More Trillion Dollar IPOs, Anthropic $3T, Zuck's Price War, China Ends Open Source?, Trump Accounts

280 freeberg is on a little vacay. I'll leave it at that. And, uh, bestie Brad is here. How are you doing, Brad? I'm doing great. I'm doing a vacay and maybe I'd a ho or somewhere. Check out. I'm gonna say no. Who know? It could be anywhere. It could be anywhere. I mean, there's lots of things. It could be plenty of places. And, uh, looks like you are, yeah, somewhere in the Northeast. I'll leave it at that. You have no little vacay for yourself this week. Very page. I mean, my flag room. Very patriotic room here.

Very nice. You know, where I work on the East Coast in the summertime. Yeah, spend some time and do you see this week? Mm-hmm. And, uh, it's been a great week. Been a great week. Well, let's say in America

250. Great. And you're gonna be out of there for the, by the, by the, by the second week of August. Yeah,

so I have it August 10th through the 30th. I'm good. Exactly. Exactly. Jason B&B. Jason B&B. Oh, absolutely. I can't. You don't know the half of it, Brad. I'm on a

“summer bender. I'm like, where's your, where's your vacation? Where are you? Where are you? Where are you?”

I am in Paris. I did about eight interviews for, uh, at the raise conference. They'll be coming out in the all-in-feet. And, of course, cackling from the factory. Look at him. You're working in the factory. Shemoth Polly Hoppetea. It's gonna be a hot software summer for Shemoth. How's your hot software summer going? It's good. It's a hot enterprise software. It's hard, but it's good. Shemoth's like, man, I was such a dick to all my CEOs. Hey, this ass. It's period and now you know,

I went to Geneva. I went to Geneva. I went to Geneva. He works out of Europe. He's all as your being customers. And he had a dinner in Geneva, which I joined. And then me, Jensen, Brad Smith, Anthony Tan from Grab and a bunch of other folks were put on this UN Commission for AI. That Mark is the co-chairman up. When you see Mark Benny often actionman, this guy is a f*cking master. Holy shit. He is the impresario of impresarios. Yeah. You see how he's built such a ginormous business.

It's impressive. It's impressive. What is a commission by the United Nations for AI? What is their, what is their calling open source? No, but no, I mean, it's like the United Nations. Actually, actually, actually, it's a fun. Yeah, I mean, and traffic was there too soon that one of the co-founders Tom Brown and the business. Yeah. Yeah. That's good. We're seeing a profit guy running around saying, it's the end of the world. Yeah. No, no, no, no. He was comes very, Tom's awesome. Tom's awesome.

In fairness to him, he wears it on his sleeve, which is like, hey, we really believe we're doing

“the right thing. Right. And just trust us. And I think the future is open source for all these countries.”

Well, we're going to get into that. That's on the dock at four. Sure. But let's start with the IPO update. You know, there's a trillion dollar IPO rush to the exits. And, you know, this was a big topic of discussion, Brad, at the liquidity summit last month.

And we'd never seen trillion dollar IPO. We had one this year already. Space X trading

right about where it went public. So it was priced. I guess to perfection. And theoretically, going to see two more Brad has the inside of permission. So I'll try to get it out of an opening eye in an anthropic are slated to go out. Let's just go a quickly over what happened with SpaceX. It ran up to $200 a share. It's been down a bit. It's at 150 dollars. Sure, as I said, that's right at the IPO price. So it's trading at that two trillion market cap.

Currently, seven largest company in the world. And anthropic. Confidentially filed on June 1st. I don't know why the clothes confidential filing when it immediately comes out. But I guess the information is confidential. Probably markets says 65% chance. Anthropics IPO will happen this year on light volume 360 k and two weeks ago Gavin Baker another bestie said he thinks they're going

to end 2026 with over a hundred billion dollars in revenue and very profitable. He said a couple

of us gas on the program that he thinks it would trade at three trillion right now. If it went public, Trimoth, he made a great call on the pot. He said, hey, good idea for Elon to get out first. What are the chances here, Trimoth, that these other two get out this year? Or maybe in say nine

“months in the first quarter of next year? We'll start there. Well, I think that these are all”

great businesses. I think the question is, what is the market clearing price? And I think that's more of a function of how much appetite the markets have to absorb new issues and at what scale? That's number one. And I think that's mostly determined by price. So I think Anthropics and OpenAI are probably in two different places. The last time we heard from

and more reliance on consumer than enterprise. I think Brad mentioned it in one of the pods that Anthropics may actually be accidentally profitable. I think he said something like that. Yeah, let me tell you something really interesting. I sat down with my CTO today and

I said, how are we doing on token spend? And he said the most incredible thing. He said right now

our token costs are doubling every 45 days. Okay. And I was like, ugh, and he said, yeah, and I said, well, what is the downstream productivity? And he said maybe 5% max. Okay, and I said, okay, so my costs are doubling every 45 days. My upside is essentially flat. And he said, basically, and I said, well, explain why that is. And he said, honestly, what we're finding out is that

“you need to use a lot more tokens to get to this next iteration of improvement because we've”

effectively already asymptoted. And I said, so what should we do? And he said, honestly, we have to figure this out. And so we're going to take a step back and try to figure out what to do. I don't know how many other companies will actually go through this reckoning now. But the point is, everybody in the next three or four years will the for sure go through it. So I suspect that if you can get out now, you should get out now before all of that starts to seep into the water table

because I think that's probably what allows you to get out at a huge price and raise a huge amount of money. All right, Brad, you are well invested and well known for being invested in these two next IPOs. So you probably have some good insights since you've talked to them on a regular basis. Chances, they get out in the next six to nine months. Both of them, you'd say 100% chance unless there's some outside events, you know, a blockade of Taiwan, some blocks one event that we're not

anticipating, what do you think that chances are they're public when we're sitting here and I'm skiing

“and how kind of. Yeah, I think it's very high, but let me, let me first say, you know, the space”

X IPO where we were also investors and we also bought in the IPO. I mean, it was textbook. It was a

hugely successful IPO. They raised $75 billion at $1.75 trillion. Okay, so it went out below where we

are today. It's up to 25%. You know, and let's call it on 35 billion, a forward revenue. So if you think about that revenue multiple, it's trading at $2 trillion on roughly 35 billion of a forward revenue, it's an incredible achievement. I think it was textbook. I think anthropic and open-air were watching very closely because frankly, we had not had an IPO of that size and to Elon's credit, and to the teams credit, Brad and Gwen, they really pioneered some really smart and

interesting things as part of that IPO. So, you know, you heard from Gavin, anthropic's rumored to be, you know, trending over 100 billion in revenue compared to the 35, right? If they exit the year at 100, that means their gap revenue next year could be well over 100. So, based on the space

“X success, I think it would be a blockbuster IPO. And I think space X has shown them the way on”

things like the total raise, pricing, liquidity, inclusion into the index is how to do the lock-up, like I think they've gone to school. It was a stage release in terms of getting a lock-up. It has to hit certain milestones and some of those are time. Early inclusion in the index, raised $75 billion, like, you know, early inclusion in the index. Let me have you unpack that for a second because people said, hey, maybe this feels unfair that they should be forced to buy it.

What's your take on that? Is that just, like, haters going to hate or is there something to that?

I think there was legitimate concern, right? This is never legitimate concern. Yeah.

The legitimate concern is that a company that had not been through the process of being vetted post- IPO, there's a lot of volatility. You've seen that chart, Jason. Sure. The peak to trust drawdown in the six months post- IPO is 50%. We've seen a pretty big drawdown here from the peak to trough as well. So you don't want to jam into an index at the peak and then have a 30% drawdown on top of people, which often happens in IPOs because people get excited. It runs ahead

of itself. But they didn't do that here. There was fear that that was going to happen. So both the exchanges and the indexes, they looked at this and they made some modifications because the the other side of the argument is it's so damn big and important that it needs to be part of the index. Right. And so the reason the rules had previously existed is because most companies coming public were younger, earlier, less tested, less revenues, less profitable. All the things,

word is important in the overall scheme of things. So I think that they pioneered some really

for anthropic. But just in terms of the enthusiasm, it is an altimeter as a fidelity as a T-Rough and enthusiastic buyer of anthropic based upon the things we know today around profitability and model improvement and revenue growth, etc. Yes, everybody would be pigpiling in. Everybody would be trying to get into the top of the book. And the last I heard, again, rumor that they would like to get out this year. On open AI, everybody knows that anthropic kind of passed open AI on a

revenue trajectory. But I will tell you, open AI's kind of got its swagger and mojo back. It's coming out, you know, just today with the whole new set of models. We know GPT6. You know, there's a lot of

“talk of that coming out within the next 30 days, a whole new generation of models. I think the revenue”

has really ticked back up. The most recent kind of rumors I see on Twitter is around $70 billion

tax. So just as a reminder, 70 billion may not be over 100 billion that's rumored and anthropic, but it's still twice, you know, where the revenue of SpaceX is at. So can they get out at over a trillion on that type of revenue growth being one of the two frontier premier labs? I think the answer to that is yes. I'm not sure there's a huge race between the two of them to get out first. I think they'll both go out when it's one it's time. I think open AI has a little bit more complexity

just associated with a corporate restructuring that they have to go through, et cetera. So I would be surprised if they go out before anthropic, but the fact of them matter is I don't know. But today, as I sit here today, altimeter would be a buyer at scale and at size in both of those IPOs. At three trillion are you a buyer or are you, hey, you know, it's obviously going to trade up and

“down and there's no rush because you, I think, were the one who said on the pot or might have”

been not liquidity live. When I asked you point blank, hey, should retail get involved in SpaceX, what's your thought? And you're like, hey, listen, it's a 4% flow, 5% flow, it's going to trade up and down, but you know, a year from now it might be trading at the same basic price. It's going to be priced not to perfection, which it seems to have been, but I think your position was it's going to be priced reasonably. There'll be plenty of time to get in. You don't have to like,

you know, panic about getting your shares. Yeah. What's a company's valued at over a trillion dollars, like the get rich, quick schemes or whatever. Right. Like that you and I share a deep passion, Jason, we got to get retail investors. We got to get the citizens of the United States in on these value creating opportunities earlier. Right. The accredited investor laws are insane that we have in this country and keeps people from participating in these things, but it is what it is.

Right. So they're coming public at over a trillion dollars. I still think there's a lot of meat on the bone on SpaceX on an anthropic on open AI, but you're not going to have things that are I don't expect that they're going to be priced in a way where you're going to get a 50 to a hundred percent durable balance out of the IPOs. If so, that would mean they were probably mispriced right into the IPO. But I do think that these things can be compounders. They're going to compound

“at the rate they compound revenue and I think all of these companies are going to compound revenue”

at well over 30 percent for the next many years. And 30 percent a year for just people understand.

That this is high growth in public markets on very large revenue numbers already. You know, growing 30 percent when you have a hundred billion revenues one thing, growing 30 percent, you know, when you got a 10 billion or a hundred billion, you know, this becomes a different task. So let's talk a little bit about these two companies, Chimoff, and what the public's going to perceive them as. Chatchy PT seemed to be the public brand, the consumer

brand for, you know, large language models. It's the AI for, you know, people who are doing their homework or mom and dad are trying to fix the dishwasher or whatever. And then Claude took the lane of, hey, we're going to be the one for corporate. And it did seem like opening. I got very distracted with Sora and, you know, Disney relations ship. We're going to make a puck with Johnny

out. Everything consumer, then they realize, oh, wow, the revenue seems to be an enterprise first.

Is that going to wind up being the, the big mistake when we look at it, they kind of gave the Google position, the high growth position to Claude and anthropic. And they took the Yahoo position or do you think they'll catch up on the enterprise or maybe they should just go back to trying to be the consumer version. How, how are these going to be positioned a year from now has the public going to look at them? The problem with enterprise revenue is at some point the person that's

spending it has to see an ROI. I asked Fable five high anthropics new model. Yeah, anthropics new model. I first asked it, what is the lift of the S&P 500 earnings per share growth since 2024 from AI?

including the money that Nvidia makes from selling chips. So I said, okay, I asked a different question, which is then, what was the EPS growth of the S&P 493? And the answer was 9%. And I said, okay, well, that's different. And I said, unpack that. And the overwhelming majority of that was from pricing power sitting on top of inflation. And then the other three percent was from buybacks. And so the answer as far as all publicly available data was that the actual ROI

“was somewhere between 0 and 2%. So I don't know. I mean, I think that enterprise looks really good.”

The problem is that very smart investors like Brad and Gavin and others at some point will

start asking companies, what's your ROI? What's the actual EPS lift? And if the answer is, well, I don't really know or I'm not sure. And you know, you don't necessarily have the pricing power to continue to raise prices. Enterprise is probably a little bit more brittle because they are fewer buyers and they're more demanding. Consumer on the other hand, then all of a sudden becomes an incredible safe harbor because you have tens of millions of buyers. And having those

two orders of magnitude more buyers at a much smaller price point, inoculates you from the vicissitudes of an ROI discussion. So it all really depends on what the actual ROI is of this money being spent. I think that we're in the phase of just being astonished. As Brad said about the scale

“of the revenue growth. But at some point, you'd have to be an idiot not to ask, well, who is paying”

you this and can they sustain paying it to you? I just don't know what the answer to that question is. And at some point, it may not be now. At some point, people will have to answer that question.

And interestingly, $1 million a year on tokens. And that $1 million a year is doubling and

tripling and quadrupling. At some point, you're going to have to show an ROI that's above the risk free rate of return. Otherwise, you're going to have some angry investors on your hands. And our discussion here for the last couple of weeks, weeks on the pod has sent it around that. And the industry has responded on the place where all the CTO CEOs and capital allocators hang out, which is X.com formerly known as Twitter. Here's Prevene the CTO of Uber. And so when you ask, like, how are they

getting? Are they getting the ROI out of this? People are now bringing that conversation front and

“center and they're explaining it on X. And he talked, remember Uber was also the one that ran”

through all their tokens in the first quarter. So then on the other side of the business, which is

legal operations, marketing customer support HR and procurement, which he lists here, he says in this, you know, today 99% of our engineers use AI tools. Okay, great, right? It's everybody's, you know, doing vibe coding and as coding assistance. More than 70% of pull requests are attributed to local or cloud agents. Our engineers have built 2,500 agente skills. So how are we bringing agente AI beyond engineering? And what they've decided to do is essentially he talks about these

agente pods. And this to me seems directly how this should be done, which is you find engineers and you, as we talked about forward deployed engineers, fancy way of saying, put an engineer, put them into departments and have them work with the department heads who understand systems thinking how their process is done. And he, he says is making basically long and short of it is they're making massive, massive progress on the operational side of the business. So Brad,

you're pretty familiar with Uber and a bit of long support of that. This is a company that knows how to deploy technology pretty well. And there are operations machine run by an operations machine Darra. They should report the EPS gains attributable to AI. Yeah, well, I mean, I mean, this, this first step seems like they're really being thoughtful about this. First, hey, this token spent got out of control with the developers. We're going to need to process a look at it

and then second, here's how it's going to lower costs and create more efficiency. So Brad, let's talk about that side of it. Not just token axing with the developers hitting the slot machine of like, okay, let's see if this pull requests and let's see if if this produces the right code or not to these departments in a more strategic way. It's not just the person who works in HR, you know, using cloud code or perplexity or whatever and trying to vibe code something.

This is, hey, we're sending engineering in to work with your top systems architect. And we're going to, you know, try to find that ROI. Yeah. Yes, you know, first, I would say chimoth is right. The only question is on what time frame. There's no doubt that there is a lot of money being

ROI, chimoth to your point. But I think we're so early, nobody cares. I think we're so early in terms of enterprise adoption. Remember, the total addressable market here is every single small

medium-large company on the planet. And so we've never seen revenue growth like this because

we've never seen a tam like this. And if you look at the distribution of revenues across these businesses, it's not like it's concentrated with four or five customers. There are millions of customers independently, economically, making the decision that is rational for them every day that it makes sense, like proving at Uber. And of course, they're trying to find things on both right now, mostly the cost side, cost takeouts to justify the investments that they're making in, you know,

“in tokens. But I think we're on the verge of breakthroughs in intelligence. It's going to dramatically”

change the revenue side of the equation for a lot of these businesses, breakthroughs in life sciences, breakthroughs in product innovation, et cetera, where they could not divorce themselves from this even if they wanted to. For example, Jensen Wong has talked many times that all of his design work, all of his design work. Now, at Nvidia is using AI to design the next generation chip. The machine is building the machine. So you can't get rid of that even if you wanted to and tiny

intelligence advantages at the frontier where he sits are required. Like there's no way I don't think that Jensen is going to use anything but the best models that he can to build out those capabilities. So I just think that we're not going to see that in the next few years. You're going to see it under the hood, of course. But that occurred at Snowflake. There was tons of optimization that occurred at Snowflake. But the revenue continued unabated. The revenue growth continued

unabated because they further penetrated use cases further penetrated the enterprise. So

“let me be provocative here. If these guys end a year over a hundred billion, I think that they're on a”

revenue trajectory that they could three to five X again next year. We've never seen anything like this.

Yeah, you're saying a hundred to three hundred. I'm saying you take it. And Jensen, like you and I have talked about this, our minds were blown if a company could go from one hundred million to three hundred million. We're talking from a hundred billion to three hundred billion, two hundred billion of incremental revenue is incomprehensible in the history of Silicon Valley. Okay. And just the fact that we're even in the end of the world. So the fact that we're even talking

anywhere close to this tells us something different is going on here. I think the thing this different is that intelligence is the largest Tam we've ever seen in the history of the world. These guys are penetrating it. So yes, the super sophisticated companies that 80, 90 and Chema are helping optimize their token spend that are early adopters. 100% that's occurring. But it's not really changing the trajectory that the frontier lapse are on.

Yeah. And one of the interesting things about this technology, that's really unique. We talk about intelligence on demand. When you would make a piece of software or you had some technological innovation, it would typically accrue to, I don't know, one group of people in an organization. You know, maybe two groups of people, right? Excel comes out. Okay. Yeah. The accounting department's having a field day with it, but it's not really affecting human resources or marketing.

Okay. Maybe it trickles down eventually. Every single person in every single organization is playing with these tools. So if everybody's playing with it, everybody's trying to apply it all at the same time, it's kind of like, you know, you have a thousand person organization. People are spending 200 a month. Okay. Yeah. Chema. They double it every, you know, X number of months. Okay. Yeah. Now there's spending 400 dollars a month per person. Okay.

There's spending $5,000 with the average salary is 100. 100. Okay. At this organization, it's only an incremental 3, 4, 5% on top of their salary. So the way I look at it is,

did it make that person 3, 4, 5 times more effective at their job? And I think the answer is yes.

“So that's why there's so much token maxing going on. And it's also a bottom-up type product.”

You can just get into this product for 20 bucks a month and you're no CIO or CTO is like, oh, no, you can't spend 20 bucks a month in your corporate card for this technology. So when a bottom-up technology hits everybody at the same time, that's what we'd explain this revenue ramp. That we're all having a hard time adjusting to. It applies to every single person. Like, who is it impacted by the technology?

Is my question to you, Trim off? Like, in what organization you're working with with 80, 90, is there a department that says, yeah, the intelligence on demand, not for us? We don't need it. Well, it's less about being dismissive that way. It's more that regulators and other people won't necessarily allow to use it the way you want. Okay. So finance, hip-up, yeah, there's HR data. You're not allowed to put that to work just yet. What I'm finding is, once you start using this

maybe in January. And I got that open claw bug. And then, you know, I started playing with this

Ermes, Ermes agent, which is not a French company, by the way. They just use, you know, French, names, it's a new research, or whatever it is. I started playing with that. It's a very peculiar piece of software. But it's a very open piece of software. So I went to open router. I got my own keys. I've been playing with GLM. Then, I talked a little bit about BitCensor on the program, known as Tao, dollars on TAO. It's a crypto project. Somebody who is creating a subnet that is

putting GLM 5.2 and other models available at really cheap prices. So I all of a sudden experienced, because they gave me an API key, having my token costs go down 95%. And when you have unlimited tokens as an exercise, which is going to come to everybody. Eventually, everybody's going to learn how to drop the price by 95%. And it's going to happen as well, because people like rock with inferences, all inference. This is what people are using. They're, they're using inference to do this. Well,

inference is being impacted like three or four different ways. The software is getting better, open source at the same time. You're going to have distributed networks like Tao. And you're going to have better, you know, chipsets from grock and cerebrus, etc. All that's happening at the same time. Once I got down to 95% cheaper, I started setting my agents instead of doing daily runs to doing hourly runs. Then I took my agents from doing one task. And I broke them up into three agents and

have them doing three different things on the hour. And when you start doing hourly tasks,

and then you wake up in the morning and like 14 jobs have been done, you're like, wait a second,

this is completely different. As one example, I have it has all the all in episodes, all this we can start up episodes. And we set these cron jobs to go find what the new trends are in technology. I have a trend spotting agent running every hour informing me of the top real four trends. And I just give it words. Really does change your thinking when costs go down. What do you think the tokens are going to cost Brad and, you know, yeah, we've seen 90% reductions in the price

to tokens for each of the last two and a half years. We've talked a lot about Jevon's Paradox,

“which I think you're referencing here, which is you're going to use a hell of a lot more when”

it happens. I think the central debate right now in AI is the one that Chimuth keeps pointing us back in the direction of, which is for 18 months since the deep seek moment, right? When the deep seek moment happened, the market's fell 40%. And there was a reason for that. Many started arguing that the frontier models were screwed, that open source was going to kill them, that they were closing the intelligence gap, that model routing was going to make it easier,

easier to root these tasks to cheap tokens. But despite all of those arguments, and now we're 18 months into this. And I had this back and forth with girly a lot. I love open source. I want all the competition in the world. Let's be very clear. But despite all of those arguments, the facts on the field are just the opposite. The share of economic value. There's this tweet this week from Jesse Zang that we ought to pull up here. The economic value, the share of wallet,

is actually increasing to the frontier labs. While the share of tokens, these commodity tokens, is obviously going up to the other guys. And I had a little back and forth this week with an occasion on this kind of trying to sus out why is that the case, right? Because what people would have thought is, oh, cheaper, pretty damn good. 90% is good enough to do all these tasks that you're talking about Jason. So nobody's going to use the Anthropics and the Open AI's of the world.

“But despite that, it looks like their share of wallet is gone up. I think it's not that. I think”

it's more that when the iPhone was a novelty, everybody would keep upgrading because you expected that the new price was worth it. And then at some point, there's a moment you can debate when it happened where people said, you know what? I'm just going to keep the old phone because it's good enough and I just don't see the difference. And I think that there's going to be a moment

like that. Like when I use Fable 5, the problem is that it's nerfed on a bunch of things that I

would normally research. You know, I was with somebody this weekend and he was telling me about some helping and I put it into Fable and I was like, one answer to you. I'm like, okay, so I think that everybody will get to a point. They'll get to it at different times where they just say, you know what, like, it shouldn't really matter what model I'm using if I get an answer that I think is reasonable and I can kind of go about my day. Separately, I think when the corporate CFO gets involved,

“that'll be an entirely different conversation altogether. I think that what I can tell you after this”

UN commission that I joined with Benny Off and Jensen and Brad Smith, there's not a single country in the world that is not trying to figure out its own sovereign AI strategy and I don't

we, I think we have to keep in mind, there's trends. One is just geographic penetration of humans and there are still many, many, many more people that don't use it than do, which is an upside

and an opportunity for everybody. And then the second is there is going to be the experimentation

as you said that needs to transition to ongoing repeatable usage. And then the third is that all of that then needs to plug into the existing regulatory infrastructure that we use as societies to run the

“world. And I think when you put all of these things together, it's not clear to me who wins,”

except that you're going to have a lot of diversity of choice. Certain countries, I can tell you after this week, have no desire to subjugate themselves to any technical risk. And so, they're willing to spend the money to have their own. Now, we can argue and debate whether that country has any chance, but they would rather take an open source model like Nvidia's actually and stand up their own stacks, soup denotes for their own people and their own companies inside

of their own country. And if the models are 99% as good or 95% as good, there's going to be a claim that some countries make, which is it's just good enough. That's the question. That's the question. And then separately, there are companies who will not have the earnings growth to justify this without going on some long, protracted car about of cost. And most companies, you know this, they just don't do it. They don't have the nerve to do it. They're not capable of it.

You know, you wrote that famous essay to Zuck. He was pressured into finally doing it absent

in very few companies. Most people just allow the problems to compound. So, I just don't see a world where when you get clobbered over the head, you don't look at other ways of just displacing cost. And if it's like Coke Pepsi kind of the thing, and Pepsi's 11,000th of cost of Coke,

“I don't know. I just think it's a risk that I think has to be managed in the perception of”

the market participants and the underwriters. To add to that, Brad, just open source is very hard to implement when compared to just firing up Claude and having Claude already approved in your organization. The number of steps it took me in order to, and I'm pretty familiar with technology, it took me hours to configure my new setup to get onto this mid-tensor network to get open router going. And to your point, you know, it does dynamically route now. So, I'm dynamically routing.

And I'm, you know, GLM 5.2. And then if I fall back to Claude, but which Claude am I going to fall back to? And here's another piece of evidence to your point, Schmoth. There are some organizations that are just aren't capable of this. They don't have the the team that, you know, does this naturally. We just talked about the CTO of Uber. Now, let's talk about another CTO, Andy Fang, is the CTO of Dora Dash, shout out to Stanley. And so, he, as you can see here in this tweet,

I get a lot of people listening to all in over the last couple of weeks are coming out as I said, explaining what they're doing to address this exact issue. He says, hey, with our internal coding benchmarks, we're able to confidently introduce open weight models into our AI code review, without degrading code quality, have the frontier model, fable, from anthropic. To do the hardest work, delegate lower level worked, Kimmy 2.6, and they are now releasing their benchmarks. So,

another group, releasing their benchmarks and saying, hey, we know this is an issue. The CTO has been charged to your point, Jamoth again. CFO says, hey, make sure this is profitable. We get the ROI. They put that on the CTO. Here's another CTO from another leading tech organization. That knows how to implement this. Yeah, the really interesting thing we have to forecast right now is

“what happens in an earnings miss. And I think what happens in a moment where for whatever reason,”

maybe there's just an externality that there are a series of earnings misses. Where are people going to look? And I just think that people find it very difficult to lay off other people. I think it's much, much easier to cut other costs. And I think that the more successful these companies get in a very quick amount of time without really proving the ROI. I just think the bigger the risk is. It's complicated. The game on the field when you're working with these

enterprises and just trying to explain it to them is that I think that they're getting smarter quickly. It's what I would say. I would just say I think that Jamoth's absolutely right about the sovereign stacks that are going to get built around the world. This is not either or we are going to have open source and we are going to have frontier intelligence. The preponderance of the tokens today are already shifting toward cheaper, lower lagging models out of opening eye or lagging

models out of anthropic or the other frontier labs that are out there. Obviously, you know, we

talk about those two space X's released an incredible model, you know, in the last two days,

there are lots of choice. The meta thing was really intense because I thought, okay, you know, we talked about the game theory, which was Mark should score steer with open source.

“I think they flubbed that play. But then I think he is now said he's going to create a price for.”

And so, if you look at the tweet or the quote, there was a post Jason, I don't know, Nick, if you can

find it, I got an announcing it. He was basically like, hey, guys, I'm going to give you the same

quality at like one one hundredth of the cost. Now, again, there's a lot between here and there, there's a lot of enterprises distribution that's required. And, you know, there's been a couple of misfires before. But I thought it was interesting that the vector of challenge was on cost. Yeah, here's the mark. Here, Mark, a tweet, just so I cured off of you there, Brad. And he's at think D, that was his old handle back when he was in college, if I end KD. And he's done more tweets

today over this mu spark announcement than he's done in his history. So, he's getting into the X dot com conversation quote, today we're releasing mu spark 1.1, a strong agentic encoding model at a very low price. It's available through our new meta model API and in meta AI. So, he's coming out saying, hey, we got the strongest agentic tool here, please come use it. He also wants to have his own, essentially, you know, he wants to jump into not the hosting space, but he wants to provide tokens as

“well. So, again, I think we're going to have a tremendous amount of selection. The competition is great”

for America. But I think if you look at the things people are doing, let me give you an example, the premium workload. Jason, you talked about summarizing a document, may take 20,000 cheap tokens to do. Of course, shoot that to a lagging model or an open source model. But if you're talking about

replacing a software engineer for two hours, that may take 2 million expensive tokens. And the

consequence of using something that's 95% is good is really high, right? Because you have a long running task. And if the task breaks early or it breaks in the middle or it breaks at the end, there's a huge cost to that. So, still even the tokens, right? And in fact, it is the knowledge and the time of the machine and you lose. And the time and the compute. So, if an AI agent is replacing a $200 an hour consultant, right, take that as an example. So, three consulting firms,

they're competing. They need the smartest consultant. They're charging 200 bucks an hour. The difference between spending three bucks on a cheap model or 15 bucks on an expensive model to replace a $200 an hour consultant, it's just irrelevant. That inference cost difference is irrelevant. If you're

“getting something that's bulletproof for 15 bucks. And so, I think that's what we're seeing play out.”

The best evidence for all of this is just revenue growth, right? We can sit here and speculate all day long as to revenue growth. But this is not from Anthropic and Open AI, but from their customers. I'm talking about what is Anthropics revenue growth compared to Open AI compared to the Open Source models. Millions of independent actors are choosing every single day. The Open Source companies are growing, right? But they're growing selling something that is really, really cheap. And there's

room in every single market for premium products, for mid-tier products, and for commodity products. And I think we see a lot of this token growth. People are speculating that the intelligence gap between that commodity stuff and the frontier stuff is going to collapse to the point that people won't pay for the frontier stuff. There is no evidence of that on the field today. It may develop over the course in the next couple years, but it's not on the field today. Yeah, just to give people

an idea, we keep mentioning what sovereigns are doing to give you the specifics on that to UAE very famously has their own Abu Dhabi Technology Innovation Institute, shipping Falcon. You probably have heard about that. The Saudis have humane. And they're doing their own models that are Arabic

LLMs. And then this week, Japan is investing $6 billion in a consortium. It's called the Neo-Tera,

Neo-Tera, NEOTRA, and NEOTRA, consortium. And they're doing that and skipping ahead to physical AI, IE, robotics. Okay, joining the conversation here. But one, the only Saxi. Who? Sax bringing you into the discussion, talking a little bit here about the debate that we started here on the podcast, getting ROI from tokens, where are the tokens going to crew to open source versus the frontier models, a bunch of CTOs chiming in on X this week in the last couple of days. In fact, talking about

how they're managing intelligent routing first to open source models, then falling back to Fable and the frontier models. How do you think this is playing out? And if you're an investor in the space, how do you think about the frontier models and their growth when you have,

And what is that cheaper solution? Well, look, I think that enterprise CTOs would like to shift

their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that that would be more efficient. And they are seeing their compute costs or their token costs to skyrocketing right now. So everyone's trying to figure out how do we put the brakes on this or at least control it. You know, make sure we're getting ROI. You also have the AI sovereignty issue that we discussed last week that Alex Carp talked about where they're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the

alpha and their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. So there's no question that enterprises would like to diversify. They would like to get off

“of these frontier models when they can. The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have”

the technical ability to do it. I mean, Coinbase figured out how to do it, door dash figured out how to do it, which is to say they built a token routing system, a layer of middleware that allows them to sort of send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capabilities to do that. So I think this is a case of the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. I mean, they are

willing. They would like to diversify off of these close models, but they aren't unable to do it. And so this is why the share of wallet of close models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing. Now, I don't think that means that usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing in both these categories. It also may be the case that because the

whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab. So it may be the case that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend. But nonetheless, I mean, anyone who's saying that these close models are again a lose or are somehow losing, you're just not singing in the data like Brad Singh, the revenue is skyrocketing. And I think the most you can say is that enterprises that are technically capable with like to gravitate towards

hybrid architectures. But at the same time, it takes technical expertise. And it is just phenomenally convenient, whether you're a developer or an enterprise just to go with the frontier labs.

“And that's why the revenue is skyrocketing. It is the easiest choice. It's the most refined. Yeah,”

most refined. Yeah, and there's one other thing here as well. And this was discussed in a really interesting blog post by the founder of Decagon, which is enabling AI power customer support for enterprises. And what the founder said is, look, open models are great when you know exactly what you're trying to do. Why they're smaller cheaper models. But you have to do post training. You have to have the data set. And you have to know exactly what you're going to use them for.

But if you don't know exactly what you're going to use them for, you want the most powerful

general intelligence that you can get. Right. So what he said is that for mature use cases, yeah, you want to go open. But for immature use cases, which are all the new things people are discovering right now, you're just going to want to use the most capable general model that you can. And then once you figure out what the workflow is and what the workload is going to be and exactly

“what you're trying to accomplish, then you can use a small, highly trained model. And I think you”

all recognize in the post to get the game. From customer support, your model doesn't need to know physics, you know, for example. And so you don't need that capability. But enterprises are still trying to figure out exactly what all these workflows we're going to do. So I think that's another factor, which is to say that, you know, it depends on the use case and

how mature that use case is. And you really want the most powerful frontier models that you can

at the discovery of all the potential for the technology. Yeah. And then we just wrap up. Then there's one other interesting post that I saw was by Nikesh Aurora, who also said that what he's seeing is yeah, enterprises would like to diversify. They would like what he called model fungibility. They would love to commoditize these models, right? And just hot swap them. Yeah, headless is the term being used right? Yeah, that'd be ideal for enterprises is you sort of

swap out the model for the cheapest one that gets your task done. But then what do you do about memory? What do you do about context? What do you do about history? And what he said is no one's really figured out a way to have struck that stuff away from the model yet. And again, this goes to the technical challenge of creating this middleware layer that would do the most efficient token routing. It's, well, you know, it doesn't work unless you can make all of that context and memory in history

to have some technical ability, sacks. And the people with technical ability, the tip of the

“spear, the 1% of people deploying this technology are starting to figure that out. Here's another”

proof point and some more evidence. This is Ali, the founder of data bricks that are coming here very familiar with Brad. And what he realized, when you start taking apart the harness and you start looking at the skills, you look at the memory and all this, a crude demand that you put around your tasks. He said, we find that the same model using the same model, not using open source versus open AI or or or clawed. We found that for the same model, the choice of harness

can significantly save costs by about two x. So they found with GLM 5.2 that this forms extremely well and that their tasks literally are getting cut in half using the same model, but with a different harness and that rings true to me. Once you've built one of these agents and I was talking about one earlier, I'm running every hour on the hour to find trends. I asked it to please start optimizing it and when I optimized it, it was like 80% less token use. And now in these apps, you can go

to your analytic sacks and you can actually see your token used by hour by job and across which models you're using. This is really sophisticated and hard for for a consumer to do of the technology, but it's definitely a trend. So with the harness that he was using,

“is that something they built in house? Yes, I think it's um yeah. Okay, got it. So they”

they basically use an omni-jent in front of these and that it can multiplex different harnesses

in models for different tasks. So he's not only routing to the right LOM, he's routing to the right harness and people don't even know what skills are, people don't even know what the memory is at this point. That's all abstracted into the plot product with a proxy product, etc. Yeah. There'll be a massive business. There already is all these inference clouds, you know, the base tens of the world, the fireworks of the world, every single hyperscale in the world is going to

do this. They're all going to provide, you know, tools that allow you to achieve some level of model fungibility. The big question is at the end of the day, we're going to have, it's going to be very heterogeneous, but what is the mix between these two? Again, think the term is so damn big here. You're going to have huge open source, use cases, sovereign use cases, etc. You're going to have plenty of room for the frontier labs. I let me throw something out. I'd like to get your opinion on,

you know, to a certain extent, there's this implied assumption in the world that there's going to be this convergence of intelligence, right? And if you look at the benchmarks today, seems like everybody, you know, on the benchmarks, they are converging, but yet if you look at the revenue distribution, it's not converging at all. One of the questions I have will the model router itself be smart enough to overcome David, the inherent intelligence advantages of the generalized

of the frontier labs. The non-consensus argument might be that intelligence is not converging at all, that superintelligence becomes fully self, you know, recursive. And as it becomes recursive, you actually extend the lead because the smarter your model gets, the more revenue you get, the more compute you can buy, the more you compute you can buy, the better the model is that you can build.

“So I think there's a chance that over the course of the next two to three years, as we take on”

much more complex, agentic tasks, that the distance between the frontier and everybody else doesn't converge, it actually extends. We shall see. But, you know, I think there's this implicit assumption in all the arguments today that everything's converging. I'm not sure that we've really run that to ground. Another piece of evidence to put into this mix, I interviewed Anton, the CEO of lovable, lovable is an app that, or is a service that allows you to vibe code, you know, different

pieces of software. They've got a really interesting take on that. They went from 100 to 600 million

in revenue over the last two years. They went from zero to 350 in the first two years of the company, the product's been out of think roughly for like 30 months. Then I also spoke to the CEO of 11 labs, Matty. And I asked both of them point blank. Are you guys, you know, your major customers of, you know, the frontier models, yes, they're spending tens of millions of dollars with those frontier models. I asked them, hey, you concerned about data leakage and then competing,

you know, releasing competing products, 11 labs is doing voice and obviously cloud code, you know, a novice competitor to lovable. Are you going to make your own models? Both of them said that they're working essentially on their own models. Those are major customers of the frontier labs who they want to get off of the frontier models and they want to have their own proprietary model. The ability to create verticalized models is getting easier and easier every six months or so.

So that's going to be another trend to look for is these verticalized models for voice,

And these are major, major eight and nine figure customers. I think they're going to just

“run for the hills and only use the frontier models. Yeah, but yeah, the counterpoint there is 11”

labs. I love Matty. Yeah. Do you really think he's going to use an inferior model? He's got to be have the best voice agent in the world. And if the best voice agent in the world is given to him by using the frontier labs, can he afford in a competitive marketplace to say, I'm going to use the cheaper version, the thing that I built for myself, even though it's not as good as the other thing, if he builds something better, I totally agree with you, which is what he believes he's doing.

He believes he's making a better version. Yeah. So that's the question that I just, you know, put on the table whether or not you're going to see this convergence, whether in fact is that easy, I don't think it's that easy, but we shall see. Okay. And may come down to how discrete and sort of predictive the use is. So like Decagon, the customer support AI company, they said that 90 percent of their usage now is being sent to open models. But those are open models that they've had

the opportunity to post-traine on and do a huge amount of customization based on all of their learnings and all of the data that they've gotten. So again, it comes back to maturity of the use case. If you know exactly what you're trying to do, it's probably easier, but you know, I don't think that's the most enterprises, though. And maybe there's going to be a pattern where you know, all the immature use cases, which is to say all the things you're figuring out,

you're just going to want to use the most powerful model possible. And then once it gets really

well defined, it may be you start moving some of those workloads to post-trained open models. Purpose-built models, yeah. Yeah, purpose-built. Yeah, it could be something like that. That's kind of what's happening with the people who are the tip of the spear. They're working on the routing of the jobs, the working on the harness, and they want to be independent and have that AI sovereignty we talked about last week. Well, but just to take on Bob's point for a second,

“I actually agree with what I think you're saying, Brad, which is the market today seems to be”

pushing towards doopily, or it has become a doopily. Certainly measured in terms of revenue. If you're to look at market share based on token revenue, there's only two companies making

meaningful revenue and thropics at what, 60 something billion, ARR, open AI at 40 something billion,

ARR, I don't know if anybody else even registers. And it may be the case that the more tokens that and thropic and open AI produce. I mean, we've got to remember every token that they're serving up is on behalf of a use case, right? So they themselves are learning from that, and they're getting better at then providing whatever offering that is. And so who knows? Like the gap may be growing. A year ago, it seemed like we had five major labs. You know, now it seems like

there's a top two and then everybody else. So I mean, look, I could see AI easily becoming another tech market that becomes a doopily. Which is the trend, the historical trend is like monopoly or doopily in most tech categories for better or worse. Yeah. In this case, though, however, we're using revenue as the metric to determine the winner. Keep in mind, when you're doing open source, those are dark tokens. Those don't come up as revenue. So we don't know the utilization. That's a

curing at door dash when they're using an open source model. We do know their fable and heranthropic spend, right? And because we see that in the and thropic revenue ramp, the more they deploy these things on their own hardware using commoditized hardware using the neoclouds, you don't see that.

“It doesn't come up as revenue. It comes up as free. The only thing you're paying for there is the”

hosting cost. You know, and that's that will come up on Nvidia's balance sheet. So the gains you'll see there will be cerebris, neoclouds, caruso cloud, et cetera. So just keep that in mind. When we're having this discussion, let's talk a little bit back to sovereignty here. The CCP said that they might or those report out according to Reuters, where it is generally does a good job of this. They dropped a couple of anonymously source reports about AI in China. And these were published

about 15 minutes apart. The big scoop that CCP officials, Chinese Communist Party, are reportedly considering restricting overseas access to China's top models. So two Chinese regulators met with Alibaba by dance and z dot AI. They're the ones who are doing GLM 5.2 that we keep referencing. They're discussing limiting access to the top open and closed models outside of China. Why are they doing this? Well, they're making any theft or leaks of AI research, a national

security offense. And they want to control who can fund Chinese AI labs. And we saw this with Manus, which was a Chinese company, tried to go to Singapore, the CCP pulled those employees from Singapore back to China. And so here is their main concern, the quote is that their concern

software vulnerabilities. And that Washington might deploy a model against Chinese interest.

Sacks last week, I propose the reverse to you in your previous position as a ZAR of AI. Do you think the United States should be banning those models? Now we have the opposite China's saying potentially, according to these reports, allegedly, that they might restrict them. So explain the game on the field here. If you're going to look into what China's thinking, why would they want us to not have those open source models? And how is this chess board

developing? Well, last week, I explained why it would be harmful to the US to ban open models. So if you're China and you want to harm the US, maybe you would want to. I mean, it does kind of make sense because our, our companies are benefiting a lot from all this R&D that they're doing.

“Now, at the end of the day, I think this story is probably a little bit overstated. I think”

there are a few Chinese models that were open source set of gone close source. But I don't think they're all, I'd be surprised. Let's put it that way. If they all went close. So for example, the number one model in China, as I understand it, is bite dances model, which is already closed.

That's kind of like their chatGPT equivalent. And it's always been closed. Then you've got

Ali Baba's quen, which was open and now I think it's going closed. And Zepu, which has GLM5.2, which we've talked about a couple of weeks ago because it seemed to be catching up to what was then commercially available as the American Frontier at certain tasks. They, I think, are going close too after having been open. And so this is, I think, the tactic is you stay open until you catch the frontier or you get close to it. And then there's a really

compelling incentive to go close because you want to capture all the value for yourself. Which, by the way, is exactly what Sam Altman did famously at OpenAI. Not only did they go from a non-profit to a for-profit, they went from open models to close models. So these exactly

paralleling what Sam realized three years ago. Yeah. I mean, in a way that was what I think

Meta's original strategy was was that Lama was going to be open. But then they actually, they sort of backed away from open a little bit. But it's this kind of an obvious strategy,

“right? Is that if you want to catch up, you go open. Because by the way, you're not going to”

make any meaningful revenue on closed anyway because you're not close enough to the frontier. So I would anyone buy your product. But if you go open, you get the developer community on your side. And you get utilization, more people use it, which in AI gives your reinforcement learning, yeah, sex. Well, having spent some time in DC this week and talking with, with the White House and Treasury etc on this topic, what I can tell you is while there may be some debates about

regulation of U.S. models, the one thing there's absolute agreement on is doing everything to stay ahead of China. And, you know, and the president, all the way up to the present, very interested, how far are we ahead of China? What are the things we need to do to stay ahead of China? It is a unifying force in Washington. And the idea that we were going to kind of take our frontier labs off the field, off the playing field, while letting Chinese open source models run free.

You know, and on top of that, distilling our models, I will tell you GLM 5.2 has watermarks from mythos all over it, right? So we know they were distilling etc. And I think the U.S. government's going to take steps against distillation, which they should do. So I think that, you know, China doing this in some ways, I don't think it hurts the United States. The United States can spin up open source models. We've got reflections spinning one up. Obviously, we've got the good work going

on at Nvidia with their open source models. The labs, I talked a couple of the frontier labs about open source models. I said, why aren't you guys making open source models? There's not a lot of demand for it. If there was a lot of demand for it, we would make it. And so I think the U.S. is in a good position. I think this is probably more chest plane by China than actual threats because it would hurt them a lot more than it would hurt us. Yeah. And then just back up your point

sacks about when you're behind, go open and then once you catch up, it's a carp Titan things up. That's exactly what they did with Android, right? Google released Android at a certain

“point. They were like, in order to use Android in the license, you have to include Google search.”

You got to use Google Drive. You got to use Chrome and they started tightening it up. So it's not really an open source project at this point. Just by the way, I think the absolute best thing that could happen for America in terms of winning the AI race against China is if China somehow sprouted at their own do-mark community. We need like a Chinese. We got to get there if you do them up. We got to get there if you do that. We need a lot more people over there freaking out about

job loss or RSI or whatever. That'd be the best thing to get a rabbit to us is if they start cracking down on their labs in the same way that the Doomers want to do over here.

everyone wants to win the AI race and in fact that was in the big AI policy speech. The president

gave about one year ago. That was the whole thrust of the speech was declaring that we were in

“the AI race in America had to win it. I think the big risk is more that, and this would not be”

like the top level. I think if the president can make every single decision, it'd be perfect. The issue is at a lower level in the bureaucracy. Do people somehow do things that are counterproductive? Maybe they think it's going to help us in the race against China, but they end up doing something that's hand-fisted. They just ban something or without really truly understand all the implications of it. I think there's no question that the administration once when the AI race the president

definitely does, and at the top levels, they will make smart decisions. The question is whether at lower levels of the bureaucracy, you can get mistakes being made, and then you have the influence of Congress or whatever. They want to do those guys, they're more responsive, I think, in a way to like the Doomer community. That's creating a lot of political pressure right now. Well, in the throttle paradoxically to all of this might not be the software, might not be the

chips. It might be energy yet to them off. I mean, when you look at your data center projects and the other ones that are going out there, if we need more tokens, if people need more inference, we have a gating factor in the United States, which is energy. There's an analysis

“that my team put together, which I think is quite staggering. If you just look at the load growth,”

that's expected between now and 2050, we are about three entire California's worth of energy short, and that's just assuming regular consumption of devices and cars, fridges, televisions, and computers. So, we have an enormous problem in the United States with respect to electrons. Yeah, and if you put Taiwan into the mixer, where the chips are coming out of, I had a really big wake-up call, and there was a Wall Street journal article about this.

The amount of LNG, which is what Taiwan runs on, is like they have two or three weeks of it, China decides to block aid Taiwan. They're going to run out of energy immediately. So, this is energy both in China and Taiwan, ending the United States. It's all dependent on that. We have to get nuclear running, more solar running, more batteries, more of everything, and that is, obviously, a regulatory challenge here in the United States. All right, let's talk about your time

in DC. Brad Gerson went to DC, everybody, and huge, huge congrats, Brad. You've been harping on about this, you know, accounts now called Trump accounts, the Investomerica accounts, and tell us

what happened in DC this week, because I think you finally have the number one app in the world,

Trump accounts is the number one app in the world, congratulations at a bunch of announcements. So, what's the contours of the announcement? And maybe you could take us behind the scenes. There it is, Trump accounts, the official app, number one, and top downloads. Your kids can invest in the future. This has been, you know, a four-year mission in the making. Thanks to you guys, you were early supporters, backers, we talked about it on here, and, you know, founders are crazy,

and you guys probably looked at what I was working on, and thought you're nuts, you're wasting your time on this, and so, you know, when it got signed into law last year, that's a huge moment, and a founder journey, that's like getting your first round of funding, maybe, like, okay, we actually, this thing is going to happen. But on July 4th of this year, the app went life, right? So, that means millions of accounts got created, the accounts got funded, and to celebrate that,

and to really kind of take the next step forward, you know, we designed a joint bell ringing,

first in history between the NYSE and Nasdaq, from the Oval Office that was incredible. We had

100 CEOs, their kids, their families that were impacted, and the president really, you know, kind of laid out that this is much bigger than just a program to give a few people some accounts. This is really about making every child a capitalist, in fact, the president suggested that we're going to auto create accounts for all 50 million kids, or upwards of 70 million kids under the age of 18. So, we called on us to get the accounts open faster for more people to have more impact,

to make sure no child is left behind. Right, just slow down, because a lot of people don't even

“know what a Trump account is. Just explain what it is, and then you should contrast the two,”

like a 529 account in some of these other things. Great. So, as you guys know, the idea was very simple, a thousand dollars for every child at birth that could compound for their

and you get an investment account. And if you do that, you start with a thousand dollars, and somebody matches that, and you save 10 bucks a week, that's $50,000 at age 18, and that's invested in the S&P 500. S&P 500. So, when these accounts are created, all that money goes into the S&P 500. There's no cost. It's a free account for the lifetime of the recipient, and that was packaged into the Invest America Act, which was passed into law

“a year ago as part of the reconciliation bill. So, that's what actually occurred on July 4th”

of this year. All those accounts were created for all of these kids. That's the reason the Trump account app is number one in the app store, because parents started hearing about this and said, "Whoa, I need to go download and get this set up for my child." We had over a million and a

half counts created in the first 24 hours. After the launch of this, we had over a billion dollars

of deposits. So, I was contributing money into the accounts of my nieces, my nephews, my kids, friends, kids, every account has a QR code Jason. So, somebody can just send you the QR code for your kid. You double, you double pay on your phone, double click, and you set them 25 or 50 bucks. So, that is kind of the most essential part of it, but we also had a bunch of announcements around philanthropy. And specifically, you can get access to that when you're 18, 19, 20 years old and

start putting it toward school, or you can roll it into your raw IRA, I guess your retirement account, obviously, Michael and Susan Dall were the, were the anchor series, over $6 billion, $250

for each of 25 million children, primary, lower, and middle income kids. Space X is present in

Gwen Schottwell. She joined the party, put 350 million in her space X shares and for children of lower income communities. So, with this, there's a device or some way to do it. So, you can target specific communities by geo or by, I guess, their net worth. So, it's just zip code an age, zip code an age, okay. And then, Micron put in 250 million up to a thousand per employee. So, that seems to be a really interesting way to do this. Like, you can do an employee, I'm sorry, an employer collection,

“and Brad, Brad, did it for all kids in Indiana, I think, right? Correct. All kids and Brad, this is a big”

number here. And this is a big announcement. Brad, the guy who complains when we make a buy-in for 10k after 10pm at the poker game and who, like, rage quits the game when he loses $6,000. Somehow, Brad dropped a hundred million dollars. I mean, oh my God, let's get a round of applause

in a golf clap. Brad, this is, I mean, I've never heard of you doing any philanthropy, like,

sometimes you show up with a bottle of wine to the game, but this is a big number. This is a big decision for you, huh? Well, I think this will become the largest direct philanthropic platform in the history of the country. We told the president, we think we can raise a hundred billion dollars in the first 12 months. And so, the scale of the philanthropy, the nature of the philanthropy, directly to America's kids without a charitable middle band that's directing who gets what and

and how it's distributed. So, you think about the people who now are, you know, we're 10 billion or a hundred billion. How do they give that money away at scale? Effectively, now we have a platform they can do that with. It goes directly into the accounts. The money can't be taken out until the kids are 18%. There's a bunch of noise about how some people won't do it because it's called Trump accounts. And that some people said, you know, this is going to create this weird

“class divide by people who had TDS and refused to give their kids because I think your website”

or something said something like 13 million bucks by the time they're 50. And, you know, I tweeted something to be effective. That is an irresponsible amount of money to not give a kid because you don't like the fact that it's called a Trump account. It's, it's apparently insane. If you go on Blue sky, which is like the open source, uh, lib, TDS, um, social network, people are like who just but one, you know, y'all trust those Trump accounts. I sure as hell don't. So it's a bunch of people, yeah.

Yeah, speak to that for one second, Mike. So I would say this, you know, it was the enabling legislation as the Investomeric Act. Um, a lot of people, a lot of Democrats calm, Investomeric accounts, they're officially Trump accounts. And the facts on the ground are that parents aren't listening to that noise. The parents who are signing up for this are across the income spectrum, across the economic spectrum, they're across the political spectrum. They know and

understand that their first responsibility is making sure their kids have a connection to the American

of that below back. But the president himself, let me just make this case very strongly.

“There's nobody who I've talked to about this over the last two years who cares more about”

every child getting an account, then the president himself. In fact, that occupied a lot of a lot of our conversation over lunch. He said, how do we get more people auto enrolled in this faster? I want every kid to have the shot to have this. I don't want anybody being left out in left behind because their parents are too busy working too jobs or because their parents may have an issue with it being called a Trump account. So the president is pushing us very hard and the Treasury

Secretary. And he to get more good side to brass. He gave you instructions. He gave you an order that he wants you to auto create the accounts. This is a brilliant move. He know, we know the social security numbers of people who are under 18. He told you get to work and automatically create the accounts. Are you going to do it? President Trump has commanded you to do it. Are you going to auto create them, Brad, or are you going to disobey the president? Our intention is to get

all 50 to 70 million accounts created over the course of the next 90 days. You've seen all

of this data. But you know, listen, we got to work through Treasury, the White House, social security, et cetera. They're definitely also going to get to this event more and then Bernie Sanders and Rokana. No, we're going to try to stop you. They're going to try to stop you from doing this. Are they giving you blowback because they don't want to get Trump the wind, which is totally retarded. But listen, I'll get credit where credit is due. You know, Cory Booker's come out and supported

these and Gavin News and Governor Westmore, John Federman, Senator from Pennsylvania. So there are plenty of Democrats who are able to get over that hurdle. But you bring up a good point. And I said this on CNBC yesterday. On the one hand, you have Bernie and Mandami. They want to take and tax all these corporations. They want to control all that money of Washington and decide who gets it. Right? It's a very dependent on Washington model. On the other side, you have the president

in this administration. And frankly, a lot of Democrats who are more in the orthodoxy closer to the center, who say no, let's set up a private account for every kid in America. Let's fund them. Let's not make them dependent. Let's make them independent of the government to build wealth on their own financial literacy on their own, more likely to graduate from high school, start a

“business by a home. Those are two very different world views for America. And I think the antidote”

to more socialism is more capitalism. And as I told the president, this is more capitalism. Facts, if this succeeds and Brad does, as he's been instructed by the president, we're going to go from 50% of people owning equities in the country to as much as 70. Maybe even 75% of

the country having access. And for the first time being part of equity nation, what's your thoughts

on this sacks? Look, I think that's a great thing. And I think that this is a tremendous new philanthropic platform. And that's really important, especially in this time of growing anger and backlash and populism against billionaires. And people questioning whether the system is rigged and whether they can be successful in America, whether they will be able to be part of it. This is a really important antidote to that. But I almost think that the philanthropic aspect

maybe has gotten almost too much attention, because people are naturally attracted to the freebies and the part that I think hasn't gotten enough attention. Or all the comments I saw on CPA Twitter, where all these accounts were talking about what an unbelievable, I guess you could say, a state planning strategy, this is, or the basic well-attached. Like a wealth management technique, whatever you want to call,

like planning for the future. And there's never been anything like this before. They were basically

saying, this is like in the top three, you know, there's certain things that you just have to do,

“like if your employer offers a matching 401k, you have to do it because otherwise it's just”

you're losing out on free money. And if you don't do a health savings account or you don't max out your Roth IRA, there's just certain things you have to do because there's so tax advantage or you're getting free money, right? And in this case, you're getting both. There is the opportunity for frankly the free money for your kids, right? But also the tax advantage is huge. So let's just go through this and brag correctly if I get any of this wrong. So you can donate up to $5,000 a year

to your kid, as long as they're under 18. And it's not just you, it's any friends and family or others can contribute as well, which is new. And then they get tax recompounding to their 18. And your employer can contribute up to $2,500 tax free. So at a minimum, you should go to your employer and sign up for this. And if you have to take $2,500 out of my salary and make it a donation

on it. So like Brad said, this is basically like an IRA, you get tax recompounding. Then when the kid turns 18, they can get access to it and they can do a rollover into an IRA or into a Roth IRA, which is even better because when the Roth IRA matures, you don't pay tax on the money that gets distributed out of it, whereas with a Trishnoy IRA, all the taxes get deferred until the end. The difference is that when you do a IRA to a Roth IRA conversion, your supposed to get taxes at that

“point. And I saw one really clever CPA say that, well, the best way to do this is wait till your”

kid is actually not a dependent anymore. Like so maybe they're in college or they just graduated from college and they're in like the 0% tax bracket because they're not making any money and then do the conversion. And so you'll be able to convert the Trump account very cheaply into a Roth IRA. And now they're going to have $2 to $300,000 potentially in that account that they can then do tax reinvesting for the rest of their life or they can potentially start accompanying with that. Other things you can

do with an IRA is you can use part of the money on a down payment for the first home purchase or if you get into a health emergency, you can use the money for that. So there's all these things you're allowed to distribute money out of an IRA without incurring a penalty. But generally speaking,

the point of an IRA is to say for retirement. And this is where I think it gets really amazing

is because if you start with $2 to $300,000 at age 18, you'll be at $10 million plus by age 60. If you just let it compound. I mean, there's range in because babies we're creating here. We're going to have a lot of rich kids with trust funds. Yeah. So this is like in the show you have to do to make sure that your kid is protected for retirement is if you and your family and your friends and your employer can just contribute to their Trump accounts. Yeah. Like guys, that's like

that's way better than so security. Right. I have an idea. I have to go with sales and enterprise

“offers. I have to leave. But I'm really proud of you. I think this is incredible. You should convince”

OpenAI and Anthropics to give the equity of those companies. If this is going to be as big as you say, $100 billion, $300 billion trillion, put it into the accounts of every kid. Can you just explain how that works against the $5,000? I gotta go. Love you guys. All right. Good luck on the

South School. Yeah. So it's you. Always be close in your mind. Always be close. You know, again,

David and Jamad as we build out the platform at scale. So imagine now you have 50 million accounts that are opened. We do. I've said on CNBC, you know, I've obviously talked with Dario and Sam and Elon and others about making those donations. I don't like this idea of shaking down our companies taking their shares and then putting them in some government slush fund that perhaps Bernie or AOC or somebody is going to control in the future. I've said, it's got to be voluntary

and number two, it should go into citizen accounts, right? Privately held in citizen accounts a compound for their life. And so US the question, David, how does it happen? Given the limits that you

“have, you know, the $5,000 per child, that's why you have to have, you know, 50 million accounts open,”

right? Because then you can take dollars in at scale. But we can also set up a pool to count David where it can be distributed over time. So you distribute it to all the kids subject to the

limits that you have today. And then any remainder you can distribute to the $3.5 million kids

that are going to be born next year or the $3.5 million kids born the year after that or the $3.5 million kids born after that. We are on a trajectory now that we're going to have over 100 million of these accounts set up over the next decade. Okay. So we could have 70 million today and then you're going to add 3.7 million a year. So you're going to be at a 100 million private individual accounts that are compounding for people's lives that anybody can donate money

into. The people themselves, I think one of the things that gets lost is moms and dads or somebody working their summer job, put in 10 bucks, put in 100 bucks, put it, you know, into these accounts. They get to see it on their phone. You know, this is when we started this, my sons and I designed this app. And it's basically what we ended up with. It's a, you know, I've got a Robin Hood helped you with it. Yeah, Vlad and Joe have implemented a more elegant

version of this, but every kid owns a little bit of Nvidia, a little bit of Microsoft, a little bit of Apple, imagining opening up that account David in middle school or high school to the money page. And now you're getting excited that you're seeing, oh, man, I'm in the game. I have ownership and while you reference what it could be for families who can contribute $5,000, obviously, Michael Dell and I and Gwen and everybody else were focused on the 50% of Americans who

over the course of the next 15 years, you could have somewhere between two and four trillion dollars added to the accounts of families and kids who would otherwise had zero. Thank you. We talked a lot about philanthropies. The way the philanthropic aspect works is that other people philanthropists can contribute towards that $5,000 per kid, right? Is that so,

you know, when Gwen shot well contributes two million shares of SpaceX to two million kids,

each kid's getting a share of stock that's $50,000. $150,000. So now that's counting

“answer $5,000 or a limit. So that's what makes it compelling is, okay, look, every family that”

can afford to do the $5,000 should because it's just like so compelling from attacks and saving standpoint, but then even for families who can't, there are going to be beneficiaries of philanthropists. You just want to give this type of direct giving. And it seems to me, this is so much more efficient and so much better than the whole NGO industrial complex, where they do. They're really presenting their offices and their salaries. Yeah, that is grifting. Yeah. One of the numbers that

it's always kind of amazing is, again, it just goes back to the power of compounding is that

if a Trump account had been maxed out and you have the standard market rate of return that we've had to say the past 30 years, then by age 28, that kid will be a millionaire. Incredible. That's right. That's right. All the numbers you hear me quote the $50,000 and the $200,000, it doesn't assume maxing. You know, that just assumes people are adding $50 a month because I've been focused as Michael and others have really on the families who don't have the capacity to save today. We're getting all of

them into the game. And the president directed us, he said, listen, we have 529 accounts that are already helped the top 10%. That's not who we're focused on. This is about the main street agenda. This is about all the families that he ran for the field left out and left behind and were reconnected in them to the American dream through universal ownership. They all have their own account. They all have a private account on their phone. It's a game changer for the country. It's the largest

“change to our social contracts since 1935 and social security. And importantly, I think it couldn't”

come at a better time. You know, we have this, we have this fight also. This every employer should be signed up to be, you know, a number of that can contribute because again, you could take that $2500 and hopefully, look, it's additive and it's not just a substitute. But even if it's just a substitute and J. Cal, your employer takes $500 out of your salary and puts it in your kids, Trump account, then it's reducing your tax will income. So it's a no brainer. If you're a

property company, your employees are going to love you. Yeah. But I think every employee is going to want to, and every employer should do it because it's a tax savings for both, right? So let me the tax savings here is huge. Yeah. It's just off of the mechanics of it. It's

want to maybe level up here for a second. Yeah. I have been often critical, I call balls and

strikes and I can tell you in detail the things that I have a problem with this administration and their actions they've done and I have done it here on the pot. I want to address the people who are nagging this and specifically nagging it because it has the name Trump accounts on which I told you at the poker game, call the Trump accounts. I don't know if that was like an obvious

“thing or I was the person who told you to do it. I'm not taking any credit here. But I remember”

that conversation was like just call them Trump accounts. Like, if whatever criticism you have of Trump, however valid you may feel it is, this has nothing to do with Donald Trump and how you feel about him. Put your TDS on the side, put your value criticism on the side. In this country, we have a K-shaped recovery going on. We have immense tension between the halves and the half knots. We to the point at which people actually believe that socialism and communism is a

better operating system than the best operating system humanity is ever created, which is called democracy plus capitalism, right? And kids love capitalism. They love building businesses. But we are in an existential moment right now. If these kids believe young kids and there's a couple of generations of them right now who do not believe in America anymore. Well, we're sitting here on the 250th anniversary of this amazing experiment known as America. This is the most American

thing you can do. So put aside your TDS, put aside your value criticisms and embrace this and give the flowers to Brad to the people donating like Michael and Susan Dowell and Gwen. This is beautiful. This is the most beautiful gift I've ever seen to a country. And this could be something

in capitalism. And this is the number one way to do it, which is to let kids on their smartphone.

Instead of saying, you know what, Montgomery's right. I should get a free bus ride. I should get a free, I should get free pizza. And we should take Ken Griffins and and seize his, you know, penthouse, his, a potato. Fuck all that. You know, and we have, we have CEOs getting shot and and their homes fire bombed. Well, you know what, if you're one of those CEOs, you've done incredibly well, there was something called the giving pledge where they pushed, you know, affluent people

at the Ted conference for decades, Bill Gates and everybody, Warren Buffett, everybody was pushing for this. This is like the perfect version of the giving pledge. Because you're not just saying I'm giving away my wealth by the time I die. You're very strategically saying every single person in America gets to be part of the best part of America, which is entrepreneurship. And everybody will be part of the equidination. And my final point is, one of the happiest countries in the world

is Australia. If you've ever gone to Australia, everybody feels safe. And we have a large number of people in this country who do not feel safe. And the reason they don't feel safe is because they don't think their kids are safe. To the point at which people do not want to have kids in this country because they feel the system is just too hard. This could change that. If people feel, hey, kids have a shot and I don't have to worry about my kids. I worry about my kids and I'm

“affluent. I can't imagine being a single parent. And what anxiety you must have as a single mother or”

father. And you're making minimum wage and you're behind, you know, the April for your entire life. And now your kids are set. That's all people want. That's the only thing a parent wants is to make sure their kids have a better future. That was the promise of this country. And somehow it went off the rails for the last two generations. This puts it back on the rails. This is superannuation funds in Australia. And Australia, people are extremely happy. The reason they're

happy is they're forced to put 14k a year of whatever it is. 12 or 14% I think of their income into essentially a 401k that they get to direct to a certain extent. It's forced savings. This does the same thing at a very basic level. This could replace social security. This replaces the giving pledge. And I just want to say Brad, you know, a lot of my friends got involved in politics. Some of them on this very program. A lot of people, it's very divisive. You threaded the needle here. It was a masterclass

in balancing these two crazy parties and the divisiveness in this country. I just want to give you as your friend, your flowers. This is just absolutely outstanding what you did. And you have been incredibly humble in your approach. This would not have happened without you, Brad. This is this is your legacy of everything you've done in your life, lots of success. And I've seen it up close and

personal. This is a million times x. Everything you've done in your whole fucking life. You'll be remembered

for this. This is an architecture. It should be as big as social security. I mean, it's a new plot.

“Because I think it's not because it's philanthropy, but it's also retirement savings. I mean,”

right? And everything in between. And this is an organic, this is dynamic. We can add to this. That could be other features. I'm saying a lot of people in the comments say, why stop at age 18, why can't you? I mean, you have the Trump account roll over into a IRA or Roth IRA after age 18. But why can't you keep it going? And then people can keep that $5,000 contribution going. And you know, it doesn't mean we take away exactly retirement benefits that are owed to current

security recipients. But sunset it. But at a certain point, you could just say that, hey, the next generation is going to be on this platform rather than the old one. And it would be a lot better. A lot more efficient than government not running it, right? It's actually. Yeah. We don't want the government running this. Let me ask a question about this, Brad, because I do you see one thing that people say, which is what if your kid turns 18 and then they just want to blow the money. You know,

how do you trust, how do you trust that they're going to put it to good use, you know, as opposed

to, I don't know, you know, you're low, you're long, whatever. As you know, these things are always

political trade-offs and balances. And I wanted them to have to compound until they were 30, right? Because I figured by 30, you were a little bit more, you know, mentally developed on financial issues. But you know, the argument ultimately came, your old enough to vote, your old enough to fight a war. If, if by 18, we don't allow you to have control of your own money. So that's

“where a political, you know, consensus was built, David. But the other thing, remember, is they can only”

take up to 25% out to buy a home, start a business, go to college, the rest rolls into an IRA. And there are building penalties for early withdrawing an IRA. So they're disincentives for people to

system, leveraging this as the platform. You know, if a kid doesn't have any money, it's hard

“to get excited about learning about money. But if a kid's in the game, and as 12,000 bucks in the”

seventh grade, now you got my attention, I own a little bit of Nike. I own a little bit of Apple. I own a little bit of Nvidia. Let's talk about that. How did it get there? How did it compound? If I added 50 bucks a month, what does it turn into? All of these things will now be present on every child's phone in America. 37 states require financial literacy. Every state should build this into the curriculum. We're working with a lot of states on that. You know, we haven't talked about that.

We have about 25 states who are going to add money into the accounts of the kids in their states. So the states are going to do it. States state action, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Indiana, etc. So that's also sweeping the country where the states are looking at programs they already have where they're spending money for kids that are ineffective. And they're saying instead of continuing to spend money on these things that aren't working,

why not just block rent the money directly to the kids? Because we got the middleman. If you give the kids the money, more likely to graduate, more likely to buy a home, start a business,

“et cetera. So I think that we're, as I said in the oval, this is day one. And I am fully committed”

to the next decade as is my partner and crime on this, Michael and Susan Del. I appreciate your guys' comments on on on on the legacy of this. It has been the most profound work and kind of honor of my life and standing in the oval office with my two sons who are really my two co-founders on this. We draft, you know, we made the sketch of this at our kitchen table in the fall of 2020. That's where the conversation started. Lincoln's been with me in every single meeting with

every congressman, senator, president, former president, et cetera. The president shouted him out, you know, again, when we're there. That journey is a father with my kids and has been like the payback has been really extraordinary. I think that's notable here. And again, like you got to call balls and strikes and give credit where credit is due. Joe Jebia joined this administration. A lot of people in the tech industry are like, oh, you know, oh, you joined the Trump administration,

whatever. Yes, okay. There's some criticism. He's an incredible world class designer.

I was talking to producer Nick, our producer here. Also, I have to show the same last name as me. He signed up for this, right? He's doing well, but you know, his wife signed up for it. The software is fantastic. Let's pause for a second. The American government has made exceptional software. And this all got done in Trump's first 18 months. It meant credit for this. This is like of all the, you know, challenges this presidency has had and ran more and other issues.

We made great software. The American government, because of Joe Jebia, makes kick ass software, like just also made your shout out to him. And, you know, he could be doing whatever he wants. He's done incredibly well. He's the co-founder of Airbnb. And he's doing this. Like, that's a real patriotic thing to do. I'm, I'm just over the moon. I think it's fantastic. The dream team, you had, like, Michael Dell, myself, Vlad Tennis, Joe Gabbia,

the Treasury Secretary, Luke Petit at the Treasury, talking basically every day for the last year.

“And our objective was not, we want to build the best thing that the governments ever launched.”

We wanted to build one of the best consumer products period that's ever launched. There's any Silicon Valley consumer company would be thrilled with the numbers that we're seeing, the ratings that we're seeing, the engagement that we're seeing. So, you know, it's been

fun doing it without incredible team. And, you know, everybody's in this for the right

mission as well. And so, I agree with you, Jason. It's rare that government recruits or embraces. You know, that, that mission. And I think the tense getting a heck of a lot bigger. It is bipartisan. It's bipartisan in support. You know, this is important. What governor more from Maryland said yesterday, he said Republicans and Democrats have been trying to do something that looks like this feels like this for 40 years. This guy got it done. Give him credit. This is great for America,

great for our kids. And especially on the 250th anniversary, you know, you're standing in the Oval Office, looking at the original declaration of independence. And you realize what people lay down for this experiment. And then I read this chatter in my feeds about mandami and others, literally wanting to set this great experiment on fire, right? Wanting to burn the place down

because they, they think they have a better formula? No. The answer is evolving and doubling

we get them all into the game of capitalism, they become owners owners and shareholders in America.

“So that's what we got accomplished. Let's appreciate the chance to talk about it. Listen,”

incredible Brad and, you know, just amazing to watch you do it. And if you, if you, if you really

think about it, the tech industry, it needs to win and capitalist and creators and the makers, the people who build stuff, this is our chance to say here's an example of something that helps the people at the bottom, right? And I talked a bunch about the minimum wage here. We just $7 minimum wage. Like we need to address that as well. These are the things that if we address what people are scared about, what people who are, who don't have what we all have here,

if we have empathy for those people. And we actually care about them when we give them a path to believe in the American dream, they will take that path. We have to give them a better path than the socialist lunatics. And this is so much of a better path. Let's do it again. Let's do another one of these things. Let's keep growing this spirit of getting everybody in the country

“to have equity in these great companies. That's why the entire world is trying to replicate what”

we do here. Every single country I go to wants to recreate Silicon Valley. We're not stopping here and David to your point where you know whether it's the AI companies or frankly, whether it's the Intel shares or whether it's the TikTok fee. I now have a place where all of those wins achieved by this administration can go. They ought to go directly to all this citizens, you know, the country into their accounts and compound for a lifetime. And then as far as people over the age of 18,

there's certainly a lot of talk about that as well. Not again as social securities, a sacred promise by both parties. Nobody's going to change that. But there's a huge opportunity to have a supplement here. Why shouldn't people, you know, between 20 and 30 or 20 and 40 also have a trumpet count that they can begin on a supplemental basis adding dollars that they own in control. Remember, the big difference between this and social security. Social security takes 12.4% of my

W2 income and puts it into something akin to the black hole of government. I don't own it. I don't control it. If I ask a room of 3,000 people how much they've contributed, they have no idea. If I die, I don't have title. It doesn't pass to my airs, etc. So it's really not mine. But if we created a supplemental IRA, it doesn't even require new legislation. I don't think it's just expanding the age. These are IRAs after the age of 18, right? Then people could start building supplemental wealth

and participate in these gains. And so there's a lot of conversations going on about that as well. And so we're not done. But it was a hell of a milestone on the 250th birthday of America to ring the bell in the oval and to watch all these kids get their accounts lit up. It was pretty special.

“What I think is really cool about the Trump accounts. I think it's an amazing philanthropic platform.”

But in addition to that, it's an amazing platform for middle class family planning. That's the

plan of trying to make is all the CPAs that I'm seeing talking about this or saying, this is like one of the greatest things ever. And if I could only tell my clients to do one thing, this would be the one thing. Finally, something for the middle class, right? This is what people have been asking for. Hey, let's get something for the middle class. Let's get something for the you know, and I thought the work you got, correct me from long. But basically the market gap that

was created here is that you can't get an IRRA, which is basically a tax advantage savings account until you have your first job, right? Correct. And get earnings, which would be for most you'll at age 22 plus. So for that first 22 years, you're not even kids can't have an IRRA, right? Correct. And you're effectively giving every child at birth correct IRRA. You know, it's a Trump account that has certain rules. It's actually better than an IRRA.

Better than an IRRA. It's better than an IRRA because with an IRRA, your employer can't contribute 2,500 bucks tax-free, can they? I mean, I don't think so. And full-anthropist can't contribute to it

and moms and dads. But the most important thing, you know, like I say, you know, Buffett's

like this secret is to find a really small snowball and a really long hill. Okay? But the size of the hill in this country, we've cut off the first third of the hill forever. Nobody saves anything until they're 25. Okay? The easiest compounding in the world, the easiest compounding in the world is between zero and 25. All right. Listen, this has been amazing. Yeah, because they're dependence frankly. They're still on mom and dad. Exactly. So you pick up the first third of life,

incredible. Right? In compounding. And so it's a, it's really remarkable. Let's go.

, we should all just get a room and just have it one big huge door because there aren't as few as those stuff. It's like sexual tension, but we just need to release it out. I'm doing absolutely a good thing.