20VC: Instinct Raises $1B at $10B Valuation | AMD Buys Fei-Fei Li's World Labs for $8.2B | Meta Poaches MongoDB's CEO | Bessemer Raises $5.75B | Oura Pulls IPO & Nubank Eyes $8–12B Monzo Takeover

23:40And then just moved on to the next question. Some of you will get rich and many of you will fail. Well, thank you for clarifying that, Tyler. Jack, you're right. It's like the highest variance time, which speaks to even when you're doing these bets with the upside, having enough to do 20 is key, which is why I don't get the, we've talked about this before, it's why you write about instinct being an early stage bet despite the price. It's not yet at the stage where you can have the concentration discussion. You know, the folks having the concentration discussion are really talking about OpenAI and Tropic at the last two pre-IPO rounds.

24:12But you're right. Even at 10 billion pre, if it's where it is today, you don't want to put 30 percent in. I also think this is not the round that worries me. If you would look at the instant cohorts, which I haven't seen, but I imagine the usage is incredible. I imagine the depth of usage is like we've never seen before. What worries me is when you have three rounds in three weeks with no material movement in between and no data suggests there's been anything different. That's what worries me. like the people who say oh 10 billion 14 people like it's just like people who said you know a billion for what for instagram was stupid it's like yeah you don't look that smart today 16 billion for whatsapp exactly but you know what i love i love the fact that i actually had your partner ev randall on the show and he said oh we're gonna look back at andresen and general catalyst and light speed and he retweeted it which is so humble and like non-vc like where he was like, maybe I was wrong to say that Andreessen won't do a 5X in this vintage because Mr.

25:06Martin Casado is making us look bad because the man has had Open Router. Obviously, last night had Feifei with World Labs and then he had Cursor. So for the news story of the day, AMD buys Feifei Lee's World Labs for$8.2 billion in stock. That first big Neolab exit, two and a half years into the company's journey. Let's focus on the entrepreneur first. I think it's great for Fei-Fei. I mean, I've only met her once. I thought she was awesome, very humble. I love her book, if you read it. Very moving book about being an immigrant to the US. I was myself, so I know it, and kind of came up from nothing.

25:43As someone pointed out, it's not an overnight success. Cranked through ImageNet, kicked off the whole damn thing, because the entire AI resurgence was really kicked off when that ImageNet project that she built, when the winner of that was Ilya and two or three other people, I think in 2012, where their model using neural nets just kicked ass and blew past everyone else. And it was the first hint that this technology, this deep learning technology was going to blow everyone away. And she kind of set that up, didn't monetize that, worked at Stanford, worked at Google. And then midlife, quit, did this two and a half years ago and nailed it.

26:20So I think it's just an awesome story. Just a reminder, yet another wildly successful immigrant story coming to the US, making a ton of money. So I'm stoked for her. We can come to the venture money later, but it's just a great story. And it would be pretty criminal if we had the biggest boom in AI history and Fei-Fei Li didn't get a big ass check. So I think comic justice has been restored and it's good, right? Cash the check. Well, just one thing, you know, AMD was like one of your grandpa's investments, right? You know, he and his buddies from Fairchild or I don't know what the exact, but this is an oldie moldie.

26:51It's up 279 % this year to 1 trillion. So I don't even know whether they're going to continue the 3D world models or they're just going to be their counterpart to NVIDIA's model team. But whatever it is for 8 % of that market, 8%, yeah, getting a world-class team to make sure that 279 % run continues, like it's cheap if it's the right team, right? It's a moment in time to Jack's point, right? If AMD was up 3 % this year, they ain't going to be spending 8 billion. But this is a run that you, you know, it's epic, but you got to maintain it, right? They've got to be number two to NVIDIA or whatever the goal is.

27:25And it's a habit trail that keeps going faster. So I'd certainly invest 8 % of my market cap to keep the good times going. And I think it's the first of a few. We've talked about this a couple of times. You look at these investments, and candidly, I don't think the World Lab companies, not the World Lab in particular, but those World Lab type companies would, on a standalone basis, have anything like the trajectory of Entropic and OpenAI, where there was a very quick path from here's an amazing AI technology to here's chat and that can monetize. And then, oh my God, here's coding and that can monetize like a mother.

27:57I don't think the path would have been as clear, which is why I've been a bit nervous about those deals over the last couple of years. In retrospect, the thing I think that's now become obvious is I think all the big foundation model companies are probably in the market to acquire some kind of robotic foundation model story. I think that, as you say, AMD just wants to be relevant to NVIDIA. So I think that wouldn't surprise me if there was a ton of acquisition interest. I mean, there's still 100 Neolabs, so you got to be in the 10 that win. But I think there will be a bunch of these big-ass acquisitions over the next 6, 12 months if the market continues to hold.

28:32Do you? Because I invest with a brilliant French partner, Paul, who is incredibly cynical just by nature of being French. And he wrote this report on 102 Neolabs,$70 billion plus raised. And my question is just like, just how many of them can get acquired? When there were 10 to 12, like, yeah, It'll be okay. 102. We're all going to have downside protection. It was very easy when all the sort of neolabs got started and the trend took off to just say, this is total insanity. And to your point, Harry, we don't yet know what the like net balance sheet of the whole thing will be. But we are definitely starting to see data points like World Labs and many others where like there is real interest.

29:11And I think part of what's so different now than certainly anytime I've ever seen, maybe there have been other points in history like this, but there are just a lot of acquirers. There are like 10 companies that can do$10 billion acquisitions and want to. And that's just so different. And it's much easier than going public and it's quicker and you don't have all of these long cycles and the hand wringing and that has really changed things. And obviously, you know, like extremely impressive run by Martine. And it's just shown that like, you know, in these infrastructure lab type companies, there's a lot of room to run.

29:44So I don't know how it will go, obviously, any better than anybody else, but I'm definitely, I'm hesitant to be too skeptical at this point, given what's happening. I agree with that. And I think when you deal with the hundred, and yes, there might not be 10 or 20 acquisitions, but it's the, this is where people, they use the word consensus in a negative sense, but there is no doubt that credentialism matters. Like you've got Fei-Fei Li, you know, I could write that press release. Originator of the whole AI, I think it's a little like, you know, the quality folks at OpenAI and Atropic. So I think The other part of this is, and in Leo Labs, making sure you have the pristine tech asset versus the gritty team.

30:19A lot of the stuff I do in the apps level, I love my gritty teams. I think for something like building a world model, you need to have proven technical success because that's both what it needs to deliver and frankly, what it needs to navigate and be the desired acquisition candidate. I'm not sure that's not true overall, but it's just something I've observed. I was talking to one of the best CIOs in the world last night, and he just said to me, the honest takeaway, dude, you really think you can play in venture with less than a billion dollar fund now? And I candidly, when I look at many of these companies, the first round for this and Fei-Fei was like 65.

30:54I had my team say to me the other day, we can't find anything under 100 million. I said, wow, seed prices are expensive. They said, no, no, 100 million round size. Pushing back a little, I think the weird thing about this tech is, because I've been thinking about this a lot too as a$900 million fund size, you've got two kinds of businesses. You've got businesses where you can't ship a product on less than$400 million or$500 million, like huge Neolab raises. But you've also got to admit the following, which is also true. You've got companies that use that Neolab and that opening ion and tropic technology that are shipping products on relatively little capital in.

31:27You know, you guys are in Higgs field. You run into a bunch of these guys who are like, well, we took$10 million, but we shipped the product for$3 million, and then the customers took off. And shit, we still got$5 million in the bank, but we're going to raise$50 anyway because we can. So it's not like everything is$100 million just to spin up some GPUs. There's a whole bunch of$10 million got us a long way, and then maybe we're raising$100, but for different reasons, because we can, right? So it's not consistent. It's almost two different worlds. And it kind of makes sense. is the big technology lift up front from the guys raising 10 billion is what's setting everyone else up to do amazing shit on relatively little.

32:03Yeah. Yes. I would say that just bunny talent costs are so much higher than they've ever been because of a lot of the alternative options for the talent that you can't do a two to$3 million round anymore. You know, you know what the challenge to that though, Harry, I agree with the math and Rory made the point last week. And I want to hear Jack's thoughts that I think nominal inflation is like two and a half X in venture since 2010. I might be, I might be, maybe I sometimes get my nominal and non-nominal confused. All true. But if you look at the, at the undiscovered gems, okay, I think seed rounds and maybe they're called pre-seed or pre-pre-seed or post-inception, but whatever we call it, there's still, what does it take three to four folks to get 18 months down the road?

32:38It's the same thing. And if you're coming out and you're lucky enough to get a million dollars of free tokens from whatever, a half million from open air anthropic to start a company, you get all these other things, you can still get pretty far for a couple million bucks, especially if you're willing to, I'll share an$8 ,000 a month apartment in San Francisco. So it's not that I disagree with the math, but the truth is you can do as much, I think, for two to three million bucks as you could 10 years ago. And if you don't have folks dying to give you capital outside of Demo Day, that may still be the natural atomic amount of capital for what, I get the terms wrong today, but a seed round, it still should be two to three million bucks.

33:13Yes. In certain markets, I mean, just at the risk of being a patent. Yes. In certain markets where you can ship a product leveraging everything else. But it's a couple hundred million minimum to enter the Neoland space, and it's 500 million to enter the semiconductor space. I'm just making a point is that the weird thing, to Jack's point, there's such a range of different financing things you got to get your head around. You want to put 100 million in a semiconductor company to still pre-tape out at 2 billion. Let me think about that. And then tomorrow, let me look at$5 million for a seed round for a software company where maybe they can get a product out the door and consumer revenue are nothing more.

33:46The characterization that Harry opened up with, I mostly agree with, which is basically that the initial rounds have gotten so extreme. And there's two reasons. One is that there's like, you know, you all are saying there's these labs where, you know, you can't do anything for less than 200 million. And so that's the first round. The other reason is there is a set of founders that are very like in the Silicon Valley network that don't necessarily need to raise, you know, a$50 million seed, but they can. And so they skip the first round, they skip the six at 40 or whatever that round used to be, and they just don't raise it.

34:20Or maybe they raise$300 ,000 just to like get a month in and then they raise the money. And so in many lanes, I think that round has kind of evaporated. And so I think there is a there is a cohort of the market where traditional seed investing where you're going to write three to$6 million checks by, you know, eight to 15%, where I just think that is fully broken slash just isn't there anymore. All of that said, there is another part of the market, which, you know, Jason, I remember reading your blogs like way back when I was starting Lattice, you know, 12 years ago, 10 years ago, whatever. And, you know, a lot of it was just like, you know, trying to get my head around what the venture math was.

34:56And it's, you know, you know, a small fund, you buy 10 % of a company, you hope it's worth a billion or two, you get 100 to 200 million, you do that a couple times, you know, out of a basket. I actually think that that might still exist. But the way that it exists is not in the things that we're reading about on Twitter and in headlines. It is these rounds where at the moment, they, for one reason or another, can't go do that round. They're either not in the right markets or the shape of the company isn't quite right. And then, you know, they somehow pivot or they get more traction than you thought.

35:25And it just kind of gets bigger. But it happens the slow way. Like, we have now gotten accustomed to all of these stories playing out in a year or three years. Like, you know, we're talking about instinct. It's like, you know, these stories play out so quickly, they get big. But even if you take a company, you know, like Lagora, which, you know, obviously I know Harry knows well, and, you know, these stories still play out in a short number of years. And we've all gotten used to that. But, you know, there is another part of venture that takes place over 10 to 20 years where a software company just kind of compounds slowly.

35:54And so do I think that there's a three at 30 round happening today, where in 2041, that company is just going to have quietly compounded in the market of police or fire departments or libraries like yeah i probably do so it's just it's just a different it's just a different part of the market and it has really had a big dispersion i just don't think that's an industry i just think that's an anomaly and we're in an industry and i don't want to bet on a potential pivot three years down the road that might lead to a misshapen company that then becomes shapen again i can't bet on slack pivots jack every time i try and pitch the story to harry he clubs me just like that.

36:30And I want to believe in it because we've made some magnificent bets on companies like that. But I do agree that the table at the moment is 80 % the fast action table and 20 % the slow action, which makes sense because in 2022, there was a discontinuity and everything before that became obsolete. So by definition, anything at this stage, four years in, is fast action by definition because it started in 22. Also, if you want to go for that model, your numbers will be crap for quite a long time. And we always forget that we're in an opportunity cost game where people can put money into your Sarah grows and your benchmarks of the world.

37:07And while you guys post numbers that are just never before seen, I was messaging Chatham last night, Jack, being like, oh God, just stop. The latest fund is just ridiculous. We're an opportunity cost. You can be in those, well, you can't be in those funds, but you can try and be in those funds. And so trying to be smart where no one else is. That's a lot, agreed. It's super. Yeah. The giant sucking sand, basically money is a signal, price is a signal, and price is sending a signal. Everybody go right here and everyone will go right here because that's the job of price. Mr. Hayek would be happy.

37:40The problem with the quiet compounder, to Jack's point, in my view, as someone who's pitched quiet compounding since 2012, is they're just not stable. You have to build so much more software so much more quickly, right? Jack and I are both on the board of owner, which is a rocket ship north of 100 million revenue. but look how much effing software they have to build this year, right? How many folks can pull that off? How many folks can raise the capital? Like, and even if you have 10 times more competitors, right? I have another company at a hundred million. They put up a competitor slide at the last board meeting.

38:09I never heard of eight or nine of the ones. I thought we had one competitor. Turns out we have nine, right? At a hundred million. So it's not that I don't want to believe, forget about the fact that it's harder to raise LP capital, which is Harry's point. This instability is something that I think people under reflect on, right? That's the problem. It's just, it's so unstable. It's just, it's so undurable. But another way, yeah. If you're making a compounding player, the quid pro quo should be low risk. And if the world is such that the tech environment is changing so much that you get the compounding, not the hyper growth, but you get the same level of risk, that by definition is a suboptimal gain.

38:45Yes. And sort of, to me, one of the most dominant reasons why I do agree with Harry here is it's just like, it's a talent war in the most insane way right now. It's just, these opportunities are just too enticing for great people. Which is a perfect segue. Perfect segue, Howie. Come on, figure it out. Are you suggesting that Jack teed me up there, Rory, for a slam dunk? I am, you were like missing it. Harry, I didn't see it either. And I also try to be a podcaster. So that was a hard one. Jack, I think we're just a bit slower than Rory, okay? Professor O'Driscoll has, he's very sharp. He's very sharp.

39:16We should remind us, stop, stop, stop, stop. Stop the bullshit. For the viewers, our listeners, we should just say, look, what happened here is the CEO, the chief executive officer of a standalone independent public company, MongoDB, a very successful$20 billion market cap public company who just took the job less than nine months ago, got an offer from Muse, hit the bid, moved over to Facebook slash Meta to run their enterprise division. And Mongo stopped, dropped 20 % in one day. And then Dev stepped back in, who'd been not the founder, but the CEO for a long last time and is now back running it.

39:48But the point, Jack's point was the money can exert such a powerful influence. It was powerful enough to persuade this guy to quit the top job, go work at Facebook, because I assume the offer was just earth shatteringly compelling. And that's your point, Jack, is that when you have the hot stock, when you have the momentum, you can make people offers that just allow you to take whatever talent you want. And this is an example of that. Do you think it is money? When you're earning 52, maybe I don't earn 52 million bucks a year, But I imagine if you're earning 50 million bucks a year, earning 120 million bucks a year, that's nice.

40:22But I think for him, when he looks at this, he's like, holy shit, I have the chance to impact far greater. Nah. I think it was a 52 million dollar package and he was offered a 500 million dollar package by Zuck to run Enterprise. 10x is easy. What does it take? Get 520 million then. Done, right? No one wants to step down from CEO to be chief executive enterprise products and tokens officer. You think he's paid 500 million bucks a year? Yeah, it's TEDx. It's TEDx. I'm hitting the bid. I'm just agreeing with Jason, because you were going to go down some kind of mongrels, not exciting, and meta enterprise would be exciting.

40:58I think that's true. But conversely, no one who's been a CEO goes back to not being a CEO. It's just so damn hard, right? So the answer is, it must have been just a compelling offer. I mean, dude, we saw Nick Clegg, who was deputy prime minister, go and work as Mark Zuckerberg. I mean, yes. So like, you know. Yes, I'm trying. Yes. Be careful what you say. I'm just trying to not be mean about Nick Clegg, our England, our David Cameron, our Mark Zuckerberg. And it's just too hard. So I'm just going to let it slide. What should we take from this, though? That actually even the role of CEO is one where departure is normal now in face of money?

41:36You should take what Jack said. It gets back to the conversation you were making because he segwayed off your comment on opportunity cost. The market is sending a signal that the only place to be is in these extraordinarily hot AI companies. And it's sending that signal via price and people are responding to price. Yeah, I mean, to me, I think it is it is the money. And it's also the it's the attention and it's where the zeitgeist and it's like the white hot center. And I think that is so alluring to people. There's an entirely separate thing here, you know, with kind of the way that this all went down that I'm not close enough to at all to know the details of.

42:09And I think that's kind of its own unique beast. But in general, I just think that it is so alluring and the money is part of it. But it's it's not just the money. It's also it's the thing in all of the headlines. It's the products that we're all using. It's the thing that all of our families are talking about. And I think that it's just so concentrating. There's all of these short term things that are negative about it. One of the things that I will say, just kind of this is zoomed out, brought a positive, is that the much higher transition rate of talent that I think we've ever probably seen.

42:39One of the benefits of it is that talent feels very unstuck right now. You have all of these times in history where great talent gets very, very stuck in places that you might not want it to be. And we are probably in one of the higher liquidity moments in the market where great people are, in fact, going to the most important opportunities, which I think is probably on some societal level, very positive, even if in these like short term situations, you scratch your head and you're like, what's going on here? You're right. I tend to focus on the money, but you're right. It's not just that. It is the side guess.

43:09I'll give you and Harry that point. Yeah. It's what's good about here even versus the East, you know, I can't remember, was it someone on garden leave either in the East Coast or the UK? The great thing about California, you got none of that. It's just like I go across the street and next day I start in a new company. What are you doing, Harry? It's time for the investment committee. You already did one. You did a great one for Instinct at the top of the hour. Oh, no, no, that wasn't an investment committee. No, no, the investment committee this week is Jev. Jev is in the market to raise at a$10 billion price.

43:40Jason, welcome to the room. Can you please present whether we should be doing this deal or not at$10 billion a week after the seed at about$200 million? Well, of course we should do it. What's the price? $10 billion? At first thought we should do 5 % of the fund, but after the last 20 VC, I've decided to recommend up to 30 % of the fund. You know, Jev's already 17 % of the traffic on OpenRouter. It's 20 % of the traffic through Vercel's router. Many people will, of course, copy it, just like many will copy Instinct and others. but we are reaching the point where as exciting as the Neo Labs are, as exciting as Anthropics pending IPO and OpenAR, these AI costs are unsustainable.

44:17It doesn't matter if Sonnet 5.5 and the latest Opus is cheaper. It is unsustainable to spend these costs 10, 12 hours a day and the competitive bar just goes up. Jev is a 70th of the price and a hundred times faster. And listen, as my good friend Jack Altman says, the pace of change is so fast or exploding so fast. Maybe Jeff isn't the winner next year, but this is exactly the kind of bet we have to do. We have 100 % downside protection. Someone's going to scoop up this team out of ex-open AI, no matter what. 17 % market share on open router. I mean, as much as I advocated Instinct last week, this week, this is my deal.

44:50I'm all in on Jeff. 30 % of the fund. I know it's risky, but I want to get the ownership. And I do believe there's a 50X upside to 500 billion. So I deferring to Rory. I say we do, well, 20 to 30 % of the fund. Jack, I should warn you, for some reason, Harry likes this kind of soundbite. And it plays well on the pod. So who are you? Jack, you know me so well. At the end of the day, I'm a clip monkey. You're a clip bitch. I will say, but going back, the funny thing is, in this case, you can do some basic math. And it's not crazy. I mean, we talked about this last week. Spend right now, today, is roughly$100 billion.

45:26And you do the analysis, and 20 % of that is relevant to Jeff. So that's$20 billion of accessible revenue. Say they compress it five to one, that gets you$4 billion of accessible revenue. And what we've seen that's been amazing is the developer adoption has been lightning fast. I mean, rumor has it they're at numbers all over the place,$100 billion run rate. And given that the tokens are half nothing, that's a shit ton of usage, right? You can credibly get to a billion dollar revenue line relatively quickly here by literally taking money that's already being spent and saving 80 cents on the dollar.

46:00so jason's comments aren't wrong at all i mean he has to learn that if you spend 30 of the fund every week in three weeks you're out of action but other than that we're benchmark we just go back to the lps with one email we have a new fund yeah i was gonna say jason will just recycle something and it'll all work yeah we'll recycle something can you flip it in three weeks we also recruited martin to the team he's gonna help we'll just recycle instinct can you please email lps new fund, please. We invest 150 % of the fund. Another big round is modal triples to$15 billion and base 10 talks at$26 billion.

46:36Yeah, I mean, it has turned out that there was a period where you look back and maybe we're still in that period, but there's certainly a period where you look back and the right answer with investing was just put it all in the labs, just buy the labs. And every round people were like, it's expensive. But the correct answer was just keep buying the labs. It has now turned out in the last 18 months or whatever, the correct answer was just keep buying inference. You have modal, base 10, fireworks, FAL, together. It's just all work. You know, my partner, Eric Vichria, had this line that I've been kind of quipping a lot lately because it's true, which is that like, it's all going to work.

47:13It was like, is it this or that? And Eric's like, dude, it's all of it. And it doesn't mean that every company is going to work, not every sector is going to work. But in general, a crazy number of things are working. Inference has been a really great way to get an index bet on everything outside the labs. Jason just made the point, which is a big part of why these inference companies are doing so well, which is that the costs are just not sustainable. So you have that on one side, which is it's too expensive. And on the other side, you have this dynamic, which I think is, we have now crossed sort of the threshold in a lot of areas and more and more happening, where you get sort of like intelligent saturation, where it is now good enough to do the thing.

47:50To take a simple example, your tax return is filed correctly or it's not filed correctly. Once you have filed it correctly, throwing more intelligence at that problem doesn't do you any good. If your job is to hit a nail in with a hammer, your hammer is good enough, making it a gold encrusted hammer that costs$30 ,000. Your whole job was just to get the nail in. And so we have more tasks like that. And as a result, you're going to see more open source. And as a result, you're going to see these inference companies. And there's obviously been, I can't remember who just mentioned it, but open source is doing tremendously well.

48:19By the way, this whole cost dynamic does not mean that open source just runs away with it. The labs are obviously also going to offer much cheaper versions of their own models. And I think people forget how cost advantaged they are in a lot of ways. Their access to compute is structurally very strong. Their access to users is very strong. They have a lot of different ways to make money and therefore can subsidize certain costs in certain situations as it makes sense. So it doesn't mean that open source will dominate, but it does mean that open source is going to be a big part of the market. And that means you're going to have great inference companies.

48:53So I'm long inference. I think open source has reached its maximum as a market share. I think it's going to keep going down. But even if it does, even if it goes down by 50 % and total consumption goes up by 10x. Yeah, there's still good investments. I'm not saying that there's not an almost infinite amount of inference, but I think we've reached peak open rates. What would, Jason, why? Two reasons. Jack hit one of them and there's a second one. They're crystal clear. One is at the end of the day, Anthropic and OpenAI are just deciding what they want to price their non-max frontier models. And they have many ways to compete directly.

49:25There's no reason they can't be as cost competitive as they want to be. Now, you know, Anthropic's got its numbers. If you exclude 7 ,000 things, it has 80 % gross margins. OK, we can make fun of that stuff. But they have the ability to be as competitive as they want to be. Right. It is. And Jack's right. For sure, there's a certain point where all that matters is resolving a task. But even that, I don't think is that is quite that simple. but they can price Sonnet Plus 5.5, which just came out. I just tested it. It's only like 20 % cheaper, but that's 20 % cheaper in one week. They can do 30, they can do 40 if they want.

49:54That's the reason number one. Reason number two is, boy, people really don't want Anthropic and OpenAI training on their own first party data. But they also, I mean, I just got back from Dreamforce and I gotta tell you, I know there were a lot of blazers there and ill-fitting suits and stuff. No one wants to run on open source models there. At least Chinese, China-based. nobody not a single person is comfortable with it that i talked to okay founders aside but no customers so i think just those two trends mean we've hit the peak right to jack's point it's not that open no i mean it's ridiculous to say it no one at open an anthropic stupid they can twist the knobs and dials and do what they want and be as cost competitive and just you know there are arguments for open but i just this anxiety at the sea level is only going to increase it's only going to increase and it's only going to increase as security becomes a bigger issue it's only going to increase as Astra 5.1 was pulled back for security concerns.

50:44And no one, listen, I know it's fuddy-duddies, but it is the real world and enterprise. I asked him, no one wants to use an open weight model on the floor that I talked to. Nobody. So I just think the market share has peaked. I'm not saying it's not material. Did you ask open weight or did you say Chinese open weight? Because I think there's a bunch of things going on. I get your point. I'm simplifying that the vast majority of these models that we're consuming today are China origin models, right? Where some of those guys are also moving towards not being open weight themselves. But yes, I do think that's why the whole poolside NVIDIA thing is interesting.

51:14It would be interesting to have a low cost U.S.-based alternative. And going back to Jeff, it's not open weight, but it is U.S. and it's not an LLM. But for a certain class of use case, it is a direct competitor, right? I'm not saying that they're destroyed to Jack's point. I just think they've peaked. They've peaked in market share. I think it will come down and I do not, I don't even think it's going to maim modal or base 10 or others. But I think these market share charts that have seemed crazy this year. There's been a lot of sources, but I think there's a lot of structural benefits that OpenAI and Anthropoc have here, and they're going to take advantage of it in the coming months, right?

51:46And OpenAI just hit 70 billion, they said, in enterprise. It's a lot of traction there. Pushing on that, and again, I don't know the answer, is that provided you have opportunity at the frontier, you won't waste time with the second string stuff. To some extent, you're probably more likely to spend time on, as you say, doing the tax return if you feel you asymptotic on some of the frontier stuff, because the thing that you're allocating at the margin is your compute. And if you're opening Iron Tropic, I'd love to know what the math is like on, do you take this next chunk of GPU and build a model for biology that can cure cancer?

52:20Or do you take it and do Jack's tax return, which is a pretty finite, probably not a pretty finite task, actually, out of your benchmark part. It's pretty infinite task. But within the context of AI, it's pretty finite. And super interesting set of trade-offs there. Yeah, I mean, I think a couple other reactions are one is that to the point of, you know, non-American models, I do think that there's a lot of anxiety there. I also think we are starting to see and will continue to see a lot of enterprises post-train their own models and draft off of open weights and use inference, you know, companies to make their own models and then run them themselves.

52:58And so I think I don't know how that will factor in, but I do think we will start to see more of that in the US. And I think that will have, you know, some amount of impact. The other thing is you can kind of, you know, I often try to just kind of like step back, blur my eyes and like, what's like the one thing here. And I think one of the things you could look at here in general, it's kind of all just going to come down to like, who's got the compute, you know, if you look across all of the inference clouds, I think it's, you know, on the order of like a gigawatt or something like that. And I think open ion anthropic, you know, high single digits each.

53:28And so, you know, you can say maybe one's a little bit more efficient than the other. Maybe one's got better token efficiency, one price is a little bit differently. But on some level, this will also just come down to like all of the computers firing all the time. And like who owns it, I think is going to turn out to just be a dominantly important part of the equation. Yes. Compute share probably proxies to your token share, probably toxies with a little adjustment to your revenue share. At least within 2x or something like that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, got it. That does make sense. Speaking of tweaking the levers, OpenAI reopens its$200 plan that it paused because it ran out of compute for the latest Asher model, but halves what$200 buys.

54:09So Harry, you're right. So this is getting at the same topic, which I think is like kind of on some level the fundamental equation of all of this. I think it's extremely important. The other parts of it that we just don't know that are also updating variables continually are how many tokens do you need per task? And so it's like as the models get better, they get much smarter at consuming a token. And then the other is like, what is the utility per token? So like it is true that there are more tokens being consumed. They cost less dollars. And what we just don't know on the other side of it is like, how many do you need to like file the tax return, for example?

54:44And that's just like an open, it's an open question to all of it. So can you get more intelligence out of a gigawatt? Yeah. And when you try and get to grips with that, you realize how hard it is. Because, you know, I'm a geek. I went away and tried to figure out, you know, your token cost going down, number tokens going up, token efficiency. And the truth is you're multiplying three numbers, each of which has an error bar that's pretty damn large. And if you're any intellectual honesty, at the end, you kind of go, I just don't really know. The only thing you can observe that's actually actionable is the buying decisions of people who are allocating their money.

55:15Because I can't figure out, you know, multiplying three big numbers together, what it means. But some buyers spent half a billion dollars last year on Tropic. You've got to assume they ran the numbers and are getting value from it, which is why in the end, I go back to what I said, the proxy for all this, and Jack, you're right, where the rubber hits the road is people allocating budgets, saying at the margin, automating this tax makes sense, and it's worth spending, you know, half a billion dollars, half a million dollars, whatever it is to do. Because other than that, it's just super hard to really convince yourself you've done the math well enough to understand it, or more importantly, to predict it 12 months out.

55:50And that's why if I could know one thing, I go back to my comment over and over again, I would know the Q3 numbers for those two companies. And long term, it doesn't matter, but short term, it matters a shit ton, is my opinion, just from a momentum perspective. And how those budgets are continuing to expand. You know what it's worth, just for fun, there's an app I'm trying to finish called Sastra Connect. And I just ran an eval my own. I don't know if you can call them evals, but I ran it on Sonnet 5.5, which just came out, right? Input tokens, 42 % higher than before. Output tokens, 44 % higher.

56:21So who knows if Jack's tax returns getting all that cheaper? Now there's benefits from it, right? It passed more of the blind test, right? Quality went up, which is what you'd expect. Cost went down about 10%, not 30 % because more Jews, but plus 40 % more tokens. I just think this stuff's hard to predict, man. 42 % is a lot to go up from 5.5, right? And that's at the level of granularity of Jason doing Jason's task. And it's 10x, 100x harder to say tasks in general from people I don't know where I don't see their token spend, which is why you just got to look at what the Jasons are doing. Today, we have news on the flip side of the incredible multi-trillion dollar IPOs.

57:00We have Aura pulling their IPO, which was planned for a$16 billion. dollar jack i have to whenever i basically say a new topic i read rory's face and it's always miserable but it's just the extent of misery that i have to judge i'll own it i'll own it you're right we actually have oh no you've got some of aura don't you sorry yeah oh i'm so sorry oh we'll we'll set up a gofundme page just for you just so you can get some shackles in your pot to make up for it you're all sweet harry i know you care so deeply but no i just comment yes i'm in the position of having an ownership interest, but not in any way being actively involved.

57:36So not having any insider information. But I will admit this surprised me. I mean, it super surprised me. Aura had planned to do an IPO. They were a long way down, meant to price this week, Wednesday. They went into it feeling very strong. In fact, for the record, they had Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan. I mean, all the people. I mean, there was no people left that you couldn't have. So it's not that they had the dummies here, people. And then the second thing is it's a profit, it's a big company, consumers know it. It's the kind of thing that should be very doable. And the third interesting thing is when they first filed, one of the largest investors, Forerunner, whom I think are super smart, said they're going to sell all their position, which I've been doing a long time.

58:14I'd never seen someone in an IPO being able to sell all their position. So, I was like, hmm, ballsy call and give you credit because consumer electronics is hard. But the fact that a priori they'd said, we're going to do this, to me, you wouldn't say unless you are highly confident the deal's getting done. Because it's always harder to get a deal done when there's secondary action. And when the more secondary action there is, the harder it is to get a deal done. Do you understand me? So having leaned in upfront to say, effectively, we're doing this with a primary and a bunch of secondary, right?

58:43And we think we're going to get a lot of secondary off the table to have to walk it back to we're going to downsize the deal. And now we don't like the price. Do you think it's the right decision, Rory? Well, in one sense, because there was a huge secondary component, the secondary buyers who venture people on the board, it really matters to them the price they sell at because they're actually crystallizing it versus, if the company is taking 10 % dilution and it leaves a little money on the table, then with all due respect to Bill, who has been post-itizing on this, I'm going to say something awful.

59:09No one really cares. The stock pops 20%. Everyone moves on. And the stock is trading nicely. And it's set up nicely for secondaries down the line. That's the normal move. If you're actually selling your entire position at the IPO and you think you're going to get 22 bucks a share and suddenly you're getting 18, that's going to reduce your entire venture return by 20%. So you become very price sensitive. So maybe they felt they could get the deal done any time and they only wanted to do it at a high price. That's the positive version of the argument that the investors liked the deal, but just wouldn't pay up.

59:40And they decided, hey, at that price, we prefer not to transact. It's a totally rational outcome, but it's kind of a weird one. You really think Tom Hale decided not to do the IPO because Forerunner couldn't get the price they wanted? I don't buy it. I don't know. I don't know. I'm trying to piece it through because - It's possible. Don't get me wrong. He's not a founder, but I find all the effort that went in, he wants his liquidity. If I'm the company, I'm bummed because I always think doing an IPO, I've been at IPOs that nearly pulled on the last day before. It's like those bobsled races. My opinion, I always tell people just the minute you unveil the S1, the minute it goes public, you're jumping in that bobsled and you're sliding to the bottom and there's very few easy way out.

1:00:18before you unveil, you can do what you want. But once you unveil, look, this is the hardest thing to do, which is to pull a night or two before the thing. If it was an enterprise company, it would be even harder because then you get all these second order questions. Are they at risk? Are there dynamics? But because it's consumer, consumers don't care that much. Because it's already profitable, they're not at risk. So it's not fatal, but it kind of, I'm with you, it's like a whole bunch of hard work to get it this far. And then a bummer at the last minute, it sucks. I'm like, I don't know why that happened.

1:00:47I'm a bit bemused, to be honest. It does soften it slightly. The employees had$534 million in tender offer just a couple months ago. It does soften the blow, but it's definitely a bummer. Like the whole, if you've been on the other side of it, going public, there's just so much emotion, right? It's a bummer if the stock price is lower than you thought. It's a bummer if the pop is less than you thought. What I thought when I read it, I was like, man, there's just, there seems to be so much liquidity that we talk about all the M &A deals when we started it, but man, you can't get a damn IPO done.

1:01:17And that's what I mean, Dan Primick made that point. He said, don't like it because of market conditions. We are 1.4 percent of the S &P all time high. The Shiller P is at an all time high. I mean, how much better does it have to be, big guy? I agree. It was like, huh. And it would be interesting to see any of these other non-entropic IPOs. I'm not sure what's up next. I know. Was it new? Is it new? Not new scale. It's. And scale. And scale. Yeah, yeah. That's another highly aggressive compute dependent one to Jack's point. Be interested to see when that one goes. What'll be interesting too is we haven't really seen any of the like AI native companies go out yet.

1:01:54My guess is a lot of them would trade very well because public markets don't have enough exposure to them. But I think it's scary to be the first one. It's scary to do it before the labs have gone out and everybody can see how the markets react to all of those things. So I think there's a lot of companies waiting in the wings. And I think if the market holds on, I would expect that in 2027, there will be quite a few of these. It's interesting that we haven't seen one yet. Which will be the first, Jack? If I knew that, I'd be really good at my job. I'd be able to pick them all. I don't know. There are many that can choose to go out tomorrow if they wanted to.

1:02:26But it'll just be a decision with the management teams and the boards to the point of this, you know, the aura conversation. It is not a question of can they be public? It's just what price do they get and are they happy with it? So it's there's a lot of companies who just, you know, it's at their option right now. On the other end, you've also got Monzo, the British bank getting acquired for. Oh, why do you not like that one? Come on, give me something. Give me a chance to bitch. No, I know. No, I'm sorry about my face. I'm really excited to do Monzo. I have stunningly opinions on this. For everyone, Rory has an astonishing RBF, which is a resting bitch face.

1:02:58But whatever you say, it's continuously just miserable. But Monzo,$8 to kind of$12 billion. There's quite a range now on the suspected acquisition price by Nubank. Honestly, I was really surprised by this. David is very focused on winning the US, buying Monzo, which is bluntly a phenomenal asset in the UK, a really strong, strong British bank. But it's in the UK. To buy it off the UK and the US at the same time, I thought was respectfully very strange. David's brilliant, so much better than me, so he knows what he's doing. but I was shocked to see this news. Put it another way, it is more surprising to see that Nubank wants to buy than it is to see that Monzo wants to sell.

1:03:39That's effectively what you're saying, Howard. Oh, yeah. Monzo want to sell for sure. They're way too small to be significant in a US public market. And the European public market is a shit ass. And so you're praying for someone to come and save you. Agreed. It's funny because that's all you're going to tell you. That's exactly right. Yeah. So the question is why Nubank? Because in fact, and the interesting thing is the stock market agree. I think the new bank stocks went down on this, right? $6 billion. Yeah. I'm going to make the argument, and then you can tell me why it's dumb, because I think it is.

1:04:09You can make the argument that, look, the problem with the US as a neobank market is we're just so damn efficient in terms of our banks that there's not a lot of fat profit to be taken, which is why Chime, which I admire as a company, trades well, but not amazingly. $5,$6 billion. Whereas Revolut, which is sticking it to all the crappy old school banks in Europe, is making out like a bandit. So maybe the argument is, if I'm Manzo, the reason it did so well in Brazil, it's another market full of crappy old school banks that overcharge. Maybe they're just focusing on the less efficient markets than the US.

1:04:43And that's possibly the argument. But you're right. Even then, A, you're entering the UK, not Europe, because you guys left Europe, you silly people. And then B, you can be with Revolut, who, as you point out every week, Harry, is not exactly a shrinking violent when it comes to competition. Oh my God. Terrifying. Jamie Dimon, but as a Russian, you know what could go wrong? Newbank are down 23 % over the year. Market cap is 47 billion. Over the week, they're down 12.6%. I'm going to buy this. Cool. Real time, Jack. This is how we do business. I love this. Jack, you'll note the complex analysis he did here.

1:05:19He looked at the stock chart. So it was ready to file down. Exactly. 30 % of your public cash you're putting in? I would do a full 30. 30 % of your liquid assets. 30 % of your liquid assets. Yeah. You've got to do it all the time now. A third in Instinct, a third in Jave, and a third in New Bank, man. You're in. You're one third liquid. You're golden. Traded. Done. Thank you very much. I'm out now. Thank you so much for coming, Jack. Yeah, exactly. You know, I don't know too much. Honestly, I don't know too much about this deal. I can't add too much. But the one thing I will say in general is it seems to me they're buying time, right?

1:05:51They're buying time to instantly have the British market. They're not buying just the revenue, right? Or the customers. They're saving themselves time. And I think as venture investors, those are great for our portfolio companies. Because sometimes a company you have, it's not even growing that crazily. But it has a position and someone will pay up to save time. We need that for venture to work too, right? It's the only way people are going to buy the A minus B plus assets is to save time. So thank you. And I have a few others that can save you time. That can save you years of time. I got them.

1:06:22and here's a deck. I also think one other comment on the Monza side is that the whole boardroom drama, the originally founder Tom had retired, they put in the CEO, then the chairman swapped out the CEO, and then the investors were pissed, and then they reversed that, and then the chairman's retired. It's going to sound really odd. It's that UK chairman plus CEO role I've seen, which makes intuitive sense for well-governed public boring companies, but in my view, makes absolutely no sense for venture-back deals. And you can tell what happened here under the surface, which is all the VCs were like, you did what?

1:06:57We weren't backing the chairman, we were backing the CEO and you changed him. So I think there's a lot of board instability. And when you have that, especially when you've taken out the founder and you have a ton of board instability, and then suddenly someone says, I'll buy you out, you're like, hit the bid, end the pain. Well, I think everyone was thrilled bluntly when TS came in, just to be super clear. With the greatest of respects, the company turned around when TS came in. and then when TS got taken out. That's my point. Mother of God, why the fuck did you take the guy who was competent out of this business?

1:07:26No, you're exactly right. Tom had done the founder thing. The company was doing 100 million, losing 100 million. They hired this guy, he kills it, and then they replaced him in the last few months. And it's like, huh. And I think all the venture investors are going, we didn't sign up to have a non-exec chairman replace the guy we backed. Totally. Guys, there's two different spectrums here in terms of venture. Bessemer, razor fresh,$5.75 billion to the point of you only need one. Well, they think you need close to six. But a very, very modest$1.75 billion seed fund, Jason. So seed isn't for suckers when you're doing about$40 million a year in fees.

1:08:04It ain't for suckers, baby. And then on the flip side, you've got NFX now just investing GP capital, not taking a new LP capital in new funds. So two different ends of the spectrum there. Well, the Bessemer thing is just what Jack talked about at the beginning, the learnings of benchmark and going big on growth early. I think it's probably the same story. I mean, Bessemer, they weren't Menlo into Anthropic, but that was a great one, right? The growth team accelerated. They blew up. The whole team's there. Samir and the whole team. It's been a win. So, of course, you put more money into it, right?

1:08:34They said that – I think they said the seed early was still mostly growth. But even there, to Jack's point, it's 2026. Imagine a seed around as 30 million. How money can you do with reserves in a 1.7 by fund if you can't count on recycling? 30 with one-to-one reserves? You can't even, even a billion starts to sound small for seed funds if you believe 30 millions of seed and it, you know, that barely gets you a TechCrunch article. So the math sounds right, even if the returns may be some work. That's why Rory's a pre-seed investor today with his 900. Friends and family round, Rory's the first shackles in.

1:09:08Yeah, that's me exactly. And then, and then NFX shutting shop to externals? I mean, I agree on both of these moves make sense. Like, you know, for Bessemer, it is the market around you. And they've got, you know, a long history and tons of LP trust. And if you want to play the game, why not just go bigger and play the game? And then on the NFX side, you know, the homebrew guys, I think, did this before. And that works out really wonderfully. And I think it probably changes the texture of how the game feels. And I think people also really care about that. When you're not managing external capital, you get to do things without any explanation to anybody.

1:09:44And I think that there's probably some ways in which that lets you freeze up your activities. But I also think some people just get to a place where they prefer it and they wanna say, you know what, this ownership stuff, I don't care. I wanna put 100K into Jev or something like that. And that's hard to defend out of a seed fund. But if you're investing your own capital, it lets you do it. So I do also think back to the prior point, I think money's a big driver, but I think there are also non-financial drivers for a lot of these things. So it makes sense. The only thing I thought about it, this has nothing to do with NFX.

1:10:14I mean, I get the appeal of investing in your own capital, right? And I think, frankly, I think anyone investing that has some resources has thought about it at least a little bit. If you've got a little bit of money, I'm like, F the LPAC and all this. Well, I'll just do invest my own money, especially if I have a hot hand. I'll get into these great deals and, you know, I'll get 100 % instead of 25 % or 20%. Everyone's thought about it. The only thing I always thought about, if it's such a great idea, why didn't Peter Thiel do it? Well, Peter Thiel did put a huge amount of his money into each founder's fund.

1:10:41But not all of it, right? No, not all of it. I think it's just an example, right? Of not doing all of it. I think you're right. I mean, I think what he would say is if you want to build a firm, you need outside capital. You need salary to pay people. You actually need kind of the tension with stakeholders outside your firm to do it. So I think if your aspirations are firm building, then you would say, I'm going to put in as much of my own money as I can because I believe in the strategy. But, you know, as much, you know, LP capital as we need. So that would be my guess. Yeah, it's like 30 % of the fund that he funds or something like that.

1:11:11But the NFX thing, I did notice, I think they said goodbye to the team in the note. So to Jack's point, yeah, it's easier if you don't want to have a team, right? If you don't want to have a... And they have life goals too. It's not just the money. You can fund the salaries, but they have life goals. I mean, they want to be partners. I totally agree with what you just said, Jack, about people. You're building a firm. You have junior people. They want to have a goal. They want to have a career. You have to take outside money. You got to do all the things, right? I think, by the way, the beauty of putting 30 % of your own money in is you can look the LPs in the eye and say, thank you for your opinion.

1:11:40But as the largest LP investor here, I'm very comfortable putting 20 % of my fund in SpaceX in 2008. So duly noted that you're concerned. But hold that thought for 18 years and you'll be glad. Yeah. And, you know, by the way, I think a lot of this gets lost. You know, we rarely talk about, you know, LPs and all of those things. But the end result of all of this, you know, venture capital work is, you know, hopefully that you're generating money for, you know, groups that that it matters for and all of those things. And if you're, you know, an employee at a firm where it's all the principal's money, you're kind of like a family office where if you do a really good job, you, you know, you enrich that person versus, you know, hospitals and endowments and all that stuff.

1:12:19I do think people care about that, too. Agreed. On both sides, I will say, just as a comment, you care about it a lot because you want to do really well for your LPs. And you also feel the burden of it, too, right, is that, you know, you're not just letting yourself down. I mean, you know, I'm always conscious of the charities that many of our LPs embark on. And I have this mental model if we're doing wrong or doing something that's not working out. I have a couple of charities that are super small where I'm like, I know exactly where this money goes in some homeless program for teenagers in the Midwest.

1:12:45And I'm like, we're sticking it to them. OK, people, let's get back to work and make this happen here. But you're right on that. Jason, would you ever do this move? I think you're probably the closest to us in doing this move with the greatest of respect. You know, I thought about it. And to Jack's point, the reason is, and you rethink it, right? I'm like, okay, notwithstanding most of this conversation, if I want to be able to write a$5 million check to be relevant, that's too much for my balance sheet. It's too much risk. Okay. So, I mean, Homebrew, first of all, they were phenomenally successful, right?

1:13:14Small LP and some other funds, right? They're comfortable with those diverse size checks, right? I just didn't want to do them. Like I don't get a lot of joy out of the, the hundred K check that I do in 60 seconds. If I got joy out of it, then maybe I would do it. But I'm like, Hey, I got to be able to write a$5 million check or I don't want to do this game. But if it wasn't for that, I probably would. I probably would. In fact, the homebrew guys recommended I do it when I started. They're like, don't do this fun thing. Like back in the day, you have enough of a brand. You have enough, just, just, just do it direct.

1:13:42So that echoes with me once in a while. But even if benchmarks change, you do have to fund the check size that you're optimal at writing, right? Somehow you've got to fund it. What have I missed? Rory, Jason, Anthropics founders locking up 50.1%. You know what's weird in that? You know what I didn't get in that story? Maybe you guys have some color. Like, why'd they wait so long? Why didn't they lock up the control a little bit earlier? Like, what am I missing in the story, right? Did the guy from Skype not let him do it and Duskin Moskovitz vetoed this? Like, what the hell happened? And why did it take so long to get voting control?

1:14:14That's because you probably actually have it in the pre-IPO structure. I'm willing to bet just based on a bunch of different things. And then it's when you convert everything to common stock that typically voting rights expire on the IPO. So my guess is they had a pre-IPO deal. And now you've got to recreate a post-IPO deal because everyone's cap structure changes. So I've been in situations where it's been in existence pre. And then you realize, oh, my gosh, everyone, all these preferred stocks that have minimal voting rights or maybe two out of five board members convert to common. Now it's just based on ownership.

1:14:48Oh, my God. In this case, I own 2 % of the company. I think we're going to do it differently. And look. Could be. Yeah, could be. I mean, to me at this point, look, if we're willing to fucking trust them not to blow up the world, and they've already said they might, and it's only a 10 % chance, I think we can trust them to with the votes. This is so down the list. As I sit up and draw up the S1, having argued over founder control before, and this is a good term for the public markets, and as I've mentioned to you guys, I've changed my mind and I've come to the conclusion it is because of the activist pressure.

1:15:19In the case of this deal, it's literally item 17 on the agenda. First, risk of blowing up the world. Second, risk of cyber attacks. Third, risk of hostile state actors. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Oh, item 17. By the way, we'd like to control all this. Yeah, right. Everyone else is like, knock yourself out. Sure, you have charge of it. That's where they'll know who to indict. Boys, it's a wrap. Well done. Thank you so much for joining us, Jack. You've been a star guest. Thank you for having me. It's been so good to have you. You guys are awesome. Awesome. Thank you, Jack, for joining. But before we leave you today, when you're building a company, you learn that trust is what closes deals.

1:15:57You may have the best product, but no buyers will sign these days without proof of your security. Here's what happens if you're not prepared. A prospect asks for proof of compliance. The deal stools when you scramble, your engineer gets pulled off the roadmap to audit prep, every enterprise conversation turns into this horrible fire drill. That's where Vanta comes in. Vanta is the leading agentic trust platform that not only gets you compliant fast with frameworks like SOC2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR, but keeps you compliant by continuously monitoring your controls. So your deals keep moving and your engineers really keep building.

1:16:31Now, access the Vanta agent everywhere you work, even if your team lives in Claude or Cursor. And that's why Vanta is trusted by more than 16 ,000 companies like Ramp, Harvey, and Writer. So prove you're ready for business and get$1 ,000 off Vanta when you go to vanta.com forward slash 20VC. That's vanta.com slash 20VC. While Vanta keeps compliance covered, Deal helps you hire globally. We get it. Global IT can be a headache. New hire in Tokyo, but the laptop, well, it's stuck in London. Someone left the company last week. Wait, is their access already revoked? Deal IT handles hardware, software, and access to across 130 countries from one system.

1:17:15You have the right to be impressed. Brands like Eleven Labs are already managing their global IT at scale with Deal. It's one system, one source of truth, with zero vendor gaps or manual workarounds. So build your global team with Deal. Visit deel.com slash 20VC and start expanding your business today. While Deal builds the team, Framer builds the site. If you want AI that builds your real website, not just a throwaway first draft, that's Framer. Framer is the AI website builder that helps creators, teams, and businesses ship production-ready sites faster than ever while getting every detail right.

1:17:54Prompt, inspect, edit, and publish in one place at a whole new pace. Agents and humans work in tandem Agents bring speed and scale You bring taste, judgment and control The work lands on the canvas and stays editable Build custom code components Manage CMS content Optimize SEO And audit for issues all in one place Enterprise grade hosting Security and 99.99 % uptime SLAs Trusted by leading brands like Perplexity and Miro Learn how you can get more out of your site From a framer specialist Well, get started building for free today at framer.com slash 20VC for 30 % off a Framer Pro annual plan. That's framer.com slash 20VC.

1:18:38Rules and restrictions may apply.