles don't get you anywhere, right? It's all about the future.
0:43Ready to go, boys. We are back. Luckily, there has been a huge amount happening in the last 7 days. So, let's start with OpenAI. Its valuation got cut from 1.4 trillion to 1.25 trillion and the round reduced from 30 billion to 20 billion with only about
1:1111 billion committed. As a result, everyone is going, "Oh no, this is further examples of the AI wave cracking."
1:21How do we think about that? I would dispense with the whole AI wave cracking narrative. I think people are trying to extrapolate their, you know, desires, wishes, whatever, prejudice, biases on the story. It's as simple as the other companies bigger, growing faster, profitable, and about to go public so you can buy it liquid at 1.5 to 2 trillion. What would you pay for the smaller company growing less quickly, still losing money that's illquid?
1:47Answer less than 1.5 trillion. How much less? Well, that's what they're figuring out. So it's it's it's utterly not surprising. It's it is as simple as that. No projection about AI, positively or negatively, just those two securities are going to be sold in the next two months. And which one do you want to buy?
2:02But Jason told me last week that it was the most underappreciated.
2:06I think it is. It just may maybe it needs to drop a little more.
2:11Well, don't forget, listen, there's going to be bumps, right? Um and you know, broadly what we call AI stocks fell 5 trillion last week, right? Now, maybe this AI round was the week or two before that. There there's obviously a temporal gap, but when we're seeing this level of volatility, and listen, I'm surprised that folks didn't talk more about it. I mean, Anthropic had a down quarter from net new revenue. It was down in in this last quarter in terms of net new bookings over Q2. Um, there should be some some nervousness. Um, maybe it would fill up at a trillion.
2:41Maybe I'm glad we didn't put in our bid until the end, Harry. Maybe maybe this the second trunch will be lower than the first. It makes sense. There should be a little bit of wobbling at the moment.
2:48The stock market's down. We could argue, maybe Rory will challenge me. We can argue that Anthropics last quarter wasn't wasn't uh quite as crazy as some folks might thought. There there should be wobbliness. Um and maybe it doesn't matter. It matters where it'll be in 12 to 18 months. Um but it it makes sense there's wobbliness. There's wobbliness in the debt markets. Coreeave debt is paying 15%. That's wobbliness. There's there's there's just broadcom having I know Rory didn't kind of kind of took me to task on this last week, but Broadcom having to guarantee Anthropics debt is a
3:17little wobbly. It's just it's just wobbly and and IPOs are always thin and wobbly like they no matter how many times we say they they get oversubscribed 20x so many of them are just a little wobbly going into it. I think all those things are true. I think it is there's a lot of the way I think of it there's a lot of kind of pushing shoving there's a lot of price discovery risk discovery going on on the supply side of the AI trade you know what price do you need to be paid to lend money to coreweave what price do you need to pay
3:46to buy open AI in the private markets when you get in the public markets right all that I agree to all that stuff is going on and I think you know when you go from assumed euphoria regardless to tempered euphoria there's this kind of crisis recovery process on the way and I think so I think it's fair Jason those things are all true as I say my point is merely if the other side of the equation the demand side holds up all these things will be you know forgotten in 6 months and if there's a problem on the demand side on the growth side then all these
4:16things will be you know straws in the wind of a very significant change that's my point is so when you zoom out to what matters if the demand for AI is anything like some of the bulls would say then let's let's talk about the core weave bonds because everyone's like oh my god the bonds are going to If the demand for AI is as strong as people think, then everyone's going to need every damn computer, GPU, and data center they want and those bonds will be money good because someone will buy the damn company, right? There's just no risk of that, right? If the demand is not there,
4:45then the first person who's going to suffer when the demand is not there, it's not going to be Google or Amazon who have a big ass balance sheet. It's going to be the guys like Core Weeave and that's where the problem will come and that's why there's some risk in it. So that's all that's going on. You mentioned price discovery. It was a it was a tough week for Alphabet or Google.
5:03Um falling about 12% which is you know the most significant drop in a decade. Um Google Cloud doubled to an insane number. It doubled to like 130 billion growing 103%. But search did slow to 12%. Free cash flow was negative.
5:22Unusual when looking at Google. Is this just another element of price discovery?
5:27Again, it's on the search side. It's been true for two or three years that there's probably going to be some element of cannibalization of search and you know, it still grew um pretty nicely. I think it grew 12% or so, but there's some uncarch. But there I think there was combination of search angst and general angst, right? And c and capex angst. So nothing more than that.
5:43But it been so funny to watch the last two or three years as a you know, we've gone from Google is dumb as rocks and Satia is a genius to then you fast forward, oh my god, Google is the most amazing company ever. Poor dumb Satra, he missed the boat. And now this is a switch back to oh maybe you know maybe the things that we're worry about are about Google are still true which is you know search cannibalization and exactly but you know to be fair to your point the growth is there. These guys are saying they can they can sell compute as fast as they can make it and that's the
6:13number one thing and that's where the growth's coming from.
6:15I just think we're in a listen I I think we we are um understandably in just in a nervous period. Yeah. I mean it's I I think it's at a $120 billion rent rate growing to 100%. Right. That's about as good as it gets for the the folks in the cloud cloud group should feel pretty proud of themselves. Um I just think um when any metric comes up short, I mean Shopify just fell 15% as we're discussing this, right? Because they came up a smidge short even though they raised guidance for the next quarter.
6:41Just everyone's just nervous AF, right?
6:45They're just nervous AF. And I I think it I think it's appropriate. I think that the anthropic IPO is going to suffer for it. Um I think there's evidence of substantial pricing pressure. There's evidence that, you know, as dominant as they are, it might be not quite as dominant as there is.
6:59And I just think it's it's it's it's okay. There's going to be these squiggles going here as most things still hopefully go up and to the right until we can distribute out to our LPs.
7:08What do you think Anthropic is going to suffer for? You mean that the consumer excitement won't be there? You think that they won't have the pop that they could have? Like what does that mean?
7:16I think folks are just going to be nervous about a deceleration in in quarterover- quarter growth. And I think they're going to be nervous over pricing pressure. Look, it's hard to process everything out of a out of out of the S1A, the quarterly amendment, but it sure appear. I mean, OpenAI is basically running around selling somewhat equivalent products for 30% off. We can discuss how much CISOs want China based openweight models there, but they're putting pricing pressure. Jev's putting pricing pressure and it and the latest models are effectively cheaper. It's
7:46just it's just it's just you have to have so much momentum to overcome a certain amount of pricing pressure and deflation. I just think the numbers suggest some some nervousness in it, right? That quarter over-arter growth uh is slowing. And what does that mean? Um and how much nervousness does it create?
8:02And it's worth pointing out the numbers in very precise terms because the funny thing is even after we point them out, people can still disagree, right? What it means, but at least let's get I mean rough and tough in Q1 and I'm using gap numbers here, not run rate because gap numbers, as I say, are audited and the CFO will go to prison if they're wrong. So I always assume they're correct, right? Roughly 5 billion in Q1, roughly 11 billion in Q2, roughly 17 billion in Q3. Those are the numbers. Object the fact what it means
8:32from Q1 to Q2, you know, you can look at it as an absolute number. They went up 6 bill and they went up probably a little under that about 5 billion Q2 to Q3. So on an absolute number basis, you know, that's one perspective. Let look you can also look at it as a percentage. They they they were at you know what is it five or six billion in Q1 they went to 11 they went up they they doubled Q1 so their Q1 Q growth rate was you know 100% which is an astronomical year-on-year growth rate then they added exactly the
9:02same number in Q3 but by definition because they're starting at 11 right now you're only now you're adding the same absolute number of you know ARR but on double the revenue size so the growth rate naturally the Q growth rate has quote unquote plummeted to a roughly 50% Q growth growth rate cuz you started at 11 you add roughly six. I'm just using rough numbers. It's roughly growing 50% Q on Q which is still 5x year on year if you compound it. So if you see if you so if you buy into kind of percentage based
9:30growth you could say hey they grew I mean they grew 100% in Q1 Q1 Q they grew 50% Q2 Q1 Q Q2 to Q3 right? So, if they stick at 50%, that's still 5x year-year growth rate. That's the positive spin, right? The the negative spin is, oh, they were were growing at 100% and only a quarter later they're growing at 50%.
9:53Right? It's those are equally true statements of the same facts. And as Jason said, another way to think of it is just really at the margin, they added a little high fives, early sixes, I can't remember which, Q1 to Q2. And the absolute number right that they added Q2 to Q3 was slightly less than that on a gap basis. So the most negative interpretation is which I'm not saying I agree with by the way is that you're adding a l a a a a you're adding roughly 20 billion a quarter of revenue in which
10:22case you you know you're slowing out pretty quickly right and l as I said you can throw out those numbers and I'm sorry that was a wall of numbers but you know you can squint one way and say you know they're still going at 50% QNQ which is 5x year that's freaking amazing you can squint another way and say oh my god it's the accelerating from 100% Q and Q to 50% Q and Q does it go to 25 next quarter? All the money is in that bet. That's the only discussion.
10:46Listen, Anthropic obviously isn't a startup at this point, right? It's not even a scale up. But if I as a startup saw someone that did instead of 6 billion, 6 million last quarter and only did 5.4 billion this quarter, I would not invest.
10:59But hang on, let's be clear.
11:01And I'm just going to put out I'm going to be very clear. It's not that they did six million and left that they added new I mean but they their bookings bookings decelerated.
11:12Yes. The rate of bookings growth decelerated. The absolute number of bookings went up. I mean they sold more [ __ ] in Q3 than Q2 by about 5 billion.
11:19What's actually interesting though is given the bookings decelerated. One thing is that oh reaching TAM levels in enterprise they're 0.1% of Fortune 500 spend. And so actually there is so much more budget for the for them to consume and the booking still decelerated.
11:37There's not enough data in here for or or maybe I'm not smart enough to parse it. That's why to me the answer is simply pricing pressure. It's that simple. The the the demand is there. The market if you look at open router and others the demand does not appear to have declined. I don't see any metrics that say penetration of the Fortune 500 has reached 100%. Um but you've just got you've just got a lot of pricing pressure everywhere. Um, so whether it's a combination of folks buying from other vendors cuz it's cheaper or implicit discounts that they've added in Haiku 55
12:06and others. Um, and that that may maybe we've reached the point where where where anthropic ability to command a price premium has hit a local maximum. That's one potential thesis. It is open.
12:20I mean, I'm sure if we saw Open's numbers, they look much worse if they're literally offering a 30% discount on Astra, right? with essentially what appears to be a higher cost basis and they're offering a 30% discount. So lucky they're not they're going public second, right? But it appears to be working. It appears to be working. 30% off is a big deal. It approaches the 40% that we target for openweight models.
12:43And um listen, this is my thesis is that pricing pressure hit them in Q3. It's just I just think that's the the only thing I can point to because everything else is going pretty darn up and to the right.
12:51I mean probably true. You you're right.
12:53I mean it's got to be something like that, Jason. I mean it is just worth stepping back and reminding ourselves again on a gap basis 4.5 billion in gap revenue last year full year exiting a run rate of 9 billion and they're probably going to do 56 billion in gap revenue this year. So year one year their growth rate is 12x right that's just an objective fact at this point but then the interesting thing to your point is you look at the same kind of growth rates and you come up with roughly 120 billion of gap revenue next year. So they're probably going to go from 12x
13:23growth rate to 2x growth rate in a year, right? So to your point, pretty sustained slowdown to still magnificent numbers.
13:32You know, it really is. It really is glass half full, glass half empty. You squint one way and you say, "Oh my god, this is a company doing 56 billion in revenues that can still roughly double next year. That's freaking amazing." And you squint the other way and you go, "Oh my god, it went from 12x growth to 2x growth. Is it going to go to 50% growth or 5 10% growth in the following year?"
13:50Do you remember? Do you remember when we had Stuart Butterfield in Slack and 0 to 10 in 18 months was like the gold standard? Like the gold standard. Um, you know what's just a little bit interesting? I know it's just an anecdote and people will make fun of me, but I'm trying to launch this app, Saster Connect. Hopefully, it goes out in the last next couple weeks, but I've for a while um this AI matching recruiting app. And when I switched it myself to Haiku 55 and Jev, um, total costs went down about 70%. 72%. Now, there's some costs that are going to
14:20keep going up. We're all going to run five agents a day, 10 agents a day.
14:22We're going to run them on multiple platforms. I just upgraded to Muse Paid yesterday, right? So, there are there are trends going the other way, right?
14:28As we see in the anthropic quarter. But but but but again, 70% for if if a lot of mature applications can see that kind of um deflation from from improved quality of tokens and pricing pressure.
14:44Uh that's a lot. you know, even though everyone's going to be coding at 72 hours a day with 20 agents, uh, a 72% decrease in effective price is not is material and it's faster. It's faster and 72% uh, cheaper and and better. So, that that hadn't happened yet, at least in my personal aentic experience since the beginning of 2015 on an on an asused basis. Nothing got cheaper. No matter what anybody said on evals and token price, nothing got cheaper until Haiku
15:1355 plus jev. And I saw a 72% decline for B2B workflow running constantly for same task.
15:19Yeah, for the same task and higher quality. So like it's just one and people can make fun of me, but um it is interesting for me. It is interesting for that actually to happen in the real world for the first time. It just makes us hard to predict for me. It just makes it hard to predict how it's all going to I mean 12 months ago none these models barely worked. Um today they're epic. um in Black October, they've become weapons um to destroy Binance and everybody else. It's hard to know in 12 months how these how these submetrics are going to
15:48play out. I think it's almost unpredictable.
15:50But I think that exact statement, Jason, is why we have the unpredictability or the binary nature in venture markets. It's why we have the volatility in public markets, which I think is just like a lack of certainty around what the 5year looks like. I think the whole world does not know what five years out looks like in a way that we generally have done for the last 30 40 years.
16:11I'll tell you not to share too many other personal stories but just comparing the show this morning I finally turned off Canva after 12 years.
16:23And like I just think at the start of this year Canva was still accelerating.
16:26You know there were report there were some rough reports this week about its current growth right they kind of varied. I don't know what's true. Um, one of them said growth was zero. Others said they're preparing layoffs. Who knows what it was? They It at least seems to have decelerated 20%. It's just that predictability, right? It's just you just don't need it. The agents don't need it. So, it's it's hard to predict one year out, let alone five. So, Jason, what happens to Canva? Does it go out?
16:51I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, right? The Debbie Downer case is obvious. They miss their window, right?
16:57Then what? They miss their window and they're just like a private company that grows slower.
17:00I don't know. Oh, I mean it seems to be working for automatic outside of a few CEO turnovers and temper tantrums.
17:07I want to be clear without humor. I I Okay.
17:10The automatic one. Yeah.
17:12I don't think it's humor. What I mean is I think automatic will stay private forever. I don't think it will. It was raised its billion right as 40% of the web. I don't think automatic will become an agentic company. And I think Matt is fine with it. And I think it will stay private. I genuinely think it'll stay private forever. I don't know what the what the VCs do with it, right? But I don't think it'll ever go public and I don't think it'll ever get acquired automatic.
17:33The only comment I'll make is software companies in particular, you know, if they're not moving forward, you know, it's like the shark, you're moving, you you're going down, right? And over an extended period of time, but you know, you you're and I remember I remember there used to be mainframe companies in the 90s and early 2000s that were still, you know, living off their 20-year-old contracts, but the asset just becomes very terminal valued. Yes, you can stay private and kind of continually cut costs and live off your install base or, you know, do
18:02your own little bending spoons on your own, but it's just it's a tough place to be and it's hard to get value from it as an investor. So, I it will be interesting to see what all many of these companies decide to do, right? You know, can you can you clamber aboard even if it's a little late the AI train and get enough traction to maybe not be the winner, but grow five, 10, 20%. I don't know. But I think if you don't do that, if you decide to just not play that game, I think over the medium term, you're just heading to quiet
18:30obsolescence. And no, I'm so picking a fight here cuz Cliff Cliff always messages me. Cliff loves the show and he always messages me.
18:38You guys you guys are harsh on me and I'm like, you know, Rory and Jason, I never say anything. I'm just I didn't say anything.
18:45You know, you know what? You know what the surprising thing from all where I've gotten surprised guys going to this point. Listen, obviously if you're doing what we're doing, you have 21 agents running and they're running agentically and they're using Higsfield and Opus and the other things, it makes sense you'd turn off Canva, right? Because your agents don't log into it, right? And it and it it's really not useful for our agents. The surprising thing from all this is that the real world isn't buying much of this crap anymore, right? If I would have thought that a Canva, a Squarespace, which just launched 20% layoffs, a Wix, which is going to be
19:15bailed out by Base 44, others, I would have thought like Shopify, they'd be doing fine because most of the world isn't running 21 agents and then and and Hoffield and Musafine and everything. We're not all tech nerds, but it isn't really playing out that way. It isn't.
19:28And obviously, some of this is because, you know, chat GBT is so good for images, right? There are there are things that are so good. Grock is great for images, but I'm just I'm surprised that a lot of these core businesses are being so so severely impacted. Maybe it's a limit of my knowledge and and it wor it worries me.
19:44Instinct Instinct's amazing for images.
19:47Yeah, Instinct's great, but I mean you you I mean in your news, you know, Elon just had to cut back use because it's too expensive. He can't afford it.
19:56I think I underestimated what the cost of Instinct were because I didn't understand how persistent the VMs can be. Yeah, I I think Instinct could cost as much as 20 bucks a month per user to service Instinct the way it's supposed to work today.
20:07Way more that's more than 20.
20:11Yeah, it makes it's then it's it's a moronic business model at 40 or $50 per user per month. I got it wrong because the lovable replet thing, right, which is a highly tuned onoff VM is about4 to five bucks a month. Okay, they have hu they have large teams tuning that so that you can have a little bit of AI. You can have but the VMs spool up and down very carefully. They've gotten it down to four to five bucks a month. So I assume that Muse and friends were like Muse could even be cheaper. I assumed, right?
20:38And Instinct might be twice that because they don't have the resources. But it's much higher. It's much higher to have these persistent agents running. It's much you think it's more than 20 bucks a month. How I know you wanted to do it at 30, Harry, but how does this math pencil out at $30 or $40 a month per user? All these tickets we're going to buy. Well, I admit that that seems relatively paradoxical to believe that it's more than 20 bucks a month and to want to do it. It's a very good argument from me there. Uh I think for the power users it's very significant and I think for people that use it once or twice a day with limited automations it's very very
21:06cheap and so I think your blended is probably much cheaper but like for me I I will be terrible as an economic profile for them. I mean the worst. Look I I I think real the real truth is just like every digital product it always takes off at a point in time when the economics don't quite work. I remember when Facebook was ramping early on and people like, "Oh my god, the server bill. It was, you know, using SCADAS and servers and it was maybe going to have capex of $100 million and people were like, that's the end of the world." And
21:35the bet you take over and over again is digital goods get, you know, reduce in price 50 60% yearonear. So if people like the [ __ ] and they get hooked on it over two or three years, the math gets better.
21:48And that's really what's going on here.
21:49YouTube. Maybe or maybe we're going to see these waves where for all but a handful of folks the subsidies just can't last. We've also seen this in AI.
21:58The subsidies just can't last. It's too expensive, right?
22:01Um and I don't know whether instinct is on that side, right? Or or not, right? I mean, cursor barely pulled it out. Curs the cursor v2 would have died, right?
22:10Reselling anthropic tokens, right?
22:12If you if you're going to regard cursor as a failure, then yeah, you can win the argument. I mean, I'd take the 60 billion and call it a win myself. the V2 version of Cursor would have died just selling anthropic tokens at a loss perpetually if that's all they were able to do they would have died great teams figure it out I get the venture thing I wouldn't mind being Sarah and investing in Instinct at 50 or 100 like I wouldn't bother me too I wouldn't be too bent out of shape about the business model if I invested at 50 post don't get me wrong okay wouldn't bother me a lick but I I
22:41just don't know which side I mean Amjods from Replet said yesterday like the era of these free subsidies for the agents are coming to an end If Elon can't afford it, uh, Muse can afford it for now. But what what is what is Muse?
22:53What's the scale of the Muse subsidy, right? This is the second fastest growing product that they've ever had.
22:58If they're if if if it's 10 or 15 bucks a month for them, uh, who knows? Maybe Amjud's right. Maybe maybe maybe it will come before they can raise that six billion%. Just for context here, if it's a hundred B 10 bucks a month from subsidizing, that's call it a 100 bucks a year, right? That's for every million users that's a hundred million bucks.
23:19This is a guy who's spending $70 billion on capex. He's in. Right. He ain't going to blink because you know the compute bill goes up by a couple of billion dollars. Right. And so I I can afford it. Med can afford it. I want to go back to your comment because it is you cuz in one look I I tend to be the boring guy who says that the numbers have to work in the end and yeah gross margin cursor blah blah blah but when things are moving so quickly you can't wait until the economics work perfectly to launch a
23:47product cuz someone else armed with venture dollars will launch that product 12 months earlier when the when the economics don't quite work. grab all the mind share and then they'll basically lean into the cost curve and and hope that the improvement economics bails them out, right? And that's the bet you're taking. And to take the cursor example, I mean, they're doing some version of, hey, look, if it if if you don't get a big acquisition for 60 billion, well, if my cost if if what you said earlier, if I can get my own model and my costs come down, I make out like a bandit. If I'm still stuck on Tropic
24:16in 2027, I'll probably get [ __ ] over, right? But it's still a better bet than waiting until 2027 and saying, "Oh, now that there are lots of open- source alternatives for state-of-the-art coding models, I should launch a coding company because it doesn't matter. It's done." Right? The the truth is the capital markets and the venture markets are just so aggressive that waiting until everything makes sense is not an option.
24:38So what that means is kind of by the reciprocal property, almost everything that's new and digital will look crazy for a while in terms of economics. And the only question is can the economics get better before the money runs out.
24:50Look, no question. And we can move on, but it's it's interesting that Elon had to cap it.
24:55It is. They have resources. They had a pretty good IPO. He has re he's going long. He has bet his company on AI and subsidizing this thing. He subsidizes everything. Round trip, right? Even with his personal fortune, he subsidizes everything. This is a man that would not want to cap Grock bot if he did not have to. He's also the man who's getting so many dollars per unit of compute from Anthropic that he's like, "Yeah, I could do some free Grock bots and these people could make cute cartoons and send pictures of sexy sexy anime girls to each other. On the other hand, I could
25:25get like 50 bucks an hour from Entropic. Screw it. I'll do that."
25:28Well, they're not doing that. They're building applications. They're building code. Grock Grock is fairly technical unlike the instinct it muses, right?
25:36Okay, boys. We had we had another pretty big transaction which went down that in a normal world would have dominated news. Um in today's news it kind of lasts for a couple of hours but Door Dash buys Instacart for 17 billion under half 2021 private price. Uh D1 still owns 9.7%.
26:00Um, before we talk about agents, which was a disclosure, anything of note here in an inevitable ending to a clear second place provider to Door Dash.
26:11I mean, inevitable is a bit strong, but yes, they clearly tried to do it before. It clearly makes sense. There's also probably an element of do it now while you can if you Door Dash. So, yeah, all makes sense.
26:20Listen, some of this is not my strength, but the fact that the Postmates acquisition worked was a surprise for me, right? I assume you buy when Uber Eatats bought Postmate. I assume you get a little bit of a brand and a list and you basically shut the thing down and that I didn't really believe these deals would be accreative, right? Um, but they appear to be, right? So, if Instacart's got 20% of the market and Door Dash has 60 of of the delivery market and you can get through antitrust, which you probably shouldn't if you think about the numbers that I just said, and you
26:48can get to 80% market share, this is how you dominate networks, right? You dominate every part of it by having 80% market share. And I'm surprised that you can combine these networks and they don't end on 1 plus 1 doesn't end up equaling 1.1 a couple years later. Like that's that's my experience, but it doesn't appear to be true. Does these deals if well architected appear to work? And so um it's it should be a creative. It should make sense. And um I think also like I you you noted it's half it's 21 private price or whatever, right? I think like the braise deal at Salesforce, you may say what's the
27:18similarity? A lot of times folks have been circling each other for years, right? uh that this Tony said they've been talking for years, right? uh with the so it's just there are deals that are that don't make sense if even if they're cheaper and then there are deals where like Salesforce brought braise Salesforce was losing to braze in marketing for years and that when it got super cheap when it got to 3x AR now they had to play a pay a big premium they just buy the assets they want when they become cheap and it may be that simple it may be and so the um if
27:47they're a creative buy them this this may be just simple things that that corp dev's supposed to do one that I found fascinating was actually relating to a conversation we've had before and it was a genetic usage of these platforms and Door Dash saying that AI agents have sent only several hundred orders against 3 million deliveries a day. Were you shocked by how surprisingly low that was or do you think it's symbolic of the fact that people will always want to choose food and have that discovery process? I think
28:16in a sense it was a dumb comment for what it's worth. But it reminds me a little bit when Brian Chesy like a year and a half ago said there's no need for AI uh for for for um you know for for for for rentals and housing or when Parker Conrad another generational CEO said there's no need for AI in B2B 18 months ago. Yeah. Today today only several hundred orders but um but these these these platforms like like all all these app platforms have a risk of slight disruption from agents. Why I
28:46think it's all have a risk of slight disruption which is why I think it's so self- serving I would be pushing yeah self- serving whether you're Uber when I had a Mac the president of Uber on he very clearly was most worried about agentic usage of these platforms because it would disintermediate Uber and you could get free now you could get a lift you get price optimized time optimized and who gives a [ __ ] about the platform provider you have it for vintage you have it for Uber you have it for Door Dash I think it's like very specifically well done because it made headlines and news in a
29:14way that actually he wants. No, humans are here and we will continue to be here.
29:18Maybe the better way to say it is, let's assume they're telling the truth. That's the objective fact about what's going on now. And the million-dollar question is, do you see that behavior happen more and more? And then how does Door Dash respond to it? I mean, doing versions of the same thing, which I mean, I could totally see for some of your standard food orders just it's not that much easier for the record. I mean, telling your agent to order your dinner, it's just as easy as to just go click on the Door Dash app. But well, but there's a thing. Door Dash has two competitor big competitors. It has Uber Eats, right? Um, and it has the
29:48The restaurants don't want to use Door Dash or Uber. So, most restaurants have self pickup. At least they have to go pick up where they can avoid most of the fees, right? Or self delivery. An agent can figure that out for you. Hey, Harry, did you know that Lmin's Curry down the street? Actually, it will deliver for $2 and you don't need to go through Door Dash or whatever they have in London. I did not know. Thank you, Muse. Thank you, Instinct. I'll take that. That'll save me $14 on my order. What's the pub right behind your office that I really like, Harry?
30:17Love that place. Uh, five out of five.
30:19Okay. Uh, if maybe they could just drop it off at the next time we do the pod for free. I don't have to pay 20% and plus tip plus this plus you think I'm kidding. I think it's I think they're is agents are an existential risk to Door Dash because their number three competitor is is nobody. Can I Can I put out a cultural difference between us?
30:36You guys pay 15 bucks a burger and it gets delivered at 50 and there's like federal charge, state charge, delivery charge, service charge. It's ridiculous.
30:45In London, it's kind of like 15 quid is 15 quid. It It's fascinating to see the difference in like what you pay and what you get cuz then that's why these businesses are wildly profitable. They figured out exactly how to extract every dollar of rent from the person who wants to sit on their couch, press a button, and get the meal an hour later or 10 minutes later, whatever. Yeah, it works.
31:03It's been a brutal business since the old Grubhub days. It's just evolved with the internet and agents will evolve it again. It's been brutal. It's been brutal. The idea is take as much margin out of the customers or the restaurants as humanly possible. Right.
31:14I'm with Bill Aman. I think Uber is a banger of a buy right now, though. I mean, it's so cheap.
31:20I broadly agree and I haven't spent a lot of time on this, but the two worries you have are way more disruption than aic disruption. And what you're implicitly saying is border fine.
31:28Yeah. Agentic disruption is bizarre in taxi hailing. You're going to go to your WhatsApp and say, "I would like to get I don't see it. I agree. I don't think it's a worse user experience. I would like to get an Uber. I am at this position on the map." And the other issue is people love food. They love looking at it. They love pictures. They love scrolling. They love discovery. The only thing it makes sense for is like automation and scheduling. Like every day drop it off at Scales office in you know San Francisco. That's it. Okay
31:56boys. We have two big rounds in Koshi and Co here. Koshi a billion at 40 billion one of Jason's favorites a low dilution round there uh with a two and a half rounds raising a billion dollars and 40 billion price a day after Utah charges uh founders of Koshi uh and then we have co here I think it's the largest private raise for a Canadian company at this point um with actually the Canadian government I believe uh or Canada itself
32:24investing up to 1.14 billion which one's more interesting is a money deal, right?
32:30Let's be really clear here. The thing is working. It's growing like a weed. Deep in their heart, everyone knows that we started off thinking we were doing prediction markets, which had some social utility, and we've long since converted into sports gambling markets to, you know, feed people's addiction for gambling, right? So, we're all over the doing good. We're all over the higher purpose. Um, you know, we're pushing through a whole bunch of local regulation, which is why Utah is suing them because sports betting is regulated on a state-by-state basis. and these
32:59guys are plowing through on a national basis. So there's nothing to see in this other than VCs will put a lot of money into shed that's working. That's the takeaway, right? And you know at you know if if it's at 40 billion it's had momentum. It raised like three or four months ago at 22 billion. So this is you know one of those classic momentum plays, right? I mean contrast is very different. I mean it's almost not a momentum play. It's a we need our sovereign AI play in Canada cuz you are nasty people and you've threatened to
33:27invade us multiple times and we've got this product and it's you know one of the original four or five LLMs to be fair. I mean back in 2023 you had Coher obviously OpenAI Anthropic and then all the other ones like the one that Microsoft bought Adept and Amazon bought all the others folded. So give I mean give Coher a huge credit. They are one of the survivors of that first group of of LLMs before Neolabs was even a thing. And now they're they didn't release revenue numbers but you can see how you can make a sovereign AI story.
33:57It's almost the exact opposite. In the case of Cali the government is saying I want to stop you now and put you in prison. In the case of Kohir the government saying I'm going to make this work no matter what even if the economics don't work. So they're almost like the ying and yang of investments in terms of their work. Can the government just do that at a point? It doesn't work.
34:15Do what? Do what? Do what?
34:17Hey, we want to make you work and so we're going to inject you with 1.14 billion. Totally.
34:23Isn't that Isn't that what our governments do all the time? They subsidize everything.
34:26Yeah. Yeah. You can do it once, you can do it twice, but ultimately if enterprise adoption isn't there, doesn't work.
34:33Sometimes it's worth just being in the game. It's like it's like putting a few chips into anthropic in the Dound. Sometimes it's worth just being in the game. And sometimes it bounces bounces your way and you've always got the lick prep.
34:44Jason, the D round was 16 billion. So I' I'd take the D round. Yeah.
34:49You know, I don't actually in all seriousness, I don't know how like Canadian like f like national governments work. When you talk to folks that run at the top companies with large corp dev portfolios, public companies, really they just want it not to go down in the aggregate. They'd love the gains, right? But you only get so many credits as a public company for for the gains from your portfolio and the losses really suck, right? Because they swing your EPS in really weird ways and you you know you have to put asterisk and daggers next to it. So as long as they don't lose too much money on on on the
35:18investment, I don't know that they I don't know that they care.
35:20You're right. The motivation for anyone doing this isn't purely financial gain if you're the government. Right. Agreed.
35:26But Harry asked a separate question is can it work? I think the answer there is you can keep it governments can make things happen for a fair while but what they can't do is make the private sector use the product. So, you know, you see it with Mistral, too. To the extent that there's a willingness to spend Canadian government tax dollars on a Canadian government AI solution or maybe if Canada goes on with its kind of you affiliating with the EU, this may be the these guys in MRA may be the you're not America LLM options and there probably
35:56is some spend in that, but do you think it'll be a compelling business that will go public at 3x this round? Not as obvious to me at all. Well, in today's world, today's day and age, coherent not disclosing revenue is hardly a flex.
36:07No, it's it's a pretty bad sign.
36:11I love I love it. It's like AR grew more than 165%. You're like to since inception.
36:17Yeah, I know. But who knows?
36:19You know, one thing I was thinking on the Koshi thing before we leave. So, Sequoia led the last round, right, at a billion. They put in a billion right after felony charges were against the founders, right? I get that it's just a state and and then we have Binance, right? 6.6 6 billion taken by apparently North Korea in a matter of hours. I had to wonder between Sequoia and Binance if the ball had bounced just a little differently, would FDX still be around today and would it still be a winner?
36:42Same VC, same risks. Um FTX got um listen, you you obviously can't take money from one sister company and put it in another. But I think Binance barely survived this 6.6 billion. They don't have a transparent balance sheet. We don't know how much money they had. They certain What if it was 13 billion? Where would they have repaid it? I I think they were I think they were one step away from from an FDX type situation. Um luckily he got pardoned CZ, right? But I just wondered if if it made me think if
37:12since you have the same investor and the felony, we've just all changed the way we take risks because it's game on, right? Um I it just made me made me think about Apparel Universe where FDX was a was a shining portfolio company today.
37:24John, I mean the fascinating thing is FDX's $500 million position from anthropic would know. Yeah. would be worth 39 billion at the 1.5 trillion.
37:33So, timing is important is the takeaway, kids. The most compelling fact about the Binance thing was um was that they could pony up at $6 billion to replace the money that was taken. Like what a good business where you know you I mean assuming that you're not doing an FDX and swiping it from someone else. As I understand it, and I did not spend a lot of time on this one, is that the Binance were able to make good the crypto loss, right? which implicitly means Binance makes enough money to be able to make good the crypto loss, right? Which means
38:02it's an amazing freaking business.
38:04I think so. I just think and again, I'm not a crypto guy, but when CZ said they could cover it, but it would be tough, suggested to me they didn't have 13 billion on and and what I really thought was ridiculous is how many folks said said that their balance sheet was all the the the crypto they hold for for as a trustee, as a custodian. That's not true. That's what that's why Sam's in jail and CZ is out, right? Uh, I don't think they had 13 billion. I think they got out in in Black October.
38:31Yeah. You can't take my crypto dollars and give them to Harry and say, "Sorry, your stuff was stolen." Agreed. Okay.
38:36Yeah. Their balance sheet. I mean, just think how much still happened in Black October, right? And then we have this the one that I think is craziest. I don't mean to get off track. Is this I know it sounds minor, but it's not this Artex thing that that breached work OS and a bunch of others. This is just since we did the last one. This one is insane. This Artex thing.
38:52I saw the um Michael Grinick post about this 16 hours ago, but tell everyone what this is.
38:57RX we should be scared about. Artex is a is initially well regarded. It's only like a couple months old. A Chinese open-source pentest solution to penetrate test applications. We all need pentesting. We always needed it before.
39:10We certainly need it in an aentic area where everyone from Binance to the rest of the world is being breached, right?
39:14We're all being breached. All the refrigerators in Europe are going down because they've been breached. It's it's this is Black October was much blacker than we made it look. And so some some really smart developers just a couple months ago in China built an open- source thing. Great. So it's free and you could hook it up to your DeepSeek and your other LM and it will just try to hack you, right? And this is what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to hack yourself. Um and um but it became very easy to turn it around and just attack other folks with agents. it became it was flipped around and it's
39:43become one of the the greatest threat and a lot of folks sort of saying well you could always you could always do this but now you can do it with LM at scale you can just tune it against anybody you want so so so they originally built as defensive and B yes everyone said oh my god this is a pen testing tool yeah yeah it makes total sense is that yeah it's like the you know it's like it's like the guns don't kill people bad people with guns kill people you built a gun and you hope it was in good people's hands and now it's in bad people's hands and they're killing people makes no I mean it is it worked seemed to work great at first right until you turn the gunner out.
40:12There's probably it's probably hard to overstate, you know, the the the the the cyber dynamics of the next 12 months. I mean, I I you're right. It's one of those stories you never covered on a daily basis, but you're right. At some point, something really weird's going to happen. You're going to go, "Come on, guys. We should have seen that." You know, when you know, the entire US Fed wire goes down for a day and we're like, "We can't move money."
40:34Yeah. and and and we joked about the refrigerators in Europe, which for people that don't know, there was a hack which basically meant someone could turn up the the temperature on refrigerators and they did to 50 degrees. Now, it was luckily rectified and the frozen peas were saved. Um, which is of great relief to everyone in Europe. Um, but you could see this being much more missionritical things like traffic lights or like heating facilities or you name it. Um, so it is it is quite alarming. Um, ding
41:02ding ding Mr. Lamin, we had quite a few rounds and it's your turn to bring something to the IC this week. Goodness, you've got a lot.
41:11Can I take a break for the rest of the year? We've been busy. We've deployed so much. We've gone back for three funds this year.
41:15No, no, no. We're Andre. We just raised a big ass fund and so we've got plenty more for you to go through, Jason. We're a deployment machine.
41:23Which company are you going to take to IC this week?
41:28Servil, Cognition, Base 10. Well, listen, I mean, uh, you know, much Harry, as you know, much much as in many ways the Windsurf team, you know, um, lamented having to sell out to Google for just a few billion, the Cursor team is going to going to lament selling to to SpaceX for only 60 billion, right?
41:46Um, Cognition at 80 billion. Uh, it it it it seems market correct. Um, now to get to a 10x with delution, a trillion dollar uh, valuation, I start to get nervous with the latest the latest round from OpenAI and Enthropic. Uh, I I do get worried that fundamentally it only owns so much of its own IP, but jeez, I don't know if you saw the last Q3 of Enthropic, like the one thing that is working that never stops working is coding agents. And Cognition has a bunch
42:16of the field open to it. Um, they made a lot of their own luck. I don't know if the original version of Devon when I brought it to committee uh several year you know a year and a half ago I I don't know that that product worked. They lucked out buying the wind surf team.
42:28They lucked out buying IP. They lucked out from open weights. But this is something with the kind of momentum that I think we can't sit out. Um and we have a little bit of money left in the fund a couple billion and we need to deploy the next one. I say we close out the last fund with two billion in cognition.
42:44We're already up 5x on paper. We can't lose. So, we might as well put the last two billion in cognition. Um, and I say if we get a little recycling before the the round closes, we toss it in, too.
42:55Interesting. Just for the um people listening, because it wasn't obvious, that was a much better question than you normally ask, Harry. Because the normally you say, "Here's a deal, Jason.
43:06Tell me why you should take it to committee." And honestly, and I respectfully I said, "That's kind of stupid because all you're just saying is give me a sound bite, right?" The reason this was a good question, much more interesting, was because you have three deals in front of us, and it's worth pointing out to the listeners what they were. Three really amazing companies.
43:23You were basically asking Jason to pick between base 10 at 30 billion, up 2x from June, an inference company. Cognition at 70 to 80 billion, up from 48 billion in September, and Serville at 3 billion, up from 1 billion in December. So, three different companies, very different businesses. One's an inference provider, one's a coding agent, and one's a very hot next generation AI app in the ITSM space.
43:51Right? So, three different businesses, all of whom have had around and are getting a second getting a second re-up within this next the same 20 uh with the same 12 month period. So, as I say, because it forces Jason to choose, that's a much more interesting question, if you know what I mean, than just tell me nice things about this company, right? Uh for the for editors, can we please cut that segment? That's the first time that Rory's actually congratulated me on a frame.
44:16It's okay because I think it happened by accident.
44:18I'm gonna I'm gonna play that to myself later just to give myself more confidence. tell it but but actually genuinely so it really was so super interesting question and I I kind of so would you like to do an inference provider at 30 billion the a coding agent at 80 billion or a IT AI app in ITSM at three billion I mean no [ __ ] I serville are you kidding me okay so you do you think your upside in
44:47serville at three billion is better than your upside of cognition at 70 billion oh my god the tide is changing. Service Now is an old god. Bill McDermott's amazing, but he's like Slutman. He's a salesled CEO. We're in a productled generation. Jake and Tatiana at Ser are incredible. The product's amazing. The enterprise adoption is better than I've ever seen. And the upside just pure multiple on cash. Now, there's an there's an addendum and a star, which we can go back to. Multiple way better here. The chance of getting a a 10x
45:17here. I think very likely the chance of getting a 10x for base 10 at 30 billion. God, you've got a squint. The chance to get a 10x at cognition to Jason's point.
45:27Gosh, we're nearly hitting a trillion there. So, yeah, I think the multiple is clearly much more evident there. Now, the challenge though that we have with Servil that we don't have with cognition or base 10 is if we're an AUM play just putting cash out the door, they only raised 150 million. And if I'm Andrees, I want to put 500 million a billion out the door. And so doths butter, no parnips as we say in the UK. I need to do cognition because I need to move money. But for the multiple, it's the
45:56easiest decision you made. You know what the question about serval? I don't know.
45:59I really don't know it at all. Don't let the founders don't know it. The the the just my question to the to the to the IC is does it expand the TAM? Am I bounded for for real for real, right? Not for handwaving. Am I am I am I in essence bounded by a a a subset of Service Now's TAM today? Right now, every founder will expand the markets and add concentric circles, but is this really expanding the TAM here? Um I I generally don't know, but I personally am not excited
46:28about disrupting existing players if you don't expand the TAM because I think I think we don't get anywhere at the end of the day. And I think the argument they'd make would be some version of you don't just you know service now just is a list of things that it has to do and you know serville is actually a product that does those things for you so you can command more value from it right and you know the way you'd validate that is looking at their ACV on a likewl like basis in other words does a mid-market
46:56company that might spend 200 grand on Service Now would that same company be willing to spend 300 or 400 grand That's my question. And that's what you need to see to get TAM expansion cuz yeah, I mean we think I know my one of my colleagues have talked to in the past.
47:10This is an amazing company, amazing team and and a great market. I mean it's always worth remembering until recently service now was I think the second largest market cap SAS company. You had Salesforce and then Service Now. ITSM is a much bigger market than you think because it kind of becomes the the general corporate to-do list for service functions like legal, accounting, all the back office folks were using Service Now to keep track of their tasks. So, it's been a way bigger business than I would have guessed when we saw it in
47:38what was it 2010 or so, right? And um so yeah, replacement for that is a big opportunity, right? But I hear you, Jason. It's it's the can you expand the TAM and are you just are you dealing with a 10-year grind service now down deal where you do it forever whereas Harry to take the other side of the argument on cognition I mean the beauty of the coding agencies especially cognition they're ripping open all that enterp I mean they're coming into large enterprises and basically saying we will
48:06help you effectively you know rewrite your entire code base enable your team to be a gentic coding and getting huge dollars for that. So in terms of money velocity on the table right now, cognition has, you know, just an ability to command may more dollars. I think serville probably has the compounding effect of there's probably 10 or 15 years of grinding down service now to a bigger outcome. So I don't know. It's it's kind of velocity but capped versus
48:33um long-term mega great mega trends. But is it going to take a while?
48:37Look, listen, it may well resolve tickets that Service Now can only track.
48:40It may be an epic play. I'm just trying to I think 2027 servil aside 2027 will be a year where we find out a lot of vertical AI plays are nifty little startups but didn't in the end expand TAM enough. They didn't expand T they're they're fighting for a slice of Service Now a slight of Salesforce a slice of Atlassian but they're not expanding the TAM and I just personally I don't want to invest in any of them because I just view it as tears in 5 years.
49:05I I don't think so. I don't think that's the case with SE. I think they are expanding the time and I don't think I I'm sure they push back very vigorously on the vertical description. I mean I think it's very crossunctional and I'm just it's an adjacent point I was trying to make but I I'm not arguing. I think in vertical we're going to see the biggest tiers because a lot of folks are going to make investments assuming that especially for like an SMB or or an Aver you can charge three to four times the size and we're going to find out you know what you can charge on one the size um and now there's five or eight times the competitors in the market and the
49:35leader isn't dead right the leader isn't there's still a lot they still have a pulse they may not be growing at the rate before and so you're just slicing up the same old f and tam 11 times I just don't want to personally make those bets cuz it's exhausting Right. It's it's exhausting. Uh and then it's been funny. We've as I said, that's why it's such an interesting it's really genuinely interesting question. I'm like literally thinking of it as an investor here rather than just blathering on is we've kind of gone between the 80 billion one of cognition and serville and kind of base 10 in the middle. I mean if you
50:04want revenue velocity right now, nothing gives you revenue velocity like inference. But from your little face, Harry, are you implying the angst there is just competition? There's five or six great companies in that space and that's a worry. I would 100% invest in base hand too by the way. Um but the whole point is there's no there is no two. You got to pick.
50:23Well yeah but no I would not choose it um compared to serville or cognition and I think modal's product suite is unbelievably strong. Like Eric is incredible for that and and Lynn and the team at fireworks by far I think have the best inference product. Um and so I I would choose you modal and fireworks and so it's super clear for me on serville.
50:44Okay that was a fun question. Rory, did I change your mind?
50:48You made me think. No, I genuine comment. This is like this made me think, right? These are three very different interesting dynamic. I mean, it it it makes you think about, you know, what's your bet? Is it very horizontal inference but lots of competition, risk of commoditization?
51:05Is it the last surviving standalone coding agent that's cracked the enterprise but at a very hefty price? or is it an app that I think will be the if there is a next generation service now the probability of it being serville is probably 80 70% plus right and those are very different bets and you know I'm actually literally thinking they're all for the record pretty interesting bets the one nagging comment and I don't know if this is correct is you know the good thing about server is you can say this
51:33is your point Harry how is that the old school company is worth I can't remember I used to know the number 40 or 50 it's worth more than that now it's worth 110 billion So you can say there's a thing that exists today that's 30 times the value of this therefore I can have that money. Whereas for base 10 and co for cognition you have to say there's no standalone coding agent worth 80 billion. So it's good news it's a new market. Bad news is what are you mentally taking over? You know what I mean? And the same is true of inference.
52:00No bad news is you're fourth in the market. You got codeex, you got claw code, you got cursor and then you got them. Jeez. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for independence. Uh, you know, I'm an investor in factory as well and I totally buy that. But that versus like servil versus service now.
52:20Bit of an easier one.
52:24Wild Rory, you'll be surprised to hear that my girlfriend is still with me. I know my mother is my mother is shocked, too. But in the legal world, whoa, mega news.
52:36one of the big law firms, the prestigious uh OG brands while uh shut down very quickly and weirdly because of partner dispute whatever AI law firm Crosby who've raised 85 million bucks from Seakora and the like bid to take over its assets and it's like it's brand anything to say here I thought that was fascinating I mean there's two separate stories there's the wild god shield crashing
53:05which is uh you know American law it's not a tech story it's an American law story you lose a couple of key partners um it just yeah these these firms are even though they don't have a lot of liabilities other than leases it's just a bunch of connected rain makers and sometimes the tissue the that's a that's a flims no offense Rory that's a very flimsy way of looking at it a couple of partners leave does not mean a 90-year prestigious law firm yeah but if you take enough of the book of business with you it's a small number of rain makers absolutely it's not like
53:33it's worse than if you if you leave the VC firm the VC firm dies but over 20 years if the top rain makers leave you you know there's no there's nothing to pay out at the end of at the end of the year I mean if you look through it I mean I've read all the accounts I don't know as well it's as I say it's four or five key lawyers each of whom ran a key part of the business and it it just you know you you there seems to be a clash on a couple I think the guy who ran all the PE practice which is probably 20 30% of a company like this left takes his book a business and yeah it can go wrong pretty quickly so but it doesn't matter because that's not a tech business
54:02that's just a wow that's interesting and then I did I did admire Crosby for just that's just a hey if there's some if there's some attention to be paid here why don't I put in a bid for the business that was a bit of a [ __ ] you but I was I was impressively um Hutzba I think is the relevant word there for that was Hutzba I loved it Ryan just like yeah we'll take it if you guys yeah if you don't want this 100-year-old franchise we'll take it here nice guy I just I listen I'm not I don't mean to be too negative on the Crosby thing but
54:30o ultimately if you're providing slightly higher value services is going to have the same issues. People want to keep all the the partners, the rain makers want to keep all the money. Now, Crosby has probably has no rain makers, right? Um, and it's doing transactional stuff, but I I don't know that this idea that lawyers will give up a bunch of the profits they could make for shares in a company that hopefully will IPO. I I don't know how sustainable the business model is. For the record, I I don't know if I fully buy the model, but I disagree with you in the sense of I actually
54:59think it's actually the same story. What wild gachel says is there are some parts of law where the partner that you are dealing with as a customer is so important because you value his or her personal advice right that when that partner leaves while and goes to someone else you take your business with them right and that's like I'm doing a complex PE deal I need this guy I'm paying him five grand an hour some absurd sum but he's my guy and I trust him and I'm you know running KKNR and that's the guy I want and then what
55:27Crosby is saying is there's a whole bunch of other law where you really don't care the name behind the thing cuz it feels pretty standard and transactional and that business can be done with Crosby Law where I actually think they're actually very nice counterpoint right if I'm doing an NDA or a series B stock purchase agreement I don't need the five grand an hour guy I don't need to know the name of the guy doing it right it's just you know do the usual stuff check the usual things so I think yes but but but even at the low end incompetence hurts you
55:57yeah but incomp damages you Have you ever done a routine transaction where some idiot lawyer cost you a lot of money? I I have. I've been damaged seven figures by incompetent junior lawyers.
56:08But I think I'm sorry. I'm just going to push again cuz I'm grumpy. Like I think that that's exactly the Crosby argument which is it's less likely to have that kind of mistake if it's automated if you've got AI like for the standard stuff. So I again I I think Okay. Well, let me flip it around. Let's imagine I go to Crosby and I make $170,000 a year and I get 0.01% 01% of the company for the IPO that I'm not even sure is going to happen.
56:30Right. And then I can go to Wild Prime and make 250.
56:35Yeah. But I can And if I'm actually good, I make every great partner now makes 10 million bucks. And every good and the entrylevel ticket at Wild was over 200,000 for an associate for a soul crushing horrific job. Mind you, like I get the Crosby. I just my only point is and I'm I'm not being critical. I haven't talked to them. I'm not convinced this is is as stable as a lot of VCs might hope it would be. It's too human-based.
56:58I agree there are issues with the kind of human plus AI delivery model and I have questions on that. But I'm just going to push back on your comment on why would I go across like there's that's easy because for every lawyer who wants to be a rain maker and work 24/7 and make $10 million, there's also lots of lawyers who's like I want to do 40 hours of good law. I don't want to be a rain maker. I don't like that.
57:19I'm just a good lawyer and I want to go home. Maybe I'm, you know, dealing with kids. Maybe I'm dealing with a parent. Maybe I just want to take it easy.
57:25Right? There are lots of people for whom being a lawyer, a well-compensated, nice upper middle class salary, working for someone like Crosby, doing 40 hours a week with control of your own time is a perfectly good product. So, I don't have a they'll be able to get lawyers, right?
57:41I just don't know if I can see a 10 billion outcome here. A different question. I'm sorry.
57:46I don't think I can take this to IC. It's it's a lot that has to happen for the corporate company, its corporate affiliate to be worth $10 billion cuz it has to suck so many billions of years of profits that the lawyers could otherwise take home as partners.
57:59That I agree with. I think that there will be a codery of law firms 5 years from now that are focused on the Crosby kind of work. Crosby will obviously be one of them. They'll do really well. We like the space. But I agree. question is if you look at the billings of wild gotchel as an example of American law you know if 70% of the dollars come from the high rain maker irreplaceable by AI stuff and all you've got left is a 30% and then you have to have the value of that to get the business then you're right then you're left with the low
58:29margin part of the business so I do agree that's the question is how big can it be but whether you can build a business there absolutely I think you can yeah you can build a small business for sure it's just for R I 10 billion is the is the lowest possible exit where we're allowed to bring it to IC.
58:43Agreed. As far as I can see, 2026, boys.
58:4610 billion. I thought is 10 billion the round size.
58:49Look, Rory and I are a little more conservative. We're okay with a $10 billion exit as long as the entry is appropriate. We can't make the numbers for the whole fund work, but we can make our own little slice of the fund. We can we can hit our our individual 6x goals with those exits.
59:02Guys, what what have I missed? Candom I think probably the most exciting fund that Europe's produced in the last three years raises 750 um physical intelligence uh in talks to raise at a 20 billion valuation. They've had rumored acquisition talks in the last 6 months as well. Um that's with Avanir and Lux. Dropbox uh cuts 9% of staff and CTO leaves. Unlike the last group of three, these things are like literally a grab bag of [ __ ] Physical
59:32intelligence company with relatively little revenue is worth 20 billion.
59:35Dropbox company with billions of revenue ain't worth a lot there. Um it just shows revenue multiples don't get you anywhere, right? It's all about the future, right? So yeah, these aren't these are just non-comparable things. I mean look on the physical intelligence thing. Yeah, I think robotics is going to an amazing explosion. We have a small investment in like I think these next generation models are amazing when you see the demos. I've done a lot in robotics over 10 plus years. when you see what the new models can do, it is truly amazing, right? You go, "Wow, the
1:00:04level of dexterity." The old models just don't have that, right? And I think it's just a real breakthrough moment. So, two other comments though. I think deployment of robotics is just way longer than deployment of kind of classic LLMs and people forget that. I saw someone's coming starting to price now on an hourly API basis, which makes sense. So you pay, you know, if you're replacing maybe you pay three bucks an hour for access to the model and then when there's only 300,000 robots in the US. So to make the math work at kind of
1:00:3220 billion, which is where PI is, you got to have a [ __ ] ton more robots. So the technology is amazing. The business model's got a lot of developing to do, but I think the last sentence you said is the real one. I think all the big foundation models company buy one of these things, right? And I think the reason is I mean either they build one or buy one. And it's going to sound I think I've said this before. The really simplistic reason they do it is this.
1:00:54I'm writing my perspectus. There are 81 million knowledge workers in the US. We have an LLM and we sell to them. It's a great business. There are 87 physical workers in America, not knowledge workers working in blue collar or kind of, you know, physical world jobs. Now we have a robotics foundation model. We can address them. I've doubled my TAM.
1:01:14So I mean it's a bit simplistic but I think the lure of robotics for the foundation model companies and the desire to say oh we do robotics too I think will means that there could well be some acquisitions in the space. It's one of those markets. It goes back to something Jason said. It's one of those markets where you can kind of say to yourself if you just try and be logical about the steps between here and deployment you probably get caught up in the minutia. And I'm often guilty of that where you know it's going to take a long time customers are going to be
1:01:41slow. BMW is not going to roll out 100 um humanoids in a week. But if you say to yourself, the technology capability is amazing, the teams are amazing, we love our position in generalist and you kind of go this is going to change the world somehow you'll make money out of it. And that's probably the investment thesis.
1:01:57Jason, any final thoughts to you on those?
1:02:00The only small this one's really minor.
1:02:02It's almost not worth bringing up other than it's something I'm tracking, but a tin a tiny amount of anxiety that the hugging face has drawn some DOJ scrutiny. I don't think there's been a formal request for information or anything. And um it just as investors, it would be a bummer for us if M&A isn't really back, right? Um as we discussed, we need $10 billion deals to even bring deals to to to the IC. If this $ 122.9 billion deal for Rugging Face isn't going to sail through Antitrust, it it would just it would just be a bummer. It
1:02:31would be a politics aside, um it it seemed like we were able to do normal M&A deals, right? uh with normal tax benefits and normal this and that. If if it if it doesn't turn out to be the case um and we've got to go back to doing convoluted team and IP deals or slow down deals, it'd be a bummer. And and and look at the other I mean, Salesforce is on an epic M&A role. I mean, they they they hoovered up everybody this year and and I don't know that they would do that if the antitrust environment, again, no politics, if the
1:03:01antitrust environment was where it was 24 months ago. It's good for venture that they're just hoover I mean, who did they just buy this week? Cresta, right?
1:03:07They just bought Cresta for two weeks.
1:03:09Bless bless Ben off and friends, right?
1:03:11We need these deals to they happen in every two weeks, right? Um and and we for for venture to be like at least to be distressful in my opinion. We need M&A to work like clockwork. Otherwise, we're just we're just stressed over these goddamn IPOs. So I just worry a little bit about this thing cuz we want we want the sales forces and the service nows and micros we would just want them buying companies uh you know every every couple of days for a billion and up. We need it we need it to get out of our get
1:03:39to get to to to liquid our portfolio. So this one if something happened here I'd be bummed but it's just something to track if it gets anywhere. Salesforce says the opposite. They don't they're game on for M&A man.
1:03:52Bless the team there.
1:03:54Yeah. Good old Mark.
1:03:55It's smart, too. You gota He's buying his way into the into the future into the present. It's there's some point where it's too much.
1:04:02Is he is he with Crafter? Like I think what what's hap if you I think what's happening if you just look at all the deals that have been bought this this this I saw I'm dating myself back at Adobe but right obviously there's a little bit changing in the world with AI and B2B, right? So basically everybody's getting a punch card, right? They bought a some defense startup I don't even know that for a couple hundred million bucks, right? So, you know, and what you do is you go around the table with all your SVPs and they get their best idea. And whoever was in service or support or
1:04:32whatever, Cresa was their best idea. And whoever was trying to get um these sort of um uh uh support and sales agents faster, Finn was their best idea, right?
1:04:41And you just keep it's not that complicated. You go down the best idea and then someone goes out and figures out if they'll actually sell because some folks won't sell. And you just make this best idea and then people know their jobs are on the line. And so this none of these deals are Mark betting the future of the company. They're they're SVP chips. And I've been in the room when when you went around the room.
1:04:58Rory, what's your best idea? Harry, what's your best idea? Come back next week. I want your top three ideas. And it costs you nothing in a sense because it's assumed some will fail, right? But basically, they're getting around the table and they're saying, "We're going to spend this much of our market cap and cash to do these deals because we got to do we got to do something." And the interesting question is do you do a crest you know like you know a more mature company that's using AI but probably the original stack was prel and they've probably transposed their sack once the LLM's come out in the last four
1:05:28or five years but in return for that they have some scale they have some kind of enterprise deployments or do you buy something new bright and shiny where it's all LLM first it's two guys from YC and 24 and you know they've got to $10 million and they're exploding right and that is the interesting Well, the interesting thing for me is that you've got a relatively similar price being paid for them versus Listen, but you're going to have a 10x increase in revenue for Caster versus Listen. Listen were 20 million sold for 2 billion. Uh Cresta
1:05:57are well over 200 million in AR. And given that Squire is in both, it's not like they missed the fact that they're getting a different revenue multiple. So yeah, on the other side of the table, you're right. The seller said, "Yeah, I get why I I want a high revenue multiple for listen because it's got growth and it's new and I guess why I'm getting a still good but not as you know a stellar revenue multiple for Cresa because it's a m more mature company and yeah, no, you're right. It is interesting. it it's the buyer deciding which bet do I want to take and then thank you for reminding
1:06:26listen that's a very good example that do I want the ultra modern deal but the problem is I'm going to have to pay a scary revenue multiple in terms of I'm I'm when you're trading at 7x to be fair it's really hard to spend a lot of money at 40x you can spend maybe a couple of billion but it gets scary I think the crest deal is actually pretty good you're paying you're paying 10x I agree no I I I agree exactly like I think the income deal I think they're smart deals for so forth. You get critical mass, you move the ball
1:06:54forward. Maybe it's not as bright and shiny as the newest bright and shiny thing, but it it you know service cloud business is your second largest I think largest business now and you just make progress on that. I agree.
1:07:04What you'll find if you talk to a lot of the big big players, what you'll find is if they want to do an M&A where they want to put their resources against it, their GTM machine, their platform, they they'll all tell you this, they want at least 100 million of revenue. They don't even and they'll wait and they'll take the meetings and they'll get excited and the what's the one listen labs right that's a tech bet and and most folks will tell you those are the dumbest bets right either buy a small team and pay less or buy something with nine figures you only do a listen labs deal in times
1:07:32of stress because they'll all tell you that's their lowest investment performance that's what it says but it's just it's a reason if if you're confused as a founder why deals happen a lot of them they they just decide if it's not 100 million it doesn't have scale like can't put my guys on it. I can't put my team on it. And I I've heard this from a lot a lot of teams. It just is what it is, right? Um and um you know, even with Finn, like their core, their agentic business had to hit 100 million, right?
1:07:58The overall business was larger. It's the same story. And then all of a sudden, it's like, okay, now I can see how I can make this material in my $50 billion business.
1:08:07It's probably true. It's a shame, but it's probably true.
1:08:09I I don't even think, you know, it is a shame, but the Borg otherwise will just they can't even assimilate you. You're too small. All right, boys. It's time to go make some money. Back to our day jobs. Let's do Let's do this.
1:08:20Let's do that. Okay, Harry. Thank you very much.