20VC: Why "Pacing the Frontier" is BS | Instinct Raising $1BN at $10BN & Meta Launches Muse | Miro Sells for $1.35BN After a $17.5BN Valuation | Mistral Raises €3BN & Could Sam Bankman-Fried Win His Freedom?

20:47They have the right reasons to do what they're doing. The real problem is that 10 or 15 % of founders are sociopaths. They genuinely are. In fact, especially the successful ones, it lets you drive will something out of nothing into existence. The ability to manipulate people, the ability to have that look and do it. That's where the bad people using AI come from, the sociopaths. You really don't think 10 % of the founders you've ever invested in are sociopaths? Of course they are.

21:11Harry Stebbings:We're going to move on, but fantastic. Next, we have the AI assistant race that we touched on last week, but I was really annoyed because we actually missed Meta releasing Muse, which is Meta's product that is an AI assistant in many ways. What did you say, Harry? We didn't miss it. Well, it came out after we recorded the show. Correct. I mean, I'm actually going to give us an A. I'm going to give us an A. We recorded on Tuesday because you used that clip of me. On Tuesday, I was like, somewhere there are 20 Meta engineers locked in a room being told to ship something. We said that on Tuesday.

21:45On Wednesday, Muse shipped. than on Thursday, the pod ship. So I think we nailed it, man. You just didn't know it was 500, not 20. That's the only slight thing that was missed. It's 500. You didn't realize that the minute OpenClaw took off, Zuck took a huge chunk of his AI team and said, we're building OpenClaw for consumers. And from that night on, people worked days and nights. I mean, I was logging bugs over the Muse weekend on Twitter for fun. The engineering team was responding in real time, Saturday night, Saturday morning, Sunday morning. I mean, they're working 996 on this thing. This is not 20 people.

22:14this is a top priority since open claw launched right that's it's interesting it came out you know seemingly oddly after some of the other agents but this has been a p1 since open claw right because you know people were like lining in the streets with their mac minis trying to get figured out how to run an agent now i can do it on facebook well let's actually just start with

22:34Harry Stebbings:this rory and i think you'll be as interested in i am by jason's analysis yes i'm not able to use it being in the uk so we'd love your thoughts jason i'll get you a vpn yeah thanks dude what did you think? How good is it? How good a response is it to instincts? What do we think? Well, first of all, as software, it's very, very, very good. It instantly works. This is the definition of great software. Like you just can't believe how well it works because all the hard work was done that you can't see. Most of the things you wanted to do, create a reservation, send an email to, I asked Muse to send us a bunch of stories for this show.

23:06It sent it to me and Harry and I forwarded to Rory. I did it at the right time. It sent it to us, right? I had it rebuild the entire saster.com website for me. Log into WordPress, redo it. It did a pretty good job of it. A lot of the things you wanted to do, it just works. I'll add one more thought and then the meta question. The really interesting thing is, you know, we didn't talk about, but it is something I know a little about. It's not cheap, okay? You're giving everybody up to a certain point a free VM, which I think two CPUs, two GPUs, eight gigabytes or 100 gigs of storage or something.

23:38I do know that like the replets lovables verselles and others it costs about three to four bucks per person to deliver that And muse is at the edge of it. It gives you more than they do Okay, and those guys are working on it every week because it's such a huge part of their cogs Right because every time you spool up a website not a free one, but a paid one They've got a three to four dollar nut, you know Wix before base 44 as a two cent nut to serve that website now It's three to four. So they're very incented every day to work that down, right? Meta is lucky, not only does it already have the infrastructure, right?

24:09So we could argue whether it's free, but it has tons of infrastructure. This is running on its own LLM, Muse LLM. So it has a massive infrastructure and LL benefit that no one else has. That's why it's fast. That's why it works well. That's why you get more VPUs, more GPUs, more everything. So I think from an infrastructure perspective, it's almost no one can compete. You get all the VM, all the infrastructure, all the storage, and they have their own LLM, Muse. And my learning is for these lay usages, like what we're talking about, not frontier drug discovery. Muse LM is really good for this.

24:42But the question is, does it matter? What do you mean, does it matter? Sorry. Yeah. What's the killer app? Another reservation at a cheesecake factory or TGI Fridays? We need to see the visicalc of Muse. We need to see what is the killer app. Every horizontal platform traditionally needs some sort of killer app, right? I'm just skeptical. I'm just wondering, right? I don't think in this whole thing, I don't think there was a killer app for OpenClaw. I don't know if there is a killer app for Muse or Instinct because there wasn't one for OpenClaw.

25:12Harry Stebbings:Is it not being your discovery mechanism to shopping like a WeChat, a super app? You know, Zuck has spoken about taking portions of transactions as being the business model as well. The model's good, but what are his examples? Scheduling his daughter's carpool? Is that really what a trillionaire needs to do with a general? He can't even come up with a good use case of Muse for himself. He's making up consumery things. I had to schedule ballet lessons for my daughter. I mean, great, but you need to run this thing eight hours a day, I think, like Cloud Code or Codex to really matter. And so if we're in it eight hours a day, like a super app, it's cool.

25:50If it's a random task, I'm just waiting to see what the killer app is. And I've run, and Muse is really fun. Like, it's so beautiful. The beauty is it gives you all the ideas. It has an idea tab, and it tells you all the things to do. I've done most of them and they're great. I just don't know if it's killer.

26:04Harry Stebbings:I don't know if it needs to be. And I know that sounds stupid. No, but I use instinct in a similar power user way. I think latency is a real problem with instinct, by the way, which might not be with Matt. I wait minutes faster for responses. Minutes. It's like the first days of chat GPT. It's a real problem. But I don't know if it needs to be. It does all of my bookings, travel, restaurants. It does all of my shopping. It's very good. It does all of my calendar invites. I know there's no killer app, but it's just incrementally better than everything else. I don't know, but is lots of little bits not good enough?

26:36Harry Stebbings:I have a feeling it might be. I think, well, I'm skeptical of the category on a standalone basis, but, you know, I always have my three venture questions. Is this a category? Who's the winner? And are we getting paid for the risk? And is this a category question? Is there a role for AI in a kind of personal assistant messenger type thing? And I will say having used both instinct and news, I can see it. I don't know if I love the word killer app because a single thing that does everything that just ignites a platform like Vizacad, let's leave the killer app concept out there, right? At the margin, you kind of go, yeah, I'd use this.

27:09You do have the example from long ago of WeChat, you know, Chinese messaging systems having very much a super app. Facebook tried to do that with the messenger. It didn't take off because the truth is the UI, pre-AI, the UI of trying to book things on a chat bot is a pain in the butt. It's actually a lot easier just to go to the United website and see all the flights at the same time and book it. It is possible that with intelligence at the back end does this thing from non-intelligence, you actually have an interaction on a mobile device where enough of the intelligence is in the cloud that it can do a lot more for you.

27:43It knows a lot more about you and it just becomes an easy place to get shit done. And therefore, to your point, how at the margin, you can imagine people using this. If you're a Facebook user, you get Muse, you're a happy little camper, you chug along. Do I think there's more that's going to happen? Yes. To me, the interesting question is, the second one is, do you think it's a standalone company that wins here? Or do you think it's going to be Facebook with Muse and OpenAI with whatever product they come up with? Do you think that the instincts of this world can build a standalone business here, giving that to put it out there, having raised at something like 50 pre less than five months ago, then 400 pre, then a couple of billion pre, but now rumor has it raising at north to 10 billion.

28:29Harry Stebbings:They are raising 1 billion at 10 billion. And the most popular segment of the show that we got was Jason's IC. So Jason, we have a billion dollar round for Instinct. Welcome to the partnership meeting. Thank you. And it's a 10 billion dollar valuation. Will we be putting in$200 million into this billion dollar round at$10 billion. Well, we will. And I'll be honest to the team. This is a risky one. I am impressed with what Muse has done. And if we had to compete head on with Meta, and that was the only thing, we'd be in trouble. I would not recommend this investment because we can't compete with their balance.

29:05We can't compete with their servers. We can't compete with the GM. They can't compete with the LLM. However, after having done several reference calls and over a dozen synthetic ones on Claude, I've learned a couple of things. First First of all, Meta cannot go cross-platform. It cannot go in, it does own WhatsApp, which is a real threat. It won't be work with all carriers. It won't work across all services. It won't work across. It's highly focused on its own platforms. And so that is only a subset of how we communicate. How many folks between the ages of 18 and 55 are on Facebook all day? Very few, right?

29:40It's really your grandmother's application. Now, WhatsApp is popular in Instagram, but the fact that it is not going to be interoperable across all these different services means it's got a fairly limited reach. Two, how long will Meta maintain the energy here, right, when this produces essentially trivial to no revenue? Anyone remember Workplace? Workplace in its own way was probably better than Slack for folks that lived in Facebook. It was probably better. It had a lot of neat use cases. It worked well. It was architected. And it was actually the highest NPS of any product in the entire Facebook meta platform, but they couldn't maintain the energy.

30:14My reference checks say when Alex leaves scale, this product will fall apart. If this was the only thing that meta had to do, I wouldn't bet against him, but we're just not going to see the commitment to do the kind of things the instinct team is going to do. And let me tell you, this is one of the greatest teams I've seen in my history of investing. They're great. These kids come and they play World of Warcraft in real time during the pitch. they're top 10 each all they're both top 15 on league i recommend leading the round but being cautious with reserves because the next round valuation may hit into realistic ipo limits so you would do this round i wouldn't you asked me to do it there's no effing way i would do this round okay good okay here's why i wouldn't do the round okay and you can call me a fuddy-duddy for it okay i believe most of that okay for the pitch i just believe the infra costs here are so high and the incumbents, this is like if we've been talking since this show started, what if Claude, what if Anthropic and OpenEye actually built apps, okay?

31:13And in the entire history of this show, they've only built, outside of Codex and Claude Code, they've really only built half an app, Claude Design, which isn't even really fully an app, okay? Here's Meta building the app. They have the LLM. They have the cost advantages. They have the speed advantages. They have more available compute and GPU and all of it than anybody else in the world, and they're building the app. This is the threat that every VC worried about. And we all got a hall pass since the start of AI because the LMs didn't build any apps. This is the one that they're building. I just don't want to compete against this because I do think for the next 24 months, it's a big priority.

31:48And it's just, Harry already said instinct is slow. That's a sign. That's a sign of compute costs of other, that's why they have to raise a billion. And can they subsidize with venture capital, five to$10 per user per month? Sure. But if they have to over monetize it, what if they become poolside. They could become the next poolside. Like it's great, but literally I've got 10 million users at 10 bucks a month. Now I've got a$1.2 billion nut a year to pay off. I'm struggling to raise the next round. I'm not Databricks. So it's just, I worry when the incumbent has infinite, all the capabilities here and wants to build the app.

32:22That's why I would say, no, but I might be wrong. Right. I might be wrong. I wouldn't bang my fist on the table at the meeting. I'm trying to remember, was it Sarko, or who was it? One of the ancient Greek philosophers where you could literally say, take one side of the argument, and then halfway through, you could say, now take the other side of the argument, and Jason clearly can do that here, right? That was a perfect, this is why you should write. Harry put me on the spot. I don't want to do this deal. He did put you on the spot, but I'm just impressed with the mental facility with which you can do both sides.

32:49It's terrifying. It's like a human LLM. You can be convincing on whatever you want me to do. Pulling the boat together, I actually think, and I want to take the pulse out of that, What you basically said is this is core to Meta, and it feels like something that they would want to do. And despite your comments on cross-platform, today, Muse is a standalone app, so it's not a cross-platform issue. But to the extent that they fold it into, I've just got to assume they're going to make it accessible in Messenger, make it accessible on iMessage, et cetera. But it seems to me if there was one thing that Meta should do within the world of AI, it would be this.

33:25It's hard to imagine spending$100 billion plus on AI, saying that we're going to build the personal AI, and then not putting all your effort on this. So I agree with you, Jason. I think this has to be an all-in meta bet in a way that, frankly, I reject the comparison with Slack. The Facebook for work product was like a toy. It was not a core issue to them. This is a core issue. So I think you're right. They go for it hook, line, and sinker. Now, the interesting thing about the poolside analogy and instinct is you could have the same outcome here, which is poolside said, we ran out of capital to keep playing, but we had an excellent outcome because there was a company with an even bigger market cap who wanted the assets that poolside has assembled.

34:06NVIDIA wanted access to the model, access to the talent. I mean, let's put it out here. The same thing could happen here, which is that Instinct executes, build a huge user base, and an open AI steps up. And it's interesting. I think that the founder of Instinct either worked at Sierra or Brett Taylor is a big fan of, and Brett Taylor is obviously among the many other things that man does, is the chairman of OpenAI. It may well be that Instinct builds a lot of traction, doesn't have a cash flow positive IPO potential, but has a very attractive upside exit. I don't discount that. Maybe 10 billion is a little lofty, but you got to believe if it got meaningful, differentiated traction, that it would be interesting to someone who wants to build a business in this space.

34:52Harry Stebbings:The only thing I will say that Noah Shin, the founder of Instinct, from every single person I've spoken to, they cite him as one of the most generational talents. And in a world where generational talents in strategically attractive segments are very acquisitive to multi-trillion dollar, you can see that being a very legitimate upside scenario case for 50 to 60 billion, as crazy as it sounds. It's possible. Listen, we all have different experiences. The way I was raised to invest in venture was don't take bets that 100 % require an M &A outcome to be successful, right? They're just too unpredictable.

35:29I've been on the other side and know how capricious. You could be Clem's best friend. He brings you in to meet with Jensen and then he quits the next day, right? You literally just can't predict it. You need some real something to steal to make a bet where an arbitrary, super high value outcome is the only plausible exit. it. I'm not saying it's not a bet. It is definitely a bet. It's a big one. And just to come back on that, because I've been thinking about it, it's not what I do either, but I look at this and you always question yourself, is there anything you can learn? There is an argument.

36:01I'm not yet making it, but I'm just acknowledging that the expected value of a number of those bets could be strongly positive. Admittedly, the variance is high. In other words, it's a risky way to make money. You should ask yourself as you're building a portfolio of 30 bets. Is it OK to have three of those bets in your portfolio? Probably not at 10 billion, but right. It wasn't reckless. I think Kleiner did around at 500. Moon's over shrewd. It's not reckless to do around at 500, even if you believe the profile, the payout profile is two in 10 chance of a 20x positive multiple. And if you don't get the positive multiple, you're going to build a company that just can cash flow and doesn't make it.

36:41For sure. If you've got the right portfolio and you can take the risk. It's not the way I will run my business, but I'm in a bull market. Or as Harry said, there's a whole bunch of upside acquirers with, frankly, free market caps that are fairly untethered themselves and have a massive need to move quickly. It's actually not a crazy way to make money.

37:01Harry Stebbings:And you don't even need much. You've got a billion and a half pref to reach. So your downside is relatively capped on an incredible team that everyone acknowledges is industry leading. I mean, this is the classic Silicon Valley thing is that examine that risk return profile at 50 pre, which is as far ago back as April, I think. That's a wonderful profile. At 500 pre, which I think was the May or June round, that's interesting. Yeah, that's a good bet because a little further along. The interesting thing is in the space of two or three more months, you've had around, was the other round the 2 billion, Harry, from memory?

37:36Harry Stebbings:2.5 billion. 2.5 billion. Now you're getting into the, it's a 4X if you get out of the billion, and now you're raising a 10. Now you really need that 50. You need a reminder, the largest M &A outcome ever was Cursor. Doing 4 billion got 60 billion. I don't know if you get a$40 billion outcome without a shit ton of revenue. My point is the risk return profile was wildly attractive in April and decreasingly unattractive fairly quickly by the time you come to September. So that is the problem with those kind of bets. You know, one interesting thing that is just like the consumer product market fit for this product is so wild.

38:15Harry Stebbings:I did an Instagram reel on it. I had over a thousand DMs asking for invite codes. I've never had a thousand DMs on the back of a reel. That's pretty wild. It's awesome. No. Can I just add one interesting thing? Yeah. Just on your thing. You know, Alex Curlin just left to go to Menlo Ventures, right? Yeah. He was on the board of Owner With Me. known him since the very beginning, OG Sastra, when he started the industry. And he wrote a little presentation about how Menlo thought about this. And not that this is so profound, but he said kind of that they're targeting 25 billion plus tech exits. They're targeting 100 of them.

38:49That's how Menlo's modeling the world. And that's what he went to join, to find, you know, some of these 100, not all 100. They don't have to be in all 100 of the$25 billion plus exits, right? That's the model. We can say, wow, Cursor was at 60, but Cognition just raised at 48. So if this is your world model that there are a total of 81, 25 billion tech companies now, but that's up from 23, 10 years ago, and that that trend is going to continue in the age of AI. You know, I wrote that the new Decacorn is 25 billion. These instinct rounds make sense. Like if the good exits are all north of 25 billion, then at least I can make three acts on instinct.

39:23Right. It was just interesting to see that's their model. Right. Is that we're targeting 25 billion dollar plus exits and any investment that we do. and we see there to be another hundred of these. Now, how that old math works out with GDP and the market caps of trillion dollar companies, I need to defer to Dr. Rory O'Driscoll next to me because I can't make it work in my head without an LLM. But I assume there was some thought behind the memo math there of$125 billion exits.

39:47Harry Stebbings:We're going to go a layer up and just a little excursion out of like deliberate AI, which is Miro, one of the hailed names from 2021 that raised it$17.5 billion. Interactive whiteboards for teams, for people that don't know. Sold to Bending Spoons, the Italian juggernaut that buys everything, for$1.3 billion. As I said, it's a long way down from the 17 and a half. We didn't... Well, Paul, my partner, who is very intelligent, did an analysis of it. Excel made money. Founders and employees made money. Later stage investors, not really. How did we see this exit, guys, for a darling of the SaaS ecosystem?

40:27Harry Stebbings:Inevitable and not bad. Inevitable because I have a little report on our Salesforce that literally lists every unicorn. And I can do it a bunch of different ways. One of them being literally by post money. I just eyeball down and you see what's going on. And you just rank them. And it jumped out of you like a sore thumb. The last round was in 21 at 17 billion. And when you eyeball, you start to see the Lagoa, you start to see the Loverwood, you start to see all the cognitions just above them and just below them, new rounds at$10,$20 billion. You see, we track headcount growth at the same time.

41:00Oh my God, headcount's exploding. And then you have the thing stuck at $17 billion. And it was really the largest, utterly stale valuation from that period. So you look and you go, ah, almost inevitably you're high and dry because you're a productivity tool in a world that just doesn't work that way. And it's obviously way ahead on valuation, I mean, of where its actual market size or traction can be. So this is just an inevitable. It was inevitable that at some point it would get done. I mean, Andrew Reid from Sequoia had a really cute tweet. It's like a little graphic of, you know, that picture of the death with the sickle knocking on every door and it knocks on the Evernote door and then it knocks on the Airtable door.

41:41And then in this case, it's knocking on the mirror door. And instead of a sickle, it has a bending spoon. Death comes for us all in Sassland, right? And it was exactly right. It was just an inevitable cleanup operation because it was just so far wrong in terms of pricing. And it was a good outcome for everyone. And you kind of snidely said something about the late stage guys. But I'm going to say something. The great thing about the late stage business is this. If your losers give you a 1X, then you'll die rich. So Iconic, I think. Iconic had a ton of money in that deal. So that's a bad deal. A bad deal is when they get a 1X.

42:16You know, if you're playing the venture game and because you're playing late and your preference gives you one X and everything. On the worst case outcome, by definition, I mean, just using simple math, the overall distribution is net positive. So it's a good outcome for everybody. It needed to happen. It's now part of a liquid asset. I think, I didn't know this until today, so I'm winging it a little. I did see some portion of the consideration rolled. In other words, some people said, I'll take stock and bending spoons for that, which is an interesting choice. Yeah, I don't know whether it was required or whether it was a way to juice the outcome, right by rolling it over you could see it being either way right bending spoons needed the cat they don't have an unlimited balance sheet there's only so many murals they can do right but it could have also been to roll it could have been a rollover into the cynic in me says it's interesting if you do roll it's like basically saying we couldn't do what it takes to turn this company into a cash flow positive machine so i'm selling it at 2.7 times to guys who are trading at 14 times because they are tough enough to do what it takes because that's really what's happening And to some extent, even though that sounds bullshit, it's true.

43:21Venture syndicates, I've been in boards where the company just flattens out and it needs to get ruthlessly efficient. It's just not our DNA. It's not how we roll. It's a syndicate of five different people. Oftentimes, these assets are better owned by a single owner who says, look, this is the way it's going to be. This is what we're going to do. I mean, I don't know if you saw the CEO of Bending Spoons. He made a wonderfully controversial take where he said something to the tune of, you know, we don't basically get all excited about the title founder. We don't want to know what you did. He's basically commenting, we don't want you to know what you did 10 years ago when you founded this.

43:51We want to know what you're doing now. And what it's basically saying is, we can't do what it takes to fix this thing at 3x revenues. So we'll sell it to you. Take your stock at 12 times revenue, because you'll be hard-nosed enough to cut extraneous costs, raise prices, accept a fair amount of churn, and plow through. Just interesting, but also not great. It's kind of an interesting comment on how institutions can determine outcomes. It's not all rational economics. And it probably makes sense. Bending Spoons will probably do a better job than a venture syndicate at making that thing cash flow positive.

44:23And if you're a customer of any of these companies, just be ready for the 40 % price increase.

44:28Harry Stebbings:Yeah, the churn on their acquisitions is brutal. When you actually study the graphs on usage, the churn is absolutely brutal. They are not revitalizing these. They're increasing prices and cutting costs to the extreme. What they're really finding out is the marginal propensity to pay versus how much. The VC, we probably almost certainly as an industry over invested in sales and marketing and sold people who had to be sold into the product. What they're saying is, I don't want the customers who had to be sold into the product. I want customers who hate us so much for doubling our prices, but still need this product and won't go away.

45:02It's a different worldview, actually, because, yeah, you're going to get initial churn when they put through those price increases. But the perspective is the people who stay really need the product. This is like what happens when you have to pay full. Yeah, you triple the prices and you have 30 to 40 % churn and the math's pretty straightforward, right? I'll tell you my thought on the Miro one, it was, I almost want to move on. What's the game Duck, Duck, Goose with kids? And don't you take out a chair each time you go around? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I felt like there's only like one or two chairs left from the pre-AI era.

45:31And Miro took, Bending Spoons looks, they said in one of the interviews this week, they do a thousand, they look at a thousand targets seriously and do five to 10 a year. And even they do not have an unlimited balance sheet. P is sitting out. Tom Abravo is mostly sitting out. I feel like there's one or two seats left for a thousand unicorns. And we can talk about why Iconic got 1X back. And like, if there were like a lot of options, I felt like it's different. There's like two chairs left at the end of DuckDuckGo. Miro grabbed one. Just like Airtable, they only got one offer. When you sell for a 2.something X, you know for sure there was no other offer because anyone can pay 2.4X or 2.5X.

46:09It's not much more for Salesforce or Tomo Bravo or Francisco partners outbid. So you have two. And like, I almost want to move on because I can tell you personally, I've ended the game for me of DuckDuckGoose. I'm not running around the chairs anymore. Whatever. It's fine. Who's next then? Look, of course there will be more deals, but I think we've entered the era of capitulation. And if there is a seat left in DuckDuckGoose, grab it, grab it. But otherwise the game's just ended. and these companies are going to go into zero percenter mode. They're going to go into zero to 5 % growth mode and no one, no one may buy them because if this is the best Miro and Airtable can do, what if you're not Miro?

46:47These are not bad companies. Miro's 600 million in air are still growing high single digits and cashflow positive. Like it's a pretty good asset, right? So anyone worse than Miro or Airtable is not going to get one of the last one or two chairs. Just no one wants to buy these things. And I don't mean to be grouchy. I just mean, I've just given like kids go go do whatever you want here's the keys to the house i've moved to another city have parties you know crash the cars do whatever you want because uh boys moving swiftly on what what

47:16Harry Stebbings:would we like to do next jeff dean's company hitting 50 billion dollars after just raising it 10 we've got citrini selling his company to dylan patel and send me analysis for a hundred We've got OpenAI pausing pro signups. Is SBF getting out? Well, I mean, he's got to accept his Midas list, doesn't he? He might have even been on the under 30, under 30 or something when he got it too, when he did the Anthropic deal. I think it was under 30. I'm going to be the voice of humanity. I mean, yeah, he is doing significant time, which really sucks. And that's a life waste. So I'm not going to pile on the guy yet.

47:51I think the Supreme Court is going to take the case and overturn it. Narrowly. Because I watched his lawyer on YouTube. who's pretty good, who's done 50 cases in Supreme Court. He's like a badass Supreme Court lawyer. Basically, and listen, I'm not the total argument. His point was, this is an eighth amendment issue. You can't fine somebody$12 billion, this is unconstitutional, that can't repay it when, at least according to the terms of the bankruptcy court, everyone was repaid in whole with interest. We could argue whether they would have made much more money, right? But there are some constitutionality issues.

48:20I think he's going to get his day. I think the Supreme Court's going to take it. They don't have to take any case. And I think he's going to get it. And, you know, whatever he's in jail for 30 years and 11 billion, I think it's, I think, you know, Sam may be freed eventually. The Supreme Court here in the case is a far cry from being freed, but I think he may have a day in court.

48:37Harry Stebbings:Jason, do you think he should be freed? I mean, he seemed like the biggest scammer of all mankind when, what was this, all way back in 2023? It is weird he didn't enrich himself as far as we know materially, right? It is weird that argue, this is very arguably, very arguably, it's of course terrible that he's, He moved assets between Alameda Research and it's terrible. But the argument that it was allowed by terms of use is an interesting argument. It is an interesting argument. He did not self-enrich. The reality is if you use a generous version of made whole, folks were made whole. Should he go to jail for most of the rest of his life and have to pay$11 billion when he get out?

49:12It seems like a lot in the era of sentient AI that could kill us all. It does seem like a lot today. But at the time, Silicon Valley Bank failed. I lost$10 million over the weekend. I don't know about you guys. it seemed like it was just desserts at the time, right? For what it's, one, I hadn't prepped on this because it wasn't on the list. And I don't like a part, my wife, who is a lawyer, gets mad when I practice law without a license. But I will say it was so low down, Harry, I didn't think we'd get to it. You never do, right?

49:38Harry Stebbings:Oh, there we go. Well, Harry asked. Genuine comment, genuine comment here. Separating the fine, which there might be issues of, doesn't matter. But there was misallocation of funds. It was white collar crime. It should be punished. I actually think 30 years was probably disproportionate with the... I mean, I think, what was it? I'm trying to remember the ex-Goldman Sachs guy who misallocated and brokered funds in MG brokerage about 10 or 15 years ago. I think he walked entirely. I can't from memory think. I think white collar crime should be punished. And it's a shitty world where someone steals 20 bucks and they go to prison and someone else steals$10 billion and they don't because they're whiten up a middle class.

50:15But I'm also not sure 30 years is the commensurate thing. Now, the interesting thing is that's not the issue at hand in the Supreme Court. I don't think they're appealing on the sentencing guidelines issue. They're appealing the facts and circumstances of the case. So we'll see. Yeah. And I don't think it matters that the fact that he took the money and was a brilliant investor doesn't excuse him for taking the money. Because by definition, if it worked, then anyone could take money provided it worked. Hey, I stole your money, Harry, but I bought, put call options and the stock went up. So we made money.

50:43Here's your money back. You shouldn't mind. Well, of course you're going to freaking mind because when you took the money from you, you didn't know what the outcome would be and there was a 50 % chance it would go down. So you're going to want that guy punished because you're going to want that behavior stopped because you're not going to want the next guy to think they can do it. So it doesn't matter that he was the most brilliant, genuine, the most brilliant equity investor of our generation between Entropic and Cursor. It just matters if he took money and if that was against the rules, and I haven't heard the terms of service argument, Jason, that will be interesting.

51:11If he took money and it was against the rules, then he should be punished. If he took money, it wasn't against the rules, then he probably should walk and the process will take place. Not my problem. What happened to Matt Mullenweg? He was out for a day and back. What happened to poor Matt? Did someone not read the bylaws, Rory? What happened? Did someone forget to pull the certificate of incorporation from Delaware?

51:29Harry Stebbings:So Matt Mullenweg is the founder and CEO of WordPress and he was ousted by the board and then he came back and overrode them, it would seem. And now he is back as the CEO and the power to the founder has reigned true here. And he's back as CEO. Correct. And this is a company, Automa, that has been the steward of the open source project, WordPress, which is one of the most commonly used blogging and website platforms out there. Very successful product. Matt's the CEO of the company that manages the product. I think it's fair to say that the stewardship in the last few years have been troubled. He's been in a big argument with WP Engines about the argument is WP Engine is a hosting company that is hosting WordPress sites.

52:17And I think Automatic wants some of that revenue. So they've been pushing WP Engines. But the way in which he's behaved has been unhelpful to the open source project because it's kind of like, I will use the leverage of my company to try and frankly, prevent other people from benefiting from the open source ecosystem, which seems to be untithetical to the idea of it. So I think it's been a troubled situation for a while. I think the truth is the real issue is the world is passing that product. It's kind of a sad little thing because the world is passing that product by. And Jason will be able to tell you that, you know, you can build most of what you have in WordPress with Lovable or Replit or any one of 10 things.

52:54And increasingly, they are, as I've quoted before, the Henry Kissinger thing about academic arguments. The fights are so vicious because the prize is so small. The truth is automatic doesn't matter a damn anymore. or it should try and build something new. But it's kind of on the tail end. I mean, to Jason's point about it, it's on the tail end of the tech trends. They should be doing things totally differently to try and survive in the brave new world. Instead, they're arguing internally. So that's kind of the zoom out comment. Within that context, that's kind of the big picture. And the funny thing is, like all litigations, when you get caught up in the detail of the day-to-day, you forget the big picture.

53:30The big picture is this company needs to point WordPress in a forward direction to think about how you take advantage of what's going on in AI and become a relevant player in the next five years. Otherwise, you won't be. That's the corporate imperative. Instead, the corporate imperative has turned into a pissing match between the board and the CEO, when now it looks like the CEO has won. Congratulations, you've won the poison chalice. You get to keep your diminishing empire. And it's worth pointing out, this is not a board full of evil VCs. And I've been on boards as an evil VC where you've had to replace a founder.

54:01It sucks to the end. This is actually a board of, I think, Salesforce is an investor. You have some really good independent board members. They don't need this grief. I'm well about what happened. Now down in the tactical weeds, I think Jason probably nailed it. You probably have a board. They probably have a majority. They probably said to the CEO, we're a majority of the board. We're independent directors. We think he should replace you. And my guess is the founder CEO went deep into the bylaws and says, you are the board and you can vote to replace me, but I can actually also vote to replace the board.

54:31board. I'm hereby voting. I've seen this once. I'm hereby voting to replace the board. You're all off the board. Oh, look, the new board is me, my pet dog, and my ventriloquist dummy. And after due consideration, we've decided I would be a great CEO. There you go. And all the independent board members at that point promptly resigned because there's no point wasting your life and getting into a whole bunch of litigation about an ever - Remember, Jason, your island was at the Fortnite Island that's continually getting smaller. You are fighting to maintain control of an island that's getting smaller and smaller.

55:02So congratulations, Matt, you're in charge. I feel like going, if you are in charge, well, how about you turn this thing around? So yeah, that's my takeaway of this. It's kind of sad in a way these things happen. People behave how they're going to behave. I think a lot of other people were involved in that company and put a lot of effort in. One of the guys, Tony, who was a true venture, did a lot on it early on. It's kind of a bleh situation. Yeah, it's been pending for a long time and you kind of just go, gosh, I wish there surely should be more of a win-win here. Well, Automatic would have been a great company if it hadn't rated venture capital, because Matt could do what he cared about, right?

55:35Which is having a commercial arm of an open source product he created, right? Very young. Imagine it's doing 500 million a year, spinning off 200 million. It's like a bigger base camp. Those guys aren't venture backable and they don't give a rat's ass with their 22 Lamborghinis and Panganis and villas in Italy. And they're fine growing 30 % It's$60 million spending off$30 million or$40 million cashier. It doesn't bother them at all, does it? I don't know the full funding history, but one could imagine it didn't really need to raise all this money, a version of it. And it might've done just fine.

56:06It's easy to say, but that might be the one. And that might be why Matt's frustrated. It would haunt me as well. Companies do get overfunded, boys. And I might be sitting here. I'm like, this could have been 37. Like, I could be like 37 signals. I could be running this. I didn't need this. What the hell did I need this? 800 million and a bunch of people running around doing nothing all day long. I could have run WordPress and automatic both side by side with 80 people like DHH and be making 100 million a year. And who the fuck cares if I'm growing, if this is my mission in life? If you're making nine figures a year out of your company and your growth is 5 % and you're happy and you're doing a good deal for the world, you know, screw you VCs.

56:42Yeah. I mean, first of all, I do agree is that you shouldn't Take VC if you're not signed up for that program. I'm also not sure that that's one dimension, VC versus kind of lifestyle business. I do think there is another dimension here of the open source business. I mean, so on the first dimension, VC versus lifestyle business, it's pretty clear you should do the lifestyle if you want lifestyle. There is another dimension, which is open source community project versus managing just for the quote unquote company that controls the open source product. And I'm not sure that on that dimension, the company has been an amazing steward of the project.

57:19Right. So I hear you. I think that's just an initial dynamic. But you could also say to your point, Jason, if you didn't take any venture money, if you initiated the project, if you have whatever open source rights you have under the copyright or whatever leverage you have in terms of the licensing and the copyright, then it's your company do what you like. And actually, I do agree with you is that this is America. if you built the thing and you want a mismanagement, mismanage it, and you want 100 % of it, you're allowed mismanagement. Go team. That's what ownership means. You know what's tough too?

57:48I know you want to wrap it up. I just, I'm just learning. I'm learning later in my investment career. You got to be effing ruthless to do a venture backed open source company. Ruthless. You really do. Because look what Matt did. Matt did said, listen, I'm focused on the platform. This is what I'm passionate about. I'm not so into the hosting. Okay. That's a commodity business. I'm going to let WP Engine do 500, you know, 100 million, 80 million, 100 million, 300 of these other folks do. And there's like, I'm kind of into this e-commerce thing like WooCommerce, but I don't want to do what Shopify and Toby did.

58:15Like that's too extreme. And so you end up not owning that much of the revenue in your ecosystem. And I don't think he's mad about the WooCommerce thing not being huge from revenue because WooCommerce actually used to be massive in terms of scale versus Shopify. But I think he's looking at WP Engine. It's like, not only did these guys treat my community worse after the PE buyout, which I do think is objectively true. But I kind of want that 500 million now, guys. I wouldn't have minded having that extra 500 million for this crappy commodity hosting that I could do a better job. And in fact, we're on their own product.

58:48It's a great product. But my guess is it's doing a fraction of what it has to be mathematically, right? It's like, I want that, you know? And so if you're too kind in open source, I think you lose. If you're too kind, you lose. You got to be ruthless. If you think about a couple of different agenda items that we've talked about here. On the one hand, trailing edge of tech trends, you have Mirror getting bought for 2.7 times, and you have a nasty little spat over a flat to declining asset in open source land in automatic. And then on the front edge of the thing, you have companies like Instinct raising literally four weeks ago at$2.5 billion, now raising at$10.

59:25You mentioned that Jeff Dean kind of spin out raising it 10 billion, now raising it 50 billion. The big picture, it's really Captain Obvious here, but it just shows venture so unlike PE is not about valuation and there's not any safe assets. It's just you're either in the head of the train, in the new, new thing, everything is possible, or you're in the tail end of the train and life is shitty.

59:52Harry Stebbings:I was with one of the biggest CIOs the other day and I said, you've been doing this for 30 years. Have you ever seen a time like this? I'm cognizant that I'm on the younger spectrum. I'm not that young anymore, but I haven't seen all cycles. And he said, I've never seen a time like this. This is more nuts than it's ever been. This is unprecedented. I think that's true. I was investing only since, I love this, only since 93 or 94. So I did live through the dot com investing thing. And it was pretty crazy because you also had the whole millennial thing about Y2K and the world was going to end just like now.

1:00:24We always have to have a world ending thing. And let's be honest, New Year's Eve, December 99 was a pretty wild freaking party in San Francisco, right? Half the people were getting toasted drunk because they were rich. And the other half of the people were staying up, making sure that the Y2K thing didn't bring down the world, which was the actual worry at the time, bizarrely enough. But it's nothing compared to this. I think the ability of AI to just excite the imagination is just way higher. And the internet was awesome. But AI, You know, you can start talking about the software as human. You can get carried away.

1:00:54And then the second thing is, you know, instead of existentially worrying about the computers won't work because of Y2K, we now get to worry about the whole world ending. It's the same thing on a way more magnified scale.

1:01:05Harry Stebbings:And the money is 10x bigger. Can I ask, speaking of the money being 10x bigger, I sit in Europe, as you know, Rory, and remind me frequently. Well, actually, Harry, you don't. You actually sit in England, which deliberately chose not to be part of Europe. But I know what you mean. It's OK. Sorry, that was mean. Listen, you know, I wasn't pro-Brexit, but you're technically right. I agree. Very sad. Mistral raises three billion euros. It's Europe's largest ever tech round. They're going to hit a billion in revenue by the end of the year. For a company that's had, I think, a lot of criticism, definitely in Europe, this was a very meaningful sign of progression and hope that actually we do have a horse still, so to speak, in the race.

1:01:46Harry Stebbings:What should we take from this round? I think it's less about being a competitive frontier lab and more about AI sovereignty. I don't think you should take the fact you have a horse into it. If you're saying Mistral is now competing with OpenAI and Anthropic in the frontier model race, you and I know that would be bullshit. I think what you're really saying is Europe has decided, based on the antics they see from the companies at the frontier in the US, coupled with the dynamics of the political interaction between United States of America and Europe, that technology as important as this has to have a sovereign European component.

1:02:19And even though it's obviously ludicrously inefficient from any kind of rational perspective, they've decided we just got to make this thing happen and give Mistral enough business to make sure that it's a viable European AI competitor. And it's clearly Mistral. And there's a long tradition of Europe doing. I mean, Airbus is an example of that. They said, we can't just be relying on the Americans to make planes because otherwise we're a vassal state. And they said, we're going to make it happen. France and Germany are going to make planes and we're just going to do it. And it took 10 or 15 years, but they built a viable competitor.

1:02:51It's probably the same thing here. They're simply saying we can't afford to have, I mean, we've seen instances where I think recently, I'm doing it for a member here. I think the US government said to Anthropic, thou shalt cut off all other countries from Fable. I think it was Fable, one of the most recent models, cut them off because it's a security risk. And we but leave the United Kingdom and France and Germany, we said cut off everybody. If you're in Europe, the day that happened, you said to yourself, we can't rely on these guys anymore. And the day that happened, you made Mistral a viable European competitor.

1:03:24Is it going to be as big as us? Nah, it's not going to. I mean, I don't think it's going to be. I mean, Airbus has actually overtaken Boeing. Took 30 years, right? But in the short term, it's not going to be any near as big a market cap as OpenAI or Entropic, but it's going to be a winner and it's going to be the European winner. So thank you very much, politics. If you're a Mr. Al shareholder, you should be very grateful for the current political tactics. It's just made you a couple billion bucks. Also, you know, just to be technical, I mean, the rounds led by Samsung, right? So they're generating, I think, 200 billion of free cash flow a year right now.

1:03:57So 3 billion, like, I don't know if I take the markup. I mean, I guess I would take the markup, but you could argue it should have an asterisk and a dagger next to it because is it really real if it's led by Samsung, right? And the last round was led by ASML. Yeah, I don't know if those count. The money counts. I agree. Look, the valuation. Yeah, the money counts, but I don't know if the valuation is connected to any reality. Like we should, that it's the same as an objective valuation done by financial parties. I just, it's just not, right? But there is some intrinsic value to be like, you know, if, I mean, let's ask what the, I mean, brutal comment.

1:04:31If the American winners are worth a trillion and the European GDP is roughly 70, 80 % of the American GDP. I don't think that implies, to be clear,$800 billion, but you might get to$30, $40,$50. It's not a crazy end state, but I agree, Jason. It feels like your problem. I don't think they did it on the basis of market comps and comps. I think they did it on the basis of state strategically. Boys, is there any others that I've missed that you think we should do? I mean, I'm just trying to find interesting private stuff. I mean, Jason, any comment on Adobe linking on, new CEO taking over. I saw the results.

1:05:06Any thoughts? Because you're the Adobe expert here. I think it's great. You take two non-founder folks slowly leading different business units into no growth. And you pick from the lesser of two okay leaders. I mean, you know, I think it's just Miro at scale, but with so much scale that it survives, right? You know what it is? It's a reminder that Miro didn't... In today, you know, it's funny. If one When the three of us met, I told you about this$600 million company in collaboration, we would think that was scale, right? In the old days, it's not scale. Adobe has scale. So even if Adobe isn't really making the right moves in AI and it can't really afford it, and it's just moving the deck chairs around for its CEO team, where the CEO said like a year ago, Shantanu said he's going to retire and it took him a year to decide which of the two internal candidates to promote.

1:05:53I mean, it's pretty bad. I think it's a nothing burger. You know what it is, Rory? It's a sign just nothing's going to change. It's a sign of capitulation. It's a sign that we're going to just keep bulldozing our way through the world the same way versus really changing. Super high margin, bleed our core products, add some imaging from the AI and kind of call it a day. Right. I broadly agree with you. And it's interesting. They did the you know, we're not leaning into ARR growth. We're leaning into getting free usage. And that was the play they did in the 90s. Fake AI metric of the week. And that's where it's going.

1:06:26I think, you know, because this is where I reason I asked you is that's a playbook that might have worked two or three years ago. But to your point now, what you're basically, because our net new ARR went down significantly. In other words, the growth of new ARR didn't happen. So they have their AI ARR metric went up, but overall ARR went down. And you know what that means is you're just channeling some into the good thing. But yes, you're at least with the program that you need to win, which is a start, but you're not winning because the Jason rule, which I go back to, if it ain't growing, you ain't winning.

1:06:56If people ain't paying for it, you ain't winning. They have scale. They're not going away. $25 billion in revenue, whatever. There was no news here, which is interesting because overall, it's been a pretty good few weeks for software in general. I mean, you've seen big jumps. I'd say huge jumps in the cyber stocks, big jumps overall in world cloud. And the entire SaaS apocalypse has been unwound. But I think, Jason, to your point, what's been happening is there's been a real distillation of, oh, these kinds of businesses aren't going to be winners. They should stay low. And then these kinds of businesses are doing super well.

1:07:27Adobe is more in the first category within the second.

1:07:30Harry Stebbings:So, Boyce, their market cap today is$105 billion. Yeah, about$100 billion,$25 billion. Yeah, exactly. In three years' time, what is their market cap? $120,$130. Same as today. It'll be the same as today. Yeah, plus a month. It's not going away. Basically, again, from memory, it's a sub-10 times cash flow multiple, Harry. So unless the ARR evaporates, not just doesn't grow, but evaporates, you can get there a cash flow multiple. If Jason's view of the world, the mental view of the world is correct. If there are 10 or 100,$25 billion plus outcomes, which by the way, I don't think, the point of your relative significance will go down.

1:08:08I mean, I couldn't tell you HP's market cap now to save my life because it doesn't matter. And that's the same thing. You'll do fine. You'll cash flow positive. Maybe if you find the right leader and the right product, you'll reignite growth. Your trajectory is not to blow up, but your trajectory is to trade at eight or nine times cash flow. Well, that's the way it was for decades. Adobe We stocked, didn't move for a decade. It was traded on cashflow. Shantanu was amazing of that. Then cloud worked better than anyone expected. And either they're going to run that playbook for another decade or they'll have some magical AI thing that even Canva hasn't figured out.

1:08:39I'm not betting on it today, but I was there when cloud happened. They didn't expect it. They could have a killer AI app that just were early in the AI thing. So I don't know, man. Would you rather invest in Canva or Adobe today? I'll tell you why you just can't invest in Canva. I want Canva to win very badly, right? I love them. You just can't be not growing. Like Service Titan got destroyed for lowering guidance, fell 30 % last week. Okay. I think Canva fell 30 or 40 % this year when they had to lower guidance, right? Maybe more, right? They're just not public, but you got to grow, but you, but at least Adobe is going to get to this stable plane to Rory's prior point.

1:09:16It's going to get to a stable plane. It's not impressive, but it's going to grow six or eight or 9 % a year with lots of free cashflow, right? I'm going to give you the numbers, Canva's numbers, right? They are growing. They're growing 20%. They were growing 30%. They're growing at 20 % now. And I know that because in Australia, you have to file your revenue with the Watcher McCollum's. But that's a big deceleration. Agreed. It's not that they're not growing. They're de-accelerating. So are they entering DCF world or are they still a growth stock? Are they growth or value? OK, I'm going to agree with you now.

1:09:46And the only reason I interrupt you, Jason, is I didn't agree when you said they're not growing. I want to be precise. What you said now is really the insightful point. Seriously, I want to pause on this because it actually comes to a lot of different things. Going from a growth story to a value story is really tough, right? You go from a revenue multiple to an EBITDA multiple. I think it's a really good post on Twitter recently where basically above 30 % growth, you can use a revenue multiple. Below 30 % growth, you have to use an EBITDA multiple. It was a very insightful comment. It basically said, if you're growing fast, everything is forgiven and you'll be valued on a revenue multiple.

1:10:22If you're growing slow, nothing is forgiven, and you'll be valued on an EBITDA multiple or low revenue multiple, right? It's just a different world, right? And I actually did, I remember I did a post way back that bots as a public company went through that transition and came out the other side, but it takes three or four years. Because when you go from six or seven times revenues to 20 times cash flow, you got to get that cash flow to 30 % just to hold the stock flat. It's brutal. It takes forever. And this is going back to the point is I think Canva is still growing very nicely, but it is deaccelerating.

1:10:53And even though I like them and I want them to win, they're founder-led, whereas Adobe, as you say, is at this point exploiting me every time I buy their product. I load their licensing system so much. The hard truth is this. When you're going through that transition, it's hard to get to a public offering. So when you ask about the two stocks, Harry, what you're basically saying is, would you like to own something at eight times cash flow with 13 % growth, or at least you're liquid, or would you prefer to own something at 20 % growth, admittedly deaccelerating. The question is, can they get through the liquidity window?

1:11:24Price clears all markets. I think the interesting question is how you think about relative valuation. But I just think having to go from the growth valuation world to the value-based world sucks. And doing it while private is hard because it takes a long time to just get through that nut. And during that time, you're standing still. I mean, it sucks doing it as public too. It just stocks doing it in general because you get a different investor base, you have different dynamics, but it's just a hard role to hold. And it's the risk of being private for a long time. Stripe avoided that risk because they re-accelerate.

1:12:01And I really hope Canva can find a way to re - accelerate too, because I want the founders to win. I want good guys to win. But if you look at it, if instead of Stripe re-accelerating to 40%, they'd accelerate it down to 20 and 15, then they, you know, I mean, they still have, they have huge cashflow. So they, no matter what, they're fine. But it's just interesting. Slowing growth and being valued on a cashflow basis is a profound adjustment in the valuation metric.

1:12:26Harry Stebbings:Oddly enough, as I think about Stripe, is the only guys who could weather that storm because apparently it kicks off so much cash. Rory, we got to go let Jason be a superstar. Oh, you are. I'm sorry, Jason. You're off to be a superstar. He's off to be a superstar with Mr. Mark Benioff. Yeah, he's the star attraction. But before we leave you today, when you're building a company, you learn that trust is what closes deals. You 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.

1:12:56Harry Stebbings: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. Now, 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.

1:13:34Harry Stebbings: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. You 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.

1:14:18Harry Stebbings: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. Framer is a complete website platform, not just a builder, so teams can launch and keep improving their sites in one place. Framer is the AI website builder that helps creators, teams, and businesses ship production-ready sites faster than ever while getting every detail right. Prompt, 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.

1:14:58Harry Stebbings: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, We'll 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. Rules and restrictions may apply.