This video explains how AI companies like Anthropic are valued using ARR (Annual Recurring Revenue) multiples rather than traditional DCF methods, with Anthropic's $900B valuation at 18x ARR representing a better deal than typical private market valuations. The discussion reveals that Salesforce's $300M token spend represents only about 4% of their engineering costs, suggesting token costs are currently manageable but could become significant at 20% of R&D spend. The analysis highlights that companies like Wix and Squarespace face terminal decline due to competition from vibe coding platforms, while compute-intensive companies like Nebius benefit from current compute scarcity. The video also covers SpaceX's potential $1.75T IPO and the strategic implications of OpenAI's token distribution to YC startups.
Andrej Karpathy Joins Anthropic | SpaceX Files S1: How Does it Trade | Cerebras Smashes Day 1Hinzugefügt:
As it's becoming painfully clear now, no one in America other than us here in California likes the AI trend. We have people who are brilliant scientists who politically are utter morons. And the people who are utter morons at AI but brilliant at politics are going to have us for lunch. Starting off, Andre Capathy joins Anthropic and Anthropic Eye, a $900 billion valuation for their latest fund raise. Then we dig into the public markets. Data Dog up 31%, Figma up 12%. what happens from here. Next, we have Cerebrus IPO smashes expectations and breaks the $300 mark. And then finally, SpaceX. They set June the 12th for the largest IPO in history. $1.75 trillion market cap, raising $75 billion. At least when NetApp was busy destroying the world, they were smart enough to pretend it was all about bringing friends together and not destroying democracy. We will regret that lack of transparency. We're going to have to reflate and hire thousands and thousands of people per tech leader to avoid social unrest. We see no signs that there's a short-term crash coming.
Ready to go, boys. It is so good to be back. So, we're going to kick off with our this week in Anthropic. Starting as always, um, we have two. We have Anthropic in talks for $30 billion at above a $900 billion price, nearly tripling from $380 in February. Green notes, sequoia, alim to Dragon. And then yesterday we had Andre Kapathy announcing that he was joining Anthropic. So boys, over to you.
How did we read this news?
>> Well, divide up the two. I mean the financing yes it you know we talked about it last week there's nothing more to say they can pick their price they can pick their investors they can tell the amount and they can tell Evan to jump and Evan will say how high sir so it's all happening they're going to raise 30 billion we discussed obviously the question is you know how those folks pencil out the return and so Rory I don't mean to be old school here but um I'm feeling old school do you think AR multiples still matter I mean if anthropic is if 900 billion is 18 times June revenue, um it still feels like a better deal than any of the ones I did last year.
>> Yeah, I mean there's no doubt that statement is correct. Agreed. No, I mean just to put it really simply for listeners is that you know you're writing checks in the private market for companies of $10 million in revenue. You might be paying 20, 30, 40, 50 times ARR, right? Maybe it's 3 5xing, but it's 5 years away from an IPO. And here's the last three rounds. I mean, for the last three rounds, really from the 150 billion round at anthropic all the way on, they've been so post IPO that you can assume there can be an IPO. So, there's no it doesn't make an IPO risk.
There's no it will go away risk.
Typically, when those risks don't exist anymore, the only risk you're taking is valuation risk. And the truth is every time the multiple on this has been significantly lower uh and than the multiple on your median series A or B or series C for a higher growth rate. So it's been the best trade out there.
>> The meta question is listen at some point everything's DCF right at some point it has to be. I g I guess I'm not even sure I believe that anymore but certainly that's e public markets EC201.
Everything is ultimately this the the discounted uh present value of your future cash flows. But every growth, I haven't been a part of any of these anthropic rounds, unfortunately. But every growth round I've been a part of, it's still AR multiples at the end of the day. No one's really doing discounts for lower gross margins like we did until say 2021 or 2022. So, is this I guess the meta question is is this the a fair metric for anthropic? It's its margins are improving, right? And so if 18x really is fair, geez louise, I I think uh I think all everyone desperate to get it is right because it's the best deal going if if an AR multiple is still fair. If >> you you ask I'm sorry it took me a while. The coffee's got you know it's first. By the way, we're doing this early at at 8:00 this morning. So I've been up since 5, but the coffee is only kicking in. Um yeah. No, I mean that's a totally separate I mean look if ARR multiples are the right metric then you should buy the one that's at 18x ARR growing 10x year that's already so freaking large it will clearly and visibly go public. If ARR multiples are the proxy for value, then this is the best value in the venture universe.
Which is why I'm going to say very smart capital allocators whose mandate isn't kind of sector specific, but kind of range anywhere, stuck your stick your money in. you know, people like Green Oaks, people like um Alimter are doing this deal because they're like, you know, yesterday I can do a 20 million AR deal, today I can do a $50 billion AR deal and the multiple better when it's so obviously a good deal as we mentioned there given the trade for investors.
Why would Dario and Anthropic do it at that price if it is so obviously a good deal? because it de because you're giving away 30 over 900 which is like uh let me see 3% of your business to derisk it for another year of monstrous burn where you know you're committing to I don't know six 5 gawatt this year and you know the mental rule of thumb is the total cost of yeah gawatt of high-end compute is 40 or 50 billion so now you're not spending 40 or 50 billion you're persuading hyperscalers to spend on your behalf but you have to have I mean this is a big ass balance sheet war So to me, it's a no-brainer to do it.
They're going to raise and they're going to raise again and then they're going to raise again.
>> Do you think they'll raise again before they go public?
>> I doubt it just depend on the trajectory now cuz they're saying they're going public in November. But my point is even after by the way the other comments when you stop having to raise that's a disaster because it means that you're grow why are you raising? You're raising for capex and you're raising for growth.
Um if you once you become a once that hyper growth stops and you don't have a capex need you also don't have a growth story and that'll be a very different place to be. I mean right now yeah right now this is the highest ROI on equity dollars. So that's why they're getting it. So they they should just keep raising it well in advance of the need because the needs are so great. I know it sounds silly and maybe it's my actually read is that um Sam has been pushing the valuation to the absolute max since he as long as he could on the thesis he needed infinite capital right he's always been clear on that right so the last open AI round was more expensive than almost the contemporaneous anthropic round even though anthropic appeared to be out accelerating them because Sam just pushed it to the max which you can if you're a great salesman and have demand of one more dollar than supply right it seemed to me Dario is the opposite I mean uh he actually does own shares in his company, right, rather than indirectly through a VC fund. Uh, but it's it's pretty diluted. He's giving away 90% to charity. So, he just wants to get a a deal done in a week that is fair. He does this deal at 380. It seems fair. And all of a sudden, he turns around Sam's done a deal at twice the price. So, he does this at at 900. Um, I think when Anthropic's worth two to three billion, he'll do around at like 16 in 48 hours to get it done. He'll just do it. He won't push it to the max like Sam does and and create stress. But I actually think these rounds, ironically, the last two intentionally traded at a discount in order to not rip people off and get it done low drama in days. I I actually think that was the trade-off of and we've all worked with founders like this that enjoy maximizing every penny from the round. And others who want a 70% deal and they truly it's not just in the email, they truly want it done in a week, right? That's not just a game to get the money. They just like give me a 70% deal in in 72 hours.
>> Yeah, it's a super point, Jason, cuz I'm remembering now the details. I mean, compare, it's so revealing. Compare the last two rounds. The anthropic round is we're going to raise 30. It's going to be cash. You're going to send me an email confirming you're in and then we'll collect the money. End of conversation. The open AI round is well, Amazon, you're going to give us 50 billion, but 20 billion is going to be up front. The other 30 billion is contingent on us going public, our AGI and Massa, you're going to give us 40 billion from Soft Bank, but you got to borrow 30 billion to get that 40 billion. So, we're going to give you a little time to pay that money. So, we're closing on 110 billion of which 20 billion is clearing now. 30 billion in 6 months time depending on the lending market. It's like Jesus, give me a break. Right. I you're right, Jason. I think philosophically the anthropic team seems to operate under if I want to raise 30 billion, I should probably get a check for 30 billion and call it a day. Speaking of getting a check for 30 billion, Jason, I really wanted your thoughts on this one. Ben off was on Allin and he said that Salesforce spent 300 million on anthropic tokens this year, almost entirely coding. The question I have for you is when you look at your usage and how you use it today, is that about right and what you would have thought? Is that way more? Is that weigh less? And how do you think that will change for a salesforce over time?
>> It's actually not that much per engineer.
This is great. Mark's Mark's one of the great classic marketers, probably the greatest marketer in classic B2B of all time, right? Uh he's just a force of nature on all vectors, right? Company physical size graitas.
>> But um if it's I think that works out to about 15 to $20,000 per engineer per year.
>> Yes.
>> It's not it's not that's I think that's just table stakes today. What's his fully burden cost for a developer at Salesforce? probably 500k for an engineer for all in all costs with their share of the building and snacks. So 20 grand a year is 4% additional. Um cheap man.
>> Good. First of all, I did the math this one cuz I actually think this is the most important question of the entropic.
I skipped the other two. This is the one. And actually I'm going to give you God, I sound patronized. I'm going to give you an A, Jason, for math on the fly, which is I think very hard to do. I couldn't have done it on the fly. I did it this morning. Right. the the this is and it turns out 300 million is eh which is astonishing first of all right so the numbers are >> Salforce spends 5.8 billion a year on uh engineers right it's so it's roughly 4% of the spend if you want it per head they have 20k developers out of their total 83k heads so it's 15k per head per year which is 1.2k 2K per head per month, right? 1,200 per month, right? I actually we did a survey. I'm not sure if I'm front running it. One of my colleagues is going to publish it, right? We did a survey on, you know, 40 portfolio companies and external companies. What are you spending per year per month per developer and the average was 1.2 1.3K and the median was lower, right? So obviously you have some token maxing and then you know wider dispersion. So so first of all, you're exactly right. It's in the strike zone of normal. It's not I mean it's only the big number because um because they obviously have so many developers right so that's the first thing so you you're kind of rough estimate Matt's exactly right and then the question is what does all this mean right where is it going right and I want to say first question is before that it is still astonishing and where one of the reasons that entropic and opening are just amazing businesses 90% of the stuff you sell to salesforce as a vendor you know if you were selling them an ERP system Obviously they have the CRM system. My guess is if they bought SAP, god forbid, you know, right, would they spend 5 million, 10 million? This is the only product that a company like this is probably the only vendor line item other than maybe rent that comes anywhere close to this amount. Right? So from nothing two years ago, this is the largest single external spend that every software company's making. That's the first big aha. Right?
>> And >> it's both nothing and it explains anthropics mediocre rise. Explain everything. It's both in the at the same time, right? And then you got to say to yourself because going remember I kind of said it when it comes to valuation on entropic is it good or not you the question when you try and figure out how much money these companies can make what you figure out is trying to come up with some kind of heristic relative to R&D spend is the key right in other words how much of every knowledge worker wage and how much of every coding wage is going to get translated into tokens right and you know we did a rough and tough estimate and we're refining it more is If you start thinking about a trillion dollars worth of token revenue across entropic and open AI, which is the four-year projections are saying, and they better get it cuz otherwise that capex is going to look pretty sick, right? If they're going to get a trillion dollars, right? My rough math says it's something roughly like five or 7% of every knowledge worker salary and 20% of every engineering salary. So they're currently so if if that math is correct that and that that's kind of what it takes to get a trillion, right? So in other words, Salforce might only be a quarter of the way there. Now, one of two things is going to happen. Either they stay at 300 million, in which case the TAM for some of these kind of token businesses like Openropic will have been overestimated and there'll be a real correction. or they keep going, they forex their token spend from here and in two years time Benny off is on saying we spend a trillion dollars sorry a billion dollars on tokens and we'll talk about the people consequences for that in a second but one of those two things has to happen because even on the on the macro level right worldwide software business across everyone is about $1.2 2 trillion R&D spend is roughly 20%. $240 billion. Right? The interesting thing is if you get 20% of that, you only get 50 billion, right? So to justify these entropic valuation and these um open AI valuations, you really going to have to eat a [ __ ] ton of what is otherwise opex. You've got to replace 20% of R&D salary. So Benny ei out of those valuations are wrong or Ben off is only a quarter of the way on the journey and he's probably ahead of most. The numbers for open AI and are so large that you really have to start thinking about what percent of total wage bill of engineering in the software development market do you get and if you're not tracking to 20% across most R&D spends then the three and four year projections for some of these companies will be a bit lofty >> at a meta level. You have to be a bull right because the trend has just begun.
Mark's 300 bit 300 million is just the start of what he's going to spend. On the other hand, I do think I hate to use myself as N equals 1K states but but at Saster itself a million I have now we have 21 agents of which three are autonomous. Okay. And um the direct the direct token cost that we spend the direct AI all together for both of us is about two grand a month. So, and that's going to go up. But there the bare case, the bare case is the models will get better and they will get more efficient and we will get more efficient. The bare case is to uh 1k for each of us. And and listen, this doesn't include third party apps. It doesn't include tokens we buy inside of sales source. So, so it's higher. But there if you if you think about it, there is a bare case there that everybody is using. Every knowledge worker has this attached. But but the numbers Mark are throwing out is about right for folks not at the bleeding edge of token maxing. This is the bare case.
It's not today when SAP and Uber CIOS are said we're out of tokens for the year. But I do think we're ahead of most right at our little team and we're only spending 2K a month in direct token costs. That's a bare case on the next anthropic round. I think I'll give you another example. We had Saster Annuals last week. Rory Rory was a celebrity, Harry. We could talk about it. He was literally mobbed. You saw the pictures.
But our very last speaker, it was kind of him to come because it was the last one. People are tired. was Andrew Bleki who's the co-founder and CEO of Claio.
Very interesting because he's a true engineer and and turned B2B founder. He requires every single employee at Claio if they're anywhere close to product to be committing code. Anyone in product, anyone in design, anyone there, and every single person has to be running AI or agents to do their job. I couldn't believe it was 100%. Right? It is. And they built their own custom framework to require it. He went through it all. It was very cool. And so my point is he knows his stuff, right? Um and and a lot and we built this AIVP market, AIVB customers just everyone thinks it costs like $8 $10,000 to run these autonomous humans. I go backstage with Andrew.
We're talking about on my phone. He's like, "How much do you think it costs to run an a VP of marketing?" He because he's done it. He's like maybe $250 for both of them. The answer is $257 just to run the agents. And so and his point was at the end is this. A lot of this stuff is not as expensive as we think. We do not need to worry about token maxing at Clavio and everything we're doing is agentic. We have our own agentic framework. The most junior product person. Every single person has to be doing this. We have to manage it and they have a harness that manages the model and gets it thoughtful. But he's like if you do this right, it's not as expensive as and and the fact that he guessed it within a couple I mean he was the only person that got it right because he's doing it. The only one that got this number right because he's doing it. So, I'm I'm not bearish, but um this is the bare case is just we just we need a half or a third or a quarter as many tokens as we think we do outside of the folks running massive workflows 4814, right? At 1% of R&D spend, it's lost in the noise. At 5% it's real. That's a layoff, right? At 20%, which let me repeat is what it takes to get to for these overall models to work, right? for these overall TAM analysis to work.
That's huge. It's 1/5if of your payroll costs in engineering.
>> Jason, every public company CEO wants your advice on agents and AI.
>> Yeah.
>> Are you more bullish on Clavio post seeing the inner workings of Andrew? And is he a top 1% public company CEO on AI?
I I am. It's a good It's a good question, right? Um the one thing I've been thinking a lot recently um uh when when we kind of bounced off the lowest of SAS apocalypse, right? You think about Atlassian, Figma, a few others that have seen >> at the end of the day compared to their highs very very modest bounces off the hard but grow but more importantly growth is reacelerating there. That's the most important. So, so, so when you see Figma reacelerate to almost 50% growth, when you see Atlassian um seemingly struggling when when Mike was on the show, reacelerate north of 30, the meta question and and and with Atlassian, it's definitely from Rovio, their agent. With Figma, it's a mix, right? But when you see these when you see Twilio come back from the dead to 20% growth, you have to ask yourself, is there a little more time than we thought? A little more time, right? Uh the whole world is not in San Francisco of all the buyers, of all the users. So this is the qu this is the it's both the question for Andrew and for Mark Beni off and others these founderled companies that are iconic with great CEOs at the end of the day maybe they have enough time maybe another year if they're just getting going on their gentic journey and and s and and Salesforce is further along than I am not sure that means their stock will reacelerate until it is proven I think that's what we learned from last quarter Monday did sort of beat expectations and bounced HubSpot said Q2 is going to be tougher and it got hit hard. So, you got to show me the growth, right? That's the that's the mantra. But I am somewhat more bullish than 90 days ago that there's just time. Claio is arguably the single most beaten down public company software stock because of the delta from Shopify. Like it's trading at three something times revenue and Shopify is at what 12 or 14? I got to look it up.
Um so if I were a if I we were a long short team, I might propose that one on Monday. Um but you got to show the growth, man. you got to show and they're not and even though he's ahead of the internal agent, he's not they're not way ahead of the game for the external one.
And that's the that's the bare case, right? Why if if your competitors are there, why aren't you there today? Why don't you have this is the So, yes, I'm optimistic, but my flip side is you've had 18 months and you've had since December, since the Claw 4s to to destroy your space. Why do you let these these dumb little startups out out hustle you? You've got 2,000 engineers spending $300 million a year. That's the bullcase. Like you've had time. Um but I'm getting more optimistic that if the leaders build the best agents in the space, 2027 could be good for them. I'm getting more optimistic and I was pretty bearish a couple months ago.
>> I am in the same place and I made some comment about that and you know positive you reinforcement from data dog and Figma and everyone's like but they'll never get back to 21 prices again and I commented on that cuz of course they won't right. You never I mean, as I said, I can never I said in my comments, they'll never get back to 21 prices and I'll never be 21 again.
>> Yeah, I like that.
>> There's nothing you can do. Every tech in cycle has a set of industries that for the once in their life get valued on prospects and futures. It's like being 21. It literally is like being 21. And people will believe everything about you. 5 years ago, that was SAS. Today, it's AI. Once you lose that veneer, you are going to be valued for the rest of your life on some variety of revenue revenue growth and cash flow, right? And what that means is you're highly it's it's almost impossible to ever get back to 50 times a R again, right? All these companies like and everyone goes like it's the Figma thing. It's so annoying for them. I I feel so bad for like everyone, oh but your stock's down 80%.
Yes. From the idiot price that idiot people price to that, right? In terms of objective performance, which is how you got to measure these companies. You're right, Jason. Somebody's like Figma's reacelerate data dog's doing really well and you know you're going to be in a bound from I mean the outer edge is probably data dog at 17 or 18 times sales you know your your good performance Figma six to 10 times sales and your crap is three times. So to me it's yeah you have time to become a good normal company. I mean the big comment is the SAS businesses are amazing but the AI businesses are an order of magnitude or maybe two order of magnitudes larger and are at you know earlier in their growth life cycle. So you're never going to get the attention back on you again. That's the deal.
That's the deal for thousand but you can still be worth $10 billion and you know as a company do a billion in revenue and growing nicely.
Just to provide context, Data Dog had their first billion dollar revenue quarter, 32% uh up uh all-time high uh air cross 4 billion. This was a great quarter. Ollie and team crushed it. So to the point, it's now more realistically priced from its exuberant pricing. Is that the summary?
>> Yeah, it's the summary. Exactly. And and in that context, it's worth trying. I mean the difference between being in the shadow and not getting out and being I in the penalty box and then getting out is quite significant. I mean you know you you got to like where you are as Jason said if your team's Atlassian you got to like where you are a lot if you're data dog or Figma you got to be pretty depressed about where you are if you're Wix given you know you did the buyback and it hasn't worked. So there's plenty >> we're going to discuss Wix. I do just want to cover Figma first though. Jason, you're always rather opinionated on it.
>> Uh, but accelerating for the second straight quarter, NDR 139%, 2-year high.
This was a this was a great quarter results.
[ __ ] sold all of mine at the end of last year.
>> Well, you're still ahead. That was the right time to sell the Rory's point.
I'll tell you what I got wrong on Figma for sure. Like the cap like dumb dumb lumpkin. Okay, I got to come up with something asinence with the L, right?
Uh, a limited lumpkin or something like that.
>> Loser lumpin.
>> Loser lumpkin. I like limited. Can we go with limited? Can we be able limited lumpkin?
>> Limited. Lumpkin.
>> I was completely right that make is the worst vibe coding product I've used since I've been on this journey. And and I'm right that it was not important to the senior management and I'm right that they left 500 million or more on the table by not building a reputter level competitor. I'm 100% right and I think it's the tragedy of folks being slow.
However, limited lumpkin I missed the captain obvious point. Um, Figma is building software. So, everyone that is in the business of really helping like there is a soft like there is an AI explosion but part of the explosion is a software explosion and you can see it in in companies that Harry and I have invested on like work OS and revenue cap that have exploded because there's a software explosion going on. And even though Figma lost the vibe coding race so far, it is it is one it is a beneficiary of the software explosion.
One, right? Two, and two, it has internal AI tools like like Andrew from Cla was talking about. So one, it's selling credits to make your product a little better. That almost sounds cynical, right? But what it's really rolling out now is the ability to internally vibe improvements to your Figma designs. Like the agent can look at your Figma design. it it actually officially rolled out I think today it's been in beta for a while but it rolled out well to record this and instead of just designing something it can say hey let's let's let's up let's update the workflow in here let's update the journey this is not like incredibly difficult but it is difficult at Figma scale so even if they're not going to help you vibe products the fact that they are making the building of software more efficient for their audience you know it's like Elastian not adding massive new customers because of AI but adding massive more value for their base So, I got I they're they're a little slow to that. It's in beta today. I mean, it's, you know, it's getting to be summer, but but it looks like it's pretty good. Um, and I utterly limited Lminist anyone like Figma should be modestly accelerating today cuz we're building more crap. Their new ability to eentically improve design likely will be a big deal for their customers. They likely can get another 50% or more of revenue out of their base. The question is to the extent that folks who would have been using Figma are now doing mockups for software products using Lovable, which you hear a lot about, you know, which is using it as a way to describe your product rather than doing a Figma. That's actually a a work stream that you would want to own if you're Figma because what you don't want to have is people going around your product flow, right? So, I do think you're right, Jason. I think it's not just the extra 500 million. It's I'm willing to they probably have an imperative to make sure that that that their customer doesn't leak out to a design flow that's do your actual design in something like lovable where you have a working prototype not just a Figma design I think. So that one for the moment appeared to be more of a Twitter mania overstated the the the the limited the design capabilities in lovable which is a little bit ahead of rep but they're pretty limited for anything that's professional grade like for a figment person. They're still pretty pretty early. What what Figma missed is I create this design. It's beautiful. I I loop in the product team to approve it and then I click a button which is says push into full production prototype and it just works. It works like and you can and the irony is replet and lovable both have that as a native insertion point for a reason. Like if you use these products today they have up you know right in the prompt upload a Figma design because they know like this is their number one ICP wants to take that static design and put it into production. Why, you know, I mean, um, why Figma doesn't have that natively is a loss of, uh, you know, $500 million and going up. It totally is. On on the flip side of these two great great quarters and kind of exciting, happy news. Uh, Wick's down 45% since the stock repurchase. Rory, you mentioned it and touched on it. They're now a $2.2 billion market cap. Base 44 announced last night actually that they hit 150 million of ARR, >> which is because the business isn't growing. The preAI business is no longer growing, right? Maybe it's not. I think it says the PAI business is terminal.
That's what the public markets are saying, right? And they they don't think that the AI play is enough to to rescue it from terminality, right? You the 150 from base 44 is very impressive, right?
But it's substitution revenue at a high level, isn't it? Because it hasn't materially grown the the revenue. It's substitution. If you were to assume then that it's a terminal business in terms of the core business that's existing forgetting base 44 surely you would then ascribe the same to a Squarespace which >> I think I think it's terminal as well. I think Wix and Squarespace one thing people forget this is at and if you look it's true the not only they they're being terminated by two vectors one is obvious one is less obvious. The obvious one what but is more true than people think is it's better in many cases say it's already better to vibe code your own website because you get what you want and they already have templates and they already have integrations not not for folks that are truly tech fearful they should still use Squarespace and Wix. They're great products but they're so limited and you can build something in a vibecoded platform so nicely in 10 minutes. Anyone that's not techphobic should use these products. The other thing that that we kind of forget is that Wix and Squarespace for the last 5 years they they were low-end Shopify competitors. That's where their growth was from merchant services, payments, e-commerce, and there was a whole world uh four or five years ago where where you had Woo Commerce from WordPress, you had Wix, you had Squarespace, and you had Big Commerce who all were viable competitors of Shopify. The other thing happened, Shopify destroyed them all.
There's no reason to use this is another category where the low-end was destroyed by Shopify who amazingly went up market and down market successfully at the same time. And there's just it's not worth it. You can't save enough money to not use Shopify for your store. So So the folks that are trying to save $14 a month have just kind of uh evaporated for the low end of the market. They don't need these these sub Shopifies.
And Big Commerce, even though it's not low end, it got destroyed too, right?
the most visceral competitor the was just dead. It's it's dead in the water.
So they got hit both ways. It's it's too it's too bad. It's too bad currents hitting them.
>> I broadly agree. I mean I think big commerce right in the right in the strike zone or Shopify. I don't know the Wix mix between think of it as kind of information only sites versus ecom sites. But you're right Jason it really matters. And if it is high on ecom sites then you have that vector to think about.
>> And it was all the growth. It was all the growth. Got it.
>> It was all the growth. interesting because you know the core I would say this for the core I mean a lot of those businesses have to be customer it's super low-end SMB especially for the non-ecom sites it has to you if your core acquisition engine works you should have been able to I mean it is still possible that if you can convert most of your customers to the new product then over a couple of years you can make you you can maybe make the math work right if you are a Wix if you at least they have a new product they did do the acquisition, right? Um it is possible to, you know, you get this weird compounding because when the new product is 100 million and it's doubling and the existing product is a couple of billion and it's flat for the first kind of year or so, the it's really hard to move the overall aggregate gap revenue growth rate. But if you can compound quickly enough on the new product, it does move it up.
Right? So that's on the revenue side. I want to come back to I want to separate the stock buyback from that. Right?
That's on the revenue side. But separate comment on the stock buyback. That sucks because it's like you do the classic investor banker thing of, oh, if you buy back the stock at four times, you know, it's it's cheaper than it's ever been and that'll be good for the stock. And it sounds like it makes sense, but when shit's going wrong, things can go lower than you ever think. And sometimes it pays to keep the money in your back pocket cuz it because the stock will go even lower, right? And I think that's just a strategy that didn't work right now, right? you took on a bunch of capital, you bought the stock back and you didn't, you know, by definition, if the stock is 45% down since that moment, that buyback strategy didn't work. And I'm always, frankly, I'm always, it's better to have bought it back cheap than bought it back at even the crazy high prices that some people are doing, stock buybacks in the past. But when your business is in trouble, things that are bad can get worse. and the actual ability to have another billion dollars on your balance sheet to maybe make an even bigger acquisition in my view is worth more than trying to juice the stock for the short term. So I think they look back on that stock buyback and go that wasn't the best move to make. We optimize for the short-term value of the stock not the long-term destiny of the business. The flip side is Mark Benny offset they did a buyback what did he borrow 20 billion or something like that to do it right not even at the lowest interest rates but he said I did it to offset Slack and Tableau. I did it to offset the dilution. I got it back.
Right. My theory.
>> What does that mean? What does that mean? I actually challenge that. I And I hear him saying that and I hear them saying we're doing it to offset stockbased compensation. And I want to beat my head off the [ __ ] wall. The only reason you buy stock back is because you think it's way cheaper than it should be. Right. The whole like if the stock was trading at a trillion dollars, would you buy it back at a trillion dollars to quote offset slack delution? I think it's a bogus [ __ ] answer for people who are just trying to manage some second order metrics when it just doesn't make sense. I I I I've been on boards where people pitch bankers pitch to do a buyback to offset stockbased comp and I literally want to bludgeon them to death.
>> Right. Well, listen high prices is stupid. Buying stock at low prices is clever. End of analysis. I think a lot of these deals and maybe and even Salesforce maybe uh it's really just to hold off shareholder activists because that's their first play. That's their first play. So when you are down in the dumps the what you got to you know you and you've Rory you've been on boards of this you've watched it you want to to the extent you can you want to plate the shareholder activists without giving them what they want. And the simplest thing you can do is use all your cash to buy back shares because that's their play. So if you take them out of the game, you've given them what they've asked for and they don't really have a play if they buy you. Especially if you're also doing layoffs. So if you're doing layoffs and you're and you're doing the buybacks, may maybe you keep starboard and friends away because their playbook has already been used up by the management team.
Agreed. That is actually And look, if there's nowhere better you can put the money and the stock is cheap, then it pays to buy it back. But my and and and I do get the comment that you're always afraid like of management with big amounts of cash that they'll waste it on a bad acquisition. On the other hand, in these times of change, right, hyper change, right? You know, you probably have two choices as a as a SAS company, you want to decide, I am the old thing and the old thing is good enough. I'm going to optimize for 30% operating margins and 10% growth and I'm an economic machine. it is what it is and if I have excess capital I should buy the stock back give it back do whatever right or you say to yourself I might have to do something more than that I don't know what it is but at least for the next 12 months I'd like the option value of knowing if I want to do what was it a base 44 whatever it is acquisition I have the money right so but I agree with Jason cynical comment you're right people do it because it's one of the least disruptive activist moves that you can do and normally you get brownie points for it but the odd thing is if you do a buyback of the stock to appease the beast and then the stock goes down 40%, they won't remember that they wanted you to do a buyback.
They'll just say you're an idiot for doing it. In the end, you're paid to be right. And when you buy and then it goes down 45%. Unfortunately, you can't say to yourself, you were right. Today, they're trading at 1x revenue. 1x literally.
>> Yeah, that's the terminal simplifying the terminal state. They also announced two years ago they were shipping a Glean competitor and going all in, but I'm not even sure it exists. In a year's time, will they be higher than they are today or lower than they are today?
>> I'd say higher just because I mean again I don't know if they took on but I just think at 1x revenues for any unless you re I I would like to look at their churn numbers. I haven't spent enough time unless the revenue is absolutely evaporating you can get from 1x revenues especially if you had the wit and the intelligence which they did to buy a kind of replet competitor. So this is the thing that most mature software companies aren't growing can easily operate at 20% operating margin. So you're now down to saying you've got your cash and do you think you can last four or five years before you go to zero? I mean you can calculate the terminal value here right at 1x revenues you are nearing terminal value right for a company for a product that has high gross margins and is relatively sticky.
So yes I think you can create more value. You will regret deeply buying a whole bunch of shares at three times revenues or two and a half times revenues thinking it couldn't get any worse. But yeah, fatal fatal next sentence. Maybe now it can't get any worse. And if it's a.5x a year from now or the revenues have gone down by 50%, then you can call me an idiot then, Harry, which I know you're dying to do.
>> No, no, it can't get any worse. I'll go and buy a load of wicks and then remind you of it every week.
>> Remember, can't get worse is not the same thing as it will get a lot better.
I mean, you know, the question a totally separate I think Jason's right about the upside in these stories. Again, it goes back to the same thing. Your your range of outcomes has compressed marketkedly.
It's not clear to me if someone said, "What would you do to get a comp let's not pick on Square to make any of these things get to 30% growth and be worth 5x revenues?" I'm not sure I have a single idea. I think Jason's right. You you're dealing with managing, you know, as they used to say about the British Empire, Harry, you're managing decline. It's okay. It's history. You wouldn't understand.
>> I do think one of the downbeaten that we think is truly downbeaten public public software companies in the next year will become upbeaten. And what I mean is what I mean is as as slow as they've been to react to AI changes. They have the installed base. And so someone will get their m someone that is still founder led. It won't be anybody that isn't founderled. One of these founder guys will put his best 50 folks in a room and say listen I don't even need you guys to innovate. I just need you to build a better version of especially proumer AI app. I just need you to build a better version. Stay out of it and ship it and we we're going to sell it the hell out of their base. Arguably that's what Canva is trying to do with 2.0. It's complicated. The the startups are moving faster. The models will move. But someone's going to pull this off with their best 50 people because they have 300,000 customers. They have 300. So, so for every time I'm pitching these AISDRs and I'm looking at HubSpot with 300,000, I'm like, "Hurry up, Breeze, because you got 300,000 HubSpot customers just waiting to buy an AISDR from you." And if HubSpot could actually make this as good as a startup, they're going to sell 150,000 uh Breeze AI agents. Just it just isn't in market today. So, I just think there's so many challenges, it's hard to predict, but someone's going to you're going to turn around and you're going to be like, "Holy cow, Drew pulled it off. Drew went from 0% growth. He got his last 50 guy last 50 soldiers holding back the the castle put him together and holy cow he built this thing and um but I don't know that we can predict who it is. On the flip side of challenge we have Nebus growing 684%.
Accelerating faster than ever. Um my question is is it justified? Is this absolutely uh the sign of just compute starvation and a buy or is this bluntly further signs of a bubble and concerns that this is over market exuberance? You know, it's a it's a mini core weave and those have been great businesses cuz you're right now everyone's comput starved. And let me make the captain obvious answer as Jason would say. If compute continues to be starved then these will continue to be good businesses and if they don't if it's not if compute becomes plentiful they will be they will be commodity businesses and the guys who are over it will go bust so it's just that simple now I actually think Gavin is it Gavin Baker who had a very articulate comment is that ironically the slowness of permitting and the inability to bring on data centers at near the speed that people want to bring them on might save us all from ourselves If all the data centers people like the disaster scenario is if all the the data centers people want to build could be built and then at the same time we do the entropic and open AIM math that we just discussed and that trillion dollars of token revenue turns into half a trillion dollars then you got a trillion dollars of capex and a half a trillion dollars of revenue and you're [ __ ] right but if on the other hand the half a trillion dollars of revenue stays but the just inertia of building data centers means you only get half of them built then You're saved by the bureaucratic inertia of the great American state, right? And you only bill half a billion dollars. Compute remains relatively scarce and people like Nebius and Kore who have that compute do really well. Does Ben spend grow faster or slower than data center capacity? That's it in a nutshell. With with Open AI and Entropic in the middle collecting the money from the first and giving it to the second, that is the bet. And I don't have a brilliant opinion on that, but that's the action on the table as they say at the craps game. You know, I was driving back. We had a little Napa retreat break after disaster a year and it the the the Tesla took us the long way through the South Bay which I haven't done in a while on the bridge and I'm passing Marll semiconductor, SanDisk, uh all these folks, all all these superstars of the '9s. Um they're on effing fire today. Okay. The only thing that isn't on fire today is traditional software. every other category optical connects everything the old the South Bay where Harry's probably never been like he probably has never been south of Mountain View or Palo certainly pal he's like why would you go there's like trillions down there man look at the skyscrapers okay and I was thinking I was thinking you know that the only thing that isn't inflating today is old school software everything else is on fire so my point on Nebius is and Rory made this point listen there's an argument to short it there's an argument that that that is just surplus there's not enough capacity in the market but How far in the future can you short these things? How far in the Sure you can short SanDisk in memory and and you know we f Micron on the drive like you can make fun of Micron, right?
Micron's had more booms and busts than a California prospector from the 19th century, but how you can't shoot short three years into the future effectively.
Certainly I don't have the skills to do so. So we could take pot shots at at at NBS and Cororeweave and friends, but what's the point? We see no signs that there's a short-term crash coming. And it's it's interesting, but uh anything but but traditional software just it's just on fire, right? Every sing Cisco Cisco's back. I should have mentioned Cisco coming up south first or Zanker. I mean, gez, every every software every technology company except traditional software is on effing fire. Again, going back to the big simplistic picture here, all these companies are on fire because the hyperscalers and the model companies have decided to spend, you know, roughly 3/4 to a trillion dollars a year building [ __ ] and 50% of that goes to Nvidia, 10% of that goes to power, 10% of that goes to network. And you're right, everyone just gets pulled along in the bubble.
>> Everyone, >> right? One of two things has to happen.
either corporate America has to digest a trillion dollars worth of tokens without any intermediate software layer and I think it can do some but I don't think it can do all or second software has to start working because only if software starts working does corporate America get to spend that kind of money and and if they don't if if Sierra doesn't grow let me put it blunt if Sierra doesn't grow then at some point open AI entropic will stop growing because their customers today are primarily software companies for coding right and selling through software companies to corporate America to use tokens for business purpose, right? So, in a weird kind of at some point this all has to level out.
>> I just think when we start remember when we started this show, I think Corweave had just IPOed or was about to IPO and it was easy to mock Corweave. It's like, okay, well, this is just this is just roundtrip revenue to create a little a little supplemental capacity that we won't need in a year, right? Fast forward a year, we need every every every Yeah. everything possible. So I do think at some point SanDisk and Nebius and Core we've all have to crash and Marll and even Broadcom at some point they have to crash at some level because they always I think AI can grow infinite like we we will all approach the singularity but but eventually capacity will catch up things will catch up. I just don't know it's going to be near enough to to the present that it matters at some level that it matters right but this was the first I don't know if you follow Leo Ashen Brunner who's the famous >> Yeah. He doesn't have to worry about 10 years out does it? he'll just trade in and out of it.
>> But if you saw his latest releases on his latest filings, he put puts across everything.
>> The guy for the first time added very little and actually showed his first real sign.
>> He's smarter than me. He's making the opposite point I'm making that it's this is this future is coming much sooner than I think it is. The tough one is would you invest in a Cororu Vernius at the sea level today? That's the tougher vent. This is still 20 VC, right? It's as a public investor, you can say, "Hey, Sandis looks pretty good for the rest of the year, right? as a as a startup investor, would you do one of these deals?
>> I'll answer that. I saw a really excellent one with a superb team, a very good seed investor. I'm not going to name it. And I really consider it long and hard. It was still a seed round. We tend to be a investors. I He was really talented team. I didn't do the seed, but when I I always try and give a good answer to people when I turn them down, especially when I think they're A-class teams, because I say, "Hey, look, here's my thinking." because hopefully they'll remember my thinking and if they, you know, if they prove me wrong and they come back for the A. And I will admit when I wrote out my thinking on why I'm not doing this. And he responded, I thought he won the argument. So I'm actually sitting here going, "Rory, was I an idiot?" Because he had a compelling at the margin story around capacity that I thought was interesting. So I literally ran I I did to answer your question, Jason, logically I chickened out. I didn't want to be that module capacity three years into the deal, three years into the capex boom. But there's a little part of me thinking, Rory, that might be a dumb decision.
That was a clever story with a clever team. And yeah, you you are relying on the capital markets being there for the next three years and being able to access and the sobering numbers is half a billion to a billion dollars to build the capacity, right? But maybe it could have worked. So I I get the temptation, right? I literally had that this that was last week. Yeah.
>> Roy, do you always give detailed explanations to founders? I remember Jason once saying to me actually about founders will always kind of argue back and actually it's easier to be like hey keep it much more vanilla. Yeah, I I I think it depends honestly because you can't do it to everyone, right? So I think to some extent it depends on how much time you spent with them, right?
Depends on two things, right? How much time you spent with them. If you've taken one meeting and you're a no, just give a clear no. I mean, maybe you're minor feedback. You know, you can't write a long email, right? If you taken two or three meetings and you felt you're almost there, and sometimes I like to do it because I think it's helpful for your own self. Some CEOs don't respond well to detailed feedback and they argue. Some of them are really professional about it and I like them.
I'm like, "Yeah, I see what you're saying. If I'm right and you're wrong, I'll be back in 12 months and I'll say to you, I told you so." And you'll pay three times as much. And I'm like, "And I'll be glad to." Right. I think in the end you I think in the end, even if you don't share it all the time, for any deal you spend a lot of time with, this is a separate comment. For any deal you spend a lot of time with, it's actually very helpful to write out your conclusions and keep them internally. I do that, right? because then you can test your thinking and you look back and you look back two years later and oh my god I turned on that for that reason I was an idiot or I nearly did that deal and I was totally wrong on the market.
It's a lot of remember in a model that only gets trained in eight or 10 year increments based on the two deals you do a year. You get a lot of additional feedback from the 20 or 30 deals you nearly did that you just don't want to lose. So I do try and write it out for myself and then sometimes I share it with the team especially if I think you know it might be of interest. Yeah, I think that that is that's a good point.
I did say that to Harry years ago. I stand by it. Like if if you've had between zero and one meetings with a founder, there's no upside in providing feedback. It's just an endless like, wait, Jason, that's wrong. You misunderstand. Like I just it's it's if if you if you've gone deep on a deal, right? Um you should you should share the real reasons why. It's generally appreciated. Um, if nothing else, if they if they haven't already closed around, it's helpful to them to see the other side after two to three deals, but it's got to be at least two meet two.
You have to have gone deep enough to actually be able to write that email. It can't be because I I I just I don't see it. Just just don't like then it's got to be a one line, right? I think I know the deal that Rory's talking about. Um, but uh we shall move on. Uh I I want to talk about Cerebrus, the biggest US tech IPO since Snowflake. uh priced at 185 which was a big expansion from where it started. I believe it was 120 in the or 110 120 in the early days which went to 150 and then 185. It popped 68% on day one. Um it was it was a fantastic IPO.
Uh an amazing story. Does this open the window for many more companies of that size? and not the two trillion dollar companies, but does this open the window for many more companies that go out and IPO? I think it's good for for SpaceX.
I think it's good for anyone above their level. I think it's great. It's great.
It just shows anything that is that or better um and better in air quotes, the demand is infinite. I'm not sure if this is really going to help folks that are below that level that we we don't know, right? I doubt it. Even you're looking at Figma and you're like I I mean I don't think anything sub Figma can IPO and have a decent IPO. This is the new grade better than Figlet BTF. Now service arguably is a different category but if you look at the backlog of 24 billion and you're and you're and you're polyanne about it right that's more back what's Figma's backlog I don't think it's 24 billion right so I'm oversimplifying it but I think it's got to be better than Figma and if you're better than uh you you know this a good time to IPO this is very much an N of one bet it's an extraordinary complex technological product that they've brought to fruition just at the time when demand for that product has exploded and unlike when they pulled an IPO 2 years ago they were able to line up arguably the marquee customer for that product open AI so it's a semiconductors are hot they're a semiconductor company inference is hot they're an inference company open AI is hot they're selling to open AI right it's a end of one positioning and you know for Jason for a market that's starved of ways to bet on open AI and anthropic this, you know, they really only have things like Coreweave and you obviously have Nvidia. This was a chance to play. So, yeah, I'm not surprised it went, if you remember last week, you asked, is it going to go really well?
And it was we recorded before the IPO and we appeared after the IP and I was like, of course, it's going to go really well. They've already raised the range.
They're not idiots. And it went exactly like that. They went to the They went beyond even the range. They, you know, went to the max they could do without refiling it. It was an obvious winner category. and worth pointing out how fickle the world is. Two years ago they couldn't get the deal done. So I think you're right Jason actually is at the margin it's a positive tell for SpaceX.
People are willing into you people are very much risk on for the kind of things that look like they have the kind of upside.
>> Rory, would you add it to your public book at 300?
>> Probably not. I go back to the base rate. Yeah. The base rate return on IPO is not from the day of the IP not from the day of pricing but from the first day's closing price which is typically way above it. The base rate return on that is negative. One, six months, 12 months, one year, you know, two years, right? Is that in other words, across a thousand or so of them? If you buy on the pop, you know, you tend to be in a happy camper, right? Is it a company at the right price you believe can be a long-term enduring company? Absolutely.
Yes. It's got technological differentiation like no one else, right?
So, just blindly buying the day every other retail idiot on the planet is buying is probably not the best way to make money, just statistically. And and base rates matter.
>> Totally agree. We said it's good for SpaceX and SpaceX sets June 12th for the largest IPO in history. Suspected $1.75 trillion valuation, $75 billion raise.
My word, this would be epic.
It will. That's one word for it. Um and you know, again, back is how how does this go? I don't know. Um I mean I think it's funny. We're recording this the day they're due to file their S1, but I haven't seen it. I checked before I came on. The interesting about the S1 is in one sense you really want to read it. In the other weird sense, there's actually going to be very little in it that actually matters at the margin. What do I mean by that? Is that the S1 will tell us, and I'm really curious to read it because it got through the SEC really quickly. The S1 will tell us everything about SpaceX as it existed in December of this year, which was without X.AI, without the cursor deal, without the um entropic deal. And if because if you think about it, the most recent I don't I presume their count their year end is December. So they'll have last year, which is SpaceX and Starling standalone, you know, the leaked figures are 18 you 15 18 billion in revenue, 20 30% growth rate even the a positive. would like to see the capex before I comment but pretty much a bounded understood company right in February of this year they closed on X.AI AI which you know brought them a pitiful amount of revenue and a burn as big as Crocius you know what I mean right and then in so that's going to be pratted into the S1 for maybe one quarter right so that's all you literally have half a quarter's information on something that's kind of taken you from a profitable company to a lossmaking company then the other two big deals the entropic deal won't even be in the financials cuz it's a signed deal and then the cursor acquisition won't even be in the financials cuz it's not closed yet So, you're literally going to be reading this S1 going, "And no forward projections are allowed in an S1, right? You're going to read this thing that says, "Here's the company we used to own on December 31st of last year. Pretty nice [ __ ] company it was too, dude." Right? However, we since got AI pled and now it's totally different.
By the way, we can't tell you much about that. You'll have to talk to our bankers. Right? It's going to be the funniest S1 ever in one respect. is that I mean yeah revenue you know 50% 30 40% of the revenue isn't in the S1 all the loss isn't in the S1 except for half a quarter yeah some of the bankers are going to be having to tell the story via the road show so in one sense I'm looking forward to reading the S1 in the other sense there's just a lot to come and it is so that that's the first comment is the the storytelling around these acquisitions are going to be are not going to be in the S1 and it's just going to be interesting how they get that across there are other markets and other times where people will look back and go you must have been mad to buy the stock on that little information. So I think it's a it's a it I think it'll again the probabilities it gets done extraordinarily well and the excitement is amazing because the market is in the mood for excitement. We're selling we're selling the most exciting company at the pl and the planet at a time when the market wants excitement. If the market ever wakes up and says it wants cash flow it's going to be a totally different story. Oh, well, you know, right now we're excit we're into excitement.
>> June 12th, this goes out. It's Elon.
It's Elon the pump machine. Does this have the mother of all pops with retail getting behind Elon in a way that we haven't seen before. Got to do better than GameStop.
>> No.
>> Yeah. I think there's a reason it's 30% retail. I think some of it is uh being Robin Hood and and Democratic, right?
He's selling nothing. um 30% to retail.
But um I I just I just think the the Robin Hooders and the GameStoppers have got to be more excited about Rockets than uh than plushy toys at GameStop. To me, it's more exciting.
>> I I agree. I think everyone will be wild. Everyone will want to own some of this, which means retail will buy a lot of these. You're exactly what >> I'm going to put 2,000 bucks on my on my on my iPhone into this thing.
>> And the reason I said no is because remember GameStop, again, I go back to numbers. GameStock, I think, pops 10 30 Yeah. 20x from low to high just based on retail. When you start at 1.7 trillion and the largest market cap company on the planet is 5 a.5 trillion, Nvidia, it's going to be hard to 10x from here, right? That's what I meant. But you're right, the excitement on retail will make this a super interesting story. And then the other thing is, as you know, >> you know, literally, Rory, I'm completely ignorant. I obviously it's going to be a huge float, right?
Mathematically, could could the could the GameStopers and the Robin Hoods I'm admitting my ignorance if they they could they could believe it go 10x? This is they're not doing any DCF analysis.
They're trading. Is there is it possible for them to to trade enough shares to create a 10x pop? Is it mathematically possible to influence the float that way? I just because sometimes it's a thin float when you're able to manipulate it, right?
>> The float isn't that small. It's 75 billions. I think the interesting thing is if it's yeah it's already healthily priced at 100 times revenues it will be interesting to see what happens I mean when these things and so and Harry you can go no comment at this point when institutions play shares sorry when an IPO gets when institutions take shares in an IPO they have a price target right and you know if that price target gets achieved on the first day you tend to see additional trading I mean it would be you know the 70% % of if Black Rockck spends $10 billion on buying in the in the IPO as has been rumored but again I'm not I have no clue about the facts right they they run an internal analysis and they say we think we should buy 10 billion because we think over the next 12 months we can make 40% on our money and if at the end of the first day it's up 40%. It'll be solely tempting to have another $10 billion come back to market because you'll be looking at your price target and going, I have a price target.
I've achieved it. Time to go. Right? And you see that phenomenon when IPO pops the institutions and I used to think, oh my god, they're disloyal. They'll leave.
And but in fact, it's just we bought, we we wanted to be a holder, but we had a price target. You've achieved it. So, it will be interesting to see that price action if it does in fact do a GameStop type of price. You you could all I'm just going to say it not to be ne you could also have the Facebook effect where the IPO was frankly a dismal failure. It early on it hung around its price for a day or two and then look it up in 2012 and then it dropped you know at 1 point 40 50% below its IPO price.
It was a horrible IPO right and obviously an amazing company which can also happen. Price matters. I think it's it's it's going to be wild. I I genuinely hope it succeeds because I think the damper effect of it not succeeding would and trading well would be pretty profound. I think it'll trade up to 5 trillion. I'll take this bet.
But I think there will be enough sitting in Bickl in Miami day traders, Yahoos that love the brand. Uh folks hate the brand. That's why he lost the the trial in Oakland. I think they hate the brand too. But enough folks love the brand that it it it can float up 3 to 5x based on partially influencing the float.
There's not enough. There isn't enough demand. I I I I'm I'm This could be Limited Lumpkin speaking, but I'm I'm going to take this bet that it's going to trade up 3x in 2026 just based on GameStop driving it up.
>> I want I I think it's going to go to three trillion.
>> I don't discount the fact that it goes down.
>> I don't discount the fact. I didn't say it's likely. I'm just pointing out here.
You're paying $100. Where's my Robin Hood account?
You boomer. You boomer.
>> I am the [ __ ] boomer.
>> Five trillions.
>> I think it's going to go down.
>> I didn't say Hang on. I didn't say it will go down. Harry, you got to be able to live in probably.
>> Did I tell you when I got into Bitcoin?
>> Yeah.
>> I've made billions on my Bitcoin. This is going higher than Bitcoin.
>> Okay, good for you.
>> You You do realize that space is bigger than Bitcoin, right? The entire universe, there's a trillion stars just in our own galaxy and there's a trillion galaxies. That is larger than all the bitcoins out there. You have this completely wrong. Did I tell you when I got into Bitcoin? Did I tell you guys when I got into Bitcoin?
>> Okay, thank you. I mean, okay, I'm just trying to be serious.
>> That's an instant pass on a founder in a pitch, telling you when they got into Bitcoin. That that's my flip side of too much feedback after zero. Like, if all they tell if in the first 20 seconds they tell you about when they got into Bitcoin, tell them to stay in Bitcoin.
That that >> I just I mean, the reason I made that comment is, and I know it sounds like again, I go back to Facebook. I remember the IPO. was the defining company of its generation. It was far more attractively priced than here. It was profitable, right? But they pushed the limit on price and they just hit that point where the initial trades went the other way.
There was a little worry about mobile, right? They hadn't managed a mobile transition and it really traded down over the next 6 months. Right? So, I'm just simply like again it's back to my when everyone thinks something is guaranteed that's just when it blows up in your face. Do I think it's the likely outcome? No. It's probably twothirds positive and and of that at least 30% of it is adjacent outcome which is it pops amazingly because of retail but again I go back to it's you know fundamentals is trading at 100 times revenues they've effectively decided to be a nebius not a entropic by virtue of selling their compute to entropic um so that whole the AI story ain't there so it's stallink and stall it's it's stallink was the growth engine with a core weave attached >> and it's it's been a while since we had a bet. Rory, this is great. Jason's five, I'm three and you're negative.
>> No, I Okay. I mean, there's probably some kind of spread betting I can take on that, which is, let me think about it. I'm comfortable in saying it'll be below. Okay, I'll tell you what. I'll take I'm comfortable below three. I mean, I'll totally take that bet.
>> The price is right bet.
>> I mean, you you basically guys, you said three. Jason said five. I do not think, let me at the end of a month, I do not think this company will be valued at $3 trillion or more.
>> Oh, no. Neither do I.
>> No, this is No, no, this is a meme and this is a casino. We're seeing the casinoization of public markets. This will go faster to three and it'll come fast back down.
>> I don't do casino betting, but thank you. But duly douly noted that over the Okay, >> what are you doing in venture and AI then?
>> If you if you Yes. Okay, keep rolling.
Keep rolling.
>> Okay, keep keep rolling. uh news last night might drop moment with Y Combinator and I do think it's actually important. Sam Alman just offered $2 million in open AI tokens to every YC startup in the current batch in exchange for equity. It reminded me of Yuri Milner and DST doing the exact same with the very early YC batches. Um, what do we think about this? And does that impact the valuations that we ultimately get it at if they can get $2 million in OpenAI tokens from Sam? First of all, it's all smart. You know, I I think that it's back to you. You know, you have let anthropic steal a march on you, more than a march, many marches, uh, on people, on mind share, on respect, and you got to do all you can to earn it back. And that's just one more thing. You know, develop our hearts and minds. So smart. Um, second is, you know, I'm assuming it's not transferable cuz if it's transferable, then it's money because let's be real, compute is money, right? But so I I'm sure they've thought of that. So it's not transferable. So yeah, I mean it look so to your comment on does it impact pricing? maybe at the margin but but if you're compute intensive it does but probably if you're compute intensive you're raising 200 million anyway right for the most I mean if I think of the last YC batch and I set to it most of them are building software on top of AI but where agentic spend would be you know token intensity would be 10% of revenue so it's valuable but it's not going to replace the need for humans you're still going to need four or five humans to build the code to build the agent for call centers or whatever so um you're They're still going to need res at the margin. It takes a little bit of the edge off, but it's not like any of them can build a next generation whatever with it. It's it's nice at the margin.
>> I think it'll increase the valuations for sure.
>> A little bit. Yeah.
>> Because if nothing else, even even if you don't view it as inflationary, they have 2 million of tokens now.
>> That that's a real investment. Like let's let's take this seriously. Like we all can use the tokens. So that is 2 million of d-risking that investment. 2 million more that they can use to add value to the deal. Um there's plenty of YC companies that don't raise 2 million at demo day, right? So now they've raised another now they've radically derisked these investments. Uh it would make sense that typical post might go up to 60. There's some there's some correlation. I'm not smart enough to do.
Um and um it it it may even GameStop at higher since they're investing at 100.
It's hard to predict. It's you you can come in, Harry. If you do the deal a month before demo day, it's 20. If you do it the week before, it's 40. If you do it after, you're at the Open AI price. It's 100. You can But you are welcome to come in at the Open AI price.
And it's not even a premium. Okay? We'll do it because we love the pod. Uh we'll let you, Harry, and Jason all in at no premium, just at the no no um nothing.
Just at 100.
>> You're right, Jason. If you navigate on optics, it probably causes an anchoring effect. you know, I got 2 million at 100. Why would I take another four at 50?
>> It may shrink the size of the rounds, too. Like, it may make it even harder on VCs to invest in YC rounds. Uh because they've, you know, the average ownership for VC rounds has already been sliced to like five or six% at YC. This could slice it to two or three just because you you just don't need as much capital.
That that might even be the bigger impact potentially, right? In fact, yeah, depending on depending on how much of your burn remember at scale, if you're successful, any software company can use up 2 million in tokens without blinking. The question is how how Yeah, the interesting question is how much leverage in that I'd love to know in the first 12 months of the typical YC company's life, how much of their spend is either today is either tokens to serve customers, tokens to build product, and our engineering spend that can now be replaced by tokens. It all goes back to that 20% number. Can you replace I mean can because out of the gate you're probably not selling so much that you you know you're reselling that you're kind of using those tokens to serve customers. Most of what you're probably doing with those tokens is building your product. So if you can >> maybe what if you're building a lora or replet you could burn through all those tokens in 12 months.
>> Yes serving customers but if you are can I make a comment if you are given that token intensity for a Javier or LGO is probably 20%. in terms of revenue that probably means so to burn through 2 million you're going to be at 10 million in a r if you're at 10 million in a r in today's world you're going to raise at 500 million anyway >> well hold on with love that I don't think that's the early stage math the early stage math might be to like a you know token spend is marketing spend so I'm going to give away 20 $30,000 a month of video creation >> of audio creation of of myo competitor of my replica competitor now I can give away $50,000 a month of tokens my first 12 months where it would have been stressful AF before this deal.
>> You You're exactly right. I was mentally putting in two categories which was token spend for engineering and token spend for full price customers. You're exactly right. The minute you sell it, I agree with you. What you'll now do is everyone will have destructive free token programs because you want to try my there'll be a bunch of premium products. You're exactly right. That's how it come manifests. And if Sam increases it to like four or eight or 10 like as open aggros then think about how how how much that could change the game. If as a startup you get 10 million of tokens to build another Lora or Replet for your for your first year, then you're just beat to the wall because you don't have to worry about anything except shipping the best opus >> 5 point I mean not opus sorry a 5.7 codeex product if you can because there's no issue the first year it's all about mark because for so many of the startups we invest in now tokens are marketing >> their tokens are marketing because poor Michael Cannon Brooks he's built an iconic but he can't afford to spend the number of tokens a startup can per customer. Give me two twos just could just be the start. I just think this is already disruptive to 200 startups and it could why couldn't it go up? Well, it it can if you have spare capac it's also very telling. It says at the margin at the margin if you're tapped out on capacity that's um two times 150 for anthropic if they really are capacity constrained that's 150 star that's 300 million you're giving up every 3 months that's 1.2 2 billion a year if you say four YC batches 1.2 2 billion a year at 18 times valuation is about you know it's a 2030 $30 billion hit to valuation that's real money right if you on the other hand you have spare compute then it sleeves off your vest so to some >> yeah but if you believe in the in the open I mean in the YC model worst case you're going to hold it at at like once cash is less of an issue um you're going to at least be able to hold these investments at 1x it's not going to cost you anything because if the average if if allegedly the average batch does 3x to 4x but you're paying a h 100red million then at least don't have to mark it down part respectfully up until then you were more right than me on that you're wrong because if you have OpenAI's investments will be valued at 1x and no one will give them any credit but if if to to make that investment they gave up on revenue from selling to Bank of America those tokens >> of course you're right on that yeah if it only sort of works if the tokens are surplus or leftover or something like that >> and therefore my conclusion is open AI has surplus tokens and Entropic does not >> I mean I think that's a good that's a good good conclude usion. Right. I think it's also a bet, but it's also a thoughtful bet, right?
>> It's a smart way to use them. It beats the [ __ ] Yes, it's a smart way to use them. Okay, what else are we?
>> I I just want to hear before we do a rage bait for real. Jason Rory is a celebrity at Zaster.
>> Oh god.
>> They loved him.
>> Don't give me >> L O V E D. He was just He was like eight 10 rows standing room only deep to hear from this guy. They they love him.
>> They told Did he get selfies?
>> Okay. He did the one on stage with me.
He wasn't that into the selfies, but yeah. M. He was M.
>> Okay. I hate this [ __ ] Keep going.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, it's okay. Uh, do we want to do >> In all seriousness, I do think it's a reminder that uh there there's a large thread of Rory super fans, right? They like the thoughtful deep dives. Rory's got a few skills. Harry Harry and I are self-aware. We're not claiming we're something we're not. Rory has a set of insights and skills that I'm very self-aware >> that I would say to the LPs listening at least justify a 6x fund. I would say at a minimum, would you agree?
>> At least I'll give him at least at least justify premium carry at a bare minimum.
Right?
>> At least a 199 fund.
I'm cutting this out. We're going to move on to Rage Bait in a second.
>> Celebrity.
>> I just want to point out in passing uh because you mention we did call the open AI the open AI Musk lawsuit correctly.
Not just dismissed but dismissed on the technicality. the exactly what I said last week. The jury said, >> "Yeah, they just said I could in two and my wife used to be a public defender and one of the real tells was how quickly the jury came back." Like literally two she said they went in, had lunch, picked the foreman, said, "Look, we can decide on the technicality of statute of the limitations. We can be done in here half an hour. Oh, we can waste a whole bunch of time arguing facts beyond that. What does the vote say? We're done." And I think there was a and if they loved Elon, if this jury loved him, they would have I think they would have said the statute of limitations started when Microsoft when they flipped it to a for-profit. I think they that is a black boxing that they could do. That's just my one experience where I saw it literally happen where where the one party got a huge benefit from the statute of limitations from something 10 years old. I'm going to push back and say one, you know, my wife, it's been years since she's backed up, but she would say generally juries are smarter than you think and they're kind of patronizing. You know, people would just do what they want. There's been some places where I could argue that's happened, but in the main juries are pretty sensible. They listen and they try and do their civic best. I actually feel this is where I'm going to be a little touchyfey and say I feel people try and do the best, right? And I think in this case, the real truth is this. It was a no. I mean, Elon knew that they were talking. I mean, so stepping back for people, the the question came because the the the the the conversion had already been blessed by Delaware and California. You can't say it was the conversion is legal. So, the case you were making was fraudulent. In other words, that the other two guys were fraudulent when they didn't tell Elon about the um planned future conversion and they took his money on a false pretensis. So, they were alleging fraud, right? And that fraud took place in 201 161 17 18 right and there's but there's a statute of limitations on a fraud claim. So if Elon only found out about the conversion to for profit when it happened in 20 23 or 24 then it's within the statute of the limitations and and his claim could proceed. But it was obvious to anyone the brain of a P that given that he was in the that he was discussing a conversion to for profit back in the day and therefore you know it was a ludicrous allocation that he didn't know. That's why they took you the reason it went to a jur went to a jury and also to a judge versus just being a black and white thing is that it was about knowledge. When did you know in the case of fraud it's when did you know you were defrauded is when the clock starts for statute of limitations.
But it's pretty clear he knew. I think the real truth is anyone who was trying to anyone sane wouldn't have taken that wouldn't have been the plaintiff. Elen just didn't care. He didn't do it based on probability of winning. He did it because even if he doesn't win, he can damage the other side. He's really angry and pissed off about what happened. And if he worked 800 billion dollars, so what if I wasted 40 billion million dollars on a [ __ ] case? I yanked everyone's chain. I'm happy. So my take on this one is justice was served. Elon got his pound of flesh for the 40 million or whatever he spent on legal fees. He's going to appeal it. It won't get a second past appeal and it'll go away. Right. So, I I actually think it came out exactly as planned. But then Jason actually found one of the news stories that came off the back of this which I didn't actually, which is that Elon spawns dozens of other investigations into Sam Olman's finances on the side, creating more problems for Sam.
>> I I think that's true. I think separate comment is is that and it's and I feel okay words I never thought I'd say I feel empathy for him Sam in the sense that he hasn't taken any equity in open AI and he's been asked about that and he said he's had no economic interest in open AI and we probably all talked to me he doesn't own any equity but what's going to happen now is a whole bunch of people including in a congressional testimony are going to say but you have an ownership interest in Y combinator that has an ownership interest in open AI you have an ownership in these companies that are selling to open AI and therefore you're nefariously trying to get the money and in one sense he may have been factually incorrect to say that in the other sense it's obviously [ __ ] he's not because if Sam wanted to get 4% of open AI the board would have given him 4% of open AI so whatever he gets indirectly is minuscule compared to what he could have gotten had he not been so and the reason all this is biting him in the ass is this whole we're doing it for the good of the world I'm not getting paid it's all what I the enjoyable part is all these [ __ ] good intentions are biting him in the ass. It's kind of unfair, right? Had he been a for had he been Larry Ellison and saying I'm doing it for the money, it would all have been clear, right? So yes, Elon is going to get he's going to be able to continue to make the man's life. It turns he's going to he's going to continue to make Open AI's executive team life of misery, which clearly makes Elon happy. And not only that, but other people are going to be able to pile on too because of the complex nature of open AI structure in a world where a much simpler structure wouldn't attract any attention. I mean, if he owned 20, I mean, to be fair to some, he was the founding idea behind Open AI, he convened that meeting. If he'd taken 10% ownership day one or 10% ownership when the conver, no one would blink an eye, right? So, it's it's one of those things. Good intentions bite you in the ass. But yeah, >> well maybe let me add just two final thoughts. We go forever. One, and I've said I'm on team Sam now. More importantly, I'm on team open a open open AI. Okay, but he did not have no consideration. He set up an entire venture fund where he got all the carry and claimed it was open AI. If if Elon keeps this going, he this will reverberate forever. He did not. The idea that Sam took no consideration from OpenAI is the biggest load of malarkey because he set up a venture fund on the side probably without telling the board.
This is probably why he got fired and kept all the carry like >> I first >> and you know why he did this? Because he didn't think OpenAI would be worth anything as a nonprofit. So he said said how I want to do this. I'm deeply passionate about it but I also want to monetize it. And how do I do this? Do what I did at YC. Set up a fund on the side and keep all the carry. call it OpenAI venture fund and make all the investments and keep all the carry. That way I can at least make 800 million like I did on Stripe.
>> Ironically, if in fact, just as a comment, if in fact you're correct, it's evidence of an of a belief that open AI is not going to make any money, which ironically would actually have helped his case. He could say, "Hey, right." I mean, I think what it really points, genuine comment here, what it really points to is complex arrangements, especially that, you know, complex arrangements bite you in the ass because I go back to my comment that once it became a for-profit, if you wanted to just be a paid CEO, you could have got your ownership. You didn't need to do all this other stuff. And you're right, Jason, when you do all this other stuff and then you make an enemy of the richest man on the planet who is clearly malevolent and willing to go to the ma to the mat for this over and over again, you're in trouble. Then add to that on top something we haven't talked about but I think goes back to where you're wrong on your comment on the jury.
Right. They didn't find for open AI because they found open AI more sympathetic than Elon Musk.
I think it's as it's becoming painfully clear now one in America other than us here in California likes the AI trend.
And I think probably if you asked the jury what they thought of all the people involved they would say a curse on all your houses. What a nasty, obnoxious, arrogant, entitled bunch of shits. But we did our job and we followed the law and I hope I never see these buffoons again and only bad things happen to them. My guess is >> probably that was the jury. Yeah, that's probably >> That was the jury, right? And now, can we get our lunch and our daily stipen?
And are we done? Did you guys see the Eric Schmidt? Eric Schmidt got booed.
Yes. I think that again go back to my comment here. We've spent we have the leaders of this thing spending three years telling us how it might destroy humanity and it's going to put us all out of jobs and then we're shocked to discover that people don't like us. Oh, and by the way, your electricity is going up in the meantime, but have a nice day. Right? So, in general, yeah, we have people who are brilliant scientists who politically are utter morons, right? And the people who are utter morons at AI but brilliant at politics are going to have us for lunch.
That's the movie in the next three years. They're going to have Sam for lunch because he's lied to them as far as they're concerned. And they're going to have the AI industry as a whole in lunch because we're firing people left, right, and center. And the politics are going to be brutal, right? And you know, we'd have done a lot better. Say, you know, at least when Meta was busy destroying the world, they were smart enough to pretend it was all about bringing friends together and not destroying democracy. We will regret that lack of transparency.
>> Yeah. This is why I'm on team Sam. I think he's doing the best balance he can here. I think it's mostly a positive image. He's thought he's not doing the Daario thing.
>> Um and people still shot at his house.
>> Yeah.
>> Because I don't believe >> it's not funny. It's not funny. Eric Schmidt got off light. I mean, it's not funny.
>> And it's very telling because actually three years ago, I was at maybe four years ago, I was at my son's graduation the year the first year after Chat GPT and it was the exact opposite.
Someone, one of the speakers made a a kind of a semi nice reference to Chachi PT and all the kids clapped in a totally knowing fashion that basically exuded, "We've all cheated for the last year using this product. We [ __ ] love it."
Right? And it was a really sweet moment.
I'm like, including my son. And I'm like, "Oh, I get what just happened here." Right? And we've gone in three years from graduations clapping about open AI because it was like, "Oh my god, that got me my final essay done in 24 hours when I didn't do it to we now boo Eric Schmidt." You might want to think about the trend here and the direction of travel if you're, you know, representing AI. And that's why there's been a message shift that Dario hasn't got, but most people are now trying to emphasize the positive. But it's going to be hard to do that because as we speak today, you know, Meta are laying off 8,000 people. That's 8,000 lives impacted because he wants to put it all into capex. So I I think the politics are going only one way. What did the standard What did the stand this British Harry knows the British what did the CEO of Standard Charter Bank says? We're not we're we're getting rid of 8,000 jobs, but we don't have job losses. We just have job reductions in favor of the machines. This is the greatest graduation speech of all. No job losses at at at Standard Charter 7 7,800 reductions. We just have job ro reductions in favor of the machines.
This is a level of honesty that I think is as just as genuous as we get. He's not even seeing them as job losses because they're no longer necessary. The machine they're just in favor of the machines. This this this statement should echo through history that he actually >> I don't want I don't want to end on a negative, but Cisco cuts 4,000, LinkedIn cuts 875, Meta cuts 8,000 into it. I think >> I will give LinkedIn credit. They specifically said it's not caused by AI, it's realignment. But yes, the trends are tough here.
>> In's a big one, too. Old school >> into 16,000.
>> Wow. Yeah. I mean, yeah, the politics here are going to be interesting.
>> That's why I honestly think we could talk. I think it is a I don't mean repetitive. I actually think we we we will need to create policies in tech to rehire these people. I think we need to reflate. I think first we're going to get fit. We're going we realize res-killing doesn't work. We're out of time. Okay. We've got to do we got to be better than Figma. We can't screw around anymore. So, we're going to get fit.
We're going to replace our workflows.
We're going to have AIS. And then we're going to have a social obligation. The Eric Schmidz can't just go to graduation and say, "F you." Like, we're going to have to reflate and hire thousands and thousands of people per tech leader um to avoid social unrest. We're going to have to do it. I I've had this conversation with a number of high-flying AI cos and at first they think I'm ridiculous and then they think about it and then they're like well maybe maybe we need to go we need to have a 2021 social charter where we we just double our headcount and we just they have nothing to do but play on chat GBT all day. No, I just want to flag that's only the case if in fact AI is capable of replacing these jobs. There is a scenario I just want to put it out there whereby people are overestimating what AI can do and it maybe it's not 20% of R&D headcount it's 5%. And therefore the amount of efficiency um that AI creates might might be less.
Right? In which case you have yourself are these people being really laid off because they were surplus to voyage all along. Are they being laid off again? We talked about this because you just spent all your money on capex or are your shock are have you cut too deeply and you have to do a clar and wind some of it back. Right. I don't I Jason if if the let me be clear. If the I want to say if the meth if the reality is as you articulated then you're correct. If the tech industry really does put let's say Dario is correct. If we put 20 to 50% of white collar jobs out in the next 5 years then you're going to have to do something massive on the social thing otherwise they will be forming the guillotine in the square in San Francisco and they I have a long list of people that I would suggest to bring up in the tumbles. Right. I actually don't think that'll happen. And I think we're over exaggerating the impact of it. But you are right. What you can't do >> what you can't do is say a half. What you cannot do is what's happening right now. Laying off a whole bunch of people saying it's AI and then acting surprised when it bites you politically in the ass. I mean I wonder genuine comment.
Going back to something you said. How do you think those 8,000 ex Facebook employees are going to vote on the wealth tax next week?
>> They're going to vote. You know it's worse because first of all let me say let me see. We can take 5% of [ __ ] Zuckerberg's money and he might leave the state. I'm in.
>> Yeah, I agree. That's why I think we have to have this reinflation of hiring.
>> First of all, one thing I know it's n equals one.
>> You do that, he'll just leave. He may have left. He may he may be a citizen of Nevada.
>> You're right. My point is politics when you're calm and rational and you can talk I think it's a horrible idea. You can talk about it very rational like this because if they leave you lose all the tax, right? politics when you've been laid off by email at 4 this morning because the CEO of your company has decided he'd prefer to buy, to Jason's point, hund00 million of machines than $100 million of people. That politics becomes very different and I don't think you think as much. I think you are pretty pissed off. That's my point. I actually think it's worse than that, Rory. Because I think these are going to be by far the the layoffs that Harry just rattled off and the ones for this year I believe are going to be far worse than any layoffs in our lifetimes. And I'll tell you why. And I know this is brutal, okay? No one's going to hire these people. No one wants It has always been a scarlet letter to be laid off from a tech company, but it is a double scarlet letter today. And these people are going to be angrier.
>> No, I'm interrupting. I'm interrupting because late breaking news. I got to leave in one minute. Yeah.
>> But I just saw a headline come in that says OpenAI might file as soon as Friday.
>> What this says to me is they have figured out that the money the last trains are leaving for Money Station. I don't know if it's true or not. I I'm literally responding in real time here.
But um I I think when you look at the service market, you say to yourself, go go go.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. Um, so when Sarah said we need another 12 months to start the process, what we really meant was we're going today. So >> it does happen tomorrow. We might have to do another supplemental podcast like cursor. We'll find out.
>> No, it'll only be it'll only be a filing. It'll be it'll be a closed filing. You'll learn nothing. All you'll learn is what we've just learned, >> which is at their point to start the process. It's the April period for SpaceX, not the flip. What really counts as the flip and the flip is happening for so we'll see SpaceX tomorrow. with no open AI filed. Two months from now, they'll do their flip. But there you go.
>> What an ending, Rory.
>> There you go, man. My god.
>> Okay, I got to go to just a little board meeting and try and make a buck.
Goodbye.
>> Good luck.
Ähnliche Videos
The #1 Reason Your Top People Keep Leaving (How to Fix It)
Entreleadership
470 views•2026-05-29
What Happens After A Motorcycle Dealership Shuts Down?
FastestWay.1
374 views•2026-05-29
The Evolution of DSP's Pokemon Unpack-ack-acking Grift
Toxicity_Unmasked
2K views•2026-05-29
Help re-structure my finances, I want to buy a house, save and invest
JennNxumalo
2K views•2026-05-29
Asian Paints Q4 Results: Revenue Beats Estimates, 5 Key Takeaways For Investors
NDTVProfitIndia
111 views•2026-05-29
Trying to Afford Vancouver on a Single Income | $2,550 Mortgage
chelseaspursuit
308 views•2026-05-28
AI Investment: Data Centers & The Bottom Line
MemeTeamClips
134 views•2026-05-28
Are you busy but still feeling broke?
TaraWagner
305 views•2026-06-01
