Tesla vs. Mark Rober, Google’s $32B M&A Bet, & XRP’s SEC Victory | E2100

28:53This is the five-year here. And Jason, whenever I see a company that was trading above$500 a share historically and is now at seven, I'm presuming that there was a stock split or a reverse split involved here. but the company's value now is under a quarter billion dollars. So it's essentially kind of a large AI series A market cap. Not much. Crazy. And then this video came out, I think, last week, was it? So in five days since then, it's up 38 % in the last five days. So this has had a massive impact on the company. Again, back to appearances of impropriety being impropriety in people's mind. So bad construction of the test, faked results or manipulated results, not understanding the technology plus the stock bump looks really bad for him.

29:37It's got to do a better job. Simply solved. Use this energy to make a better test and you'll get 10 times as many views on the next one. That's I mean, that's the real like you could easily flip this into a win by doing the test again the right way, because that's another blockbuster hit video like he's going to clean up when he posts that. Founders, let's talk about building your brand here in the real world. We know digital ads are amazing, but if you want to stand out in 2025, maybe you need to think a little bit bigger. And a great way to do that is out-of-home advertising. Yes, you know, those really impressive billboards you see everywhere, or even the beautiful murals that everybody loves.

30:18This is how you build a brand. And Ed Quick makes out-of-home advertising easy, measurable, and fast. They've taken the headaches out of OOH. You've probably heard OOH, out of home, by combining ad tech precision with real world impact. So now planning, deploying and tracking your campaign is as easy as running digital ads. With AdQuick, they're going to hyper target your campaign in minutes. Then they're going to use their data and technology to ensure your ads reach the right audience every single time. Plus, they're going to give you real time insights to measure performance and optimize your spend.

30:54So whether you're building brand awareness or looking to drive customer action, right, you want to acquire customers, you can see why AdQuick is trusted by everyone from the fastest growing startups to the S &P 500. Take your brand to the next level with AdQuick, the smarter way to do OOH. And just for Twist listeners, AdQuick is waiving their fee on your first campaign. That's an amazing offer. Get started today, adquick.com slash twist. That's A-D-Q-U-I-C-K dot com slash twist. and just so you know i don't own either of these stocks directly i mean i i probably own tesla in index funds as alex might i definitely do my index funds are full of the s &p 500 i own a little bit through through my mutual funds or whatever yeah exactly so everybody who's got a mutual fund or a retirement account has some exposure to tesla not luminaire but who cares um yeah i i and just so people know i don't trade specifically in elon stocks because of my friendship with him people will assume things that they shouldn't.

31:52So I have exposure just, you know, through other ways. SpaceX either. I just assumed you were a little. No, I literally when he started those companies, I probably could have been, but I wasn't an investor at that time. And then since then, I have other opportunities to invest. So if I buy shares in those type of companies, then people are going to say, oh, conflict of interest. Anytime I talk about it here or on all in, people are just going to try to put it together. I do own the first Model S ever created. I do own the 16th Roadster. So I'm a big investor in buying the cars for sure. But I don't trade.

32:29And I also don't like day trade all that much. I buy and hold, generally speaking. Did you buy all of Sachs' crypto when he had to divest? No, but he, as I said, he, on the All In Podcast where he came on, he has been an LP in my firm, in my venture funds, you know, not major. I think it was a small amount, but he was up like seven, eight, nine X in our first fund because he didn't sell the Robinhood shares that had been distributed. And so he had to, because I think two of my companies from our first fund pivoted into crypto, people know I'm not a crypto investor. He still sold his GP interest, his LP interest in my first fund to somebody else.

33:08So I haven't, you know, and he called me long before his announcement and said, hey, listen, it's not personal. I just have to sell these to another person. And he lost money on it. He sold it at a discount or he will eventually lose money on it. And that person who bought it, who bought it at a discount will get that, you know, gain that he gave up. So, all right, next story. I want to talk about Wiz. Ladies and gentlemen, we have the first absolute mega deal of the year. Jason,$32 billion from Big Search, all cash. This deal is absolute gold. And what's really fun is the sheer number of venture capitalists that are about to walk away with an enormous pile of money.

33:41We have talked about the liquidity crisis on this show every seven minutes, Jason, for the last year, give or take. So I want to say that I think this deal is going to save a lot of people some heartburn. So going back in time, Sequoia, Insight, Index, Cyberstarts, Circa Partners, and then later on, Blackstone, G-Squared, Thrive, Wellington. They put a lot of money in this company and they cleaned up. no they were whiz we had talked about previously that there was an acquisition they had walked away from last year and then there was possibility of them going public um but here we are this will be like a major test i think for this administration will they try and block it etc there are no fans of google uh you've heard trump say over and over again he's not a fan of google because of the woke stuff and the AI products or YouTube subverting some speech at times, which, you know, they labeled stuff.

34:36And yes, they did on the margins, you know, though they explicitly banned Trump from YouTube and Twitter and Facebook. So he had some beef there, but I think they'll let it go through. And I think this will be this is the starter's pistol for M &A. If this deal goes through now, anything under 32 billion is going to get done. That's my prediction. so anybody who's got a company under 32 billion is now looking at it saying like hey you let them buy that for 32 billion we want to sell this asset for 10 billion 15 billion or maybe even 50 or 75 because that's not that much more than 32 so the figma deal maybe the figma deal which obviously got stopped by the uk but yeah you know maybe it's time for the figma deal to go through or they'll IPO.

35:22Hey, Jason, if Figma wants to buy what's left of Adobe, I'm not opposed to it. The other way around, I'll be a little bit sad. But you actually raise a really good point. This is not an idle regulatory moment. The FT, who actually broke the news that the deal is about to land before it did, said that the first deal, a$23 billion transaction last year that didn't consummate, was aborted in part because, quote, directors and investors became worried about antitrust hurdles. Now, this year, two things happened. One, yes, Trump administration, expectations of easier M &A transactions for sure. And Google upped the breakup fee to$3.2 billion.

35:59So if this fails, Wiz gets funded through IPO. If it goes through, then Google's happy. So I mean, it's... And that$3.2 billion breakup fee, is that an investment in the company? Or is it just a fee that they get free and clear. So making a point by analogy, Jason, I think the breakup fee that Figma got from Adobe was a billion, and I believe it was just straight cash. So my guess here would be that it's just literally money, not a deal. Sometimes it's constructed as an investment. When we saw Weblogs Inc., they wanted us to pause a lot of what we're doing to do this deal. And so we negotiated, I think it was$500 ,000 in like free payments, so like$250 ,000,$125 ,000,$125 ,000 at each milestone that the deal hit.

36:47So if it took, when it hit the 60, 30 day, 60 day, 90 day or whatever it was constructed, they had to pay it. We hit the first milestone. We sent them an invoice. But what I told them was, hey, the breakup fee will be advertising on the Weblogs Inc. network. So it won't be for zero. And they were like, okay, fine. And I literally sent them the invoice. And the person in the deal group was like, are you serious? We're about to close. and i was like about to okay but it's the 30th day i made them pay it um and then i think like the president of the company was like uh jake out can we get a seven-day extension on that it's like literally this guy's about to make me a millionaire yeah and i gave them a seven-day extension but i knew that if i get a let i i knew that if i let the like mid-level deal guy get that it would have a bit of sign of weakness.

37:39I'm reading the Reuters article right now. I do not think it is an investment. I think Wiz keeps this money free and clear. It's just a payment able to Wiz if the deal falls through. Amazing. I ran the math though, Jason, just for fun. You had me do IRR calculations using ChatGPT a while back, and now it's become a habit of mine. $32 billion all-cash deal. Very simple. If you go back in time to just the Series E, this was raised at a $12 billion post-money valuation. last May, the investors who put money into that round had an IRR of 224%. And if you go all the way back to the series B, that was in March of 21, 1.7 billion post at a$32 billion exit, 108 % IRR over a four-year period.

38:24Wow. Which basically means you doubled your money every year. That's insane. Right, 100 % return every year. Nice. That's a good deal. It's the power law. We had Sebastian from the book, The Power Law on this program. You can Every one of these outliers you have as an investor, you have 99. And this actually probably represents for most investors, one in a thousand. This is like a real extreme case. Whoever did the seed round, those are the people who I want to calculate. They probably got a thousand X return and then their IRR was bonkers. Okay, let's keep moving through the docket. Congratulations to them.

39:00And hopefully this is the start of a vibrant M &A market for the United States, which will keep us competitive because all that money goes back to LPs. Those LPs are Harvard, Yale, the Ford Foundation, CalPERS, people's retirement account, and on the margin, some other country sovereign wealth funds, perhaps, and on the margins, high net worth individuals. But the bulk of that money, probably 80 % of it, are the institutions like the Ford Foundation, like the Rockefeller, this, this, that, the other one, CalPERS, people's retirement. That money actually goes in large part to noble causes. and you can look up what the Ford Foundation does.

39:39You can look up what Memorial Sloan Kettering does. Like MSK, they're a major LP in a lot of these funds. So that's going to go to cancer research. I know that maybe I sound like corny. It's actually the truth. You can look it up. 80 % of the LPs in these funds are noble nonprofits with endowments. Maybe you don't like some of them, but it's going to go to good things. And that's why you want to have what we call monetary velocity, right? You want the money to be flowing because when the money flows, you have to pay tax on it. So if money just sits, it just stagnates. People take loans against it.

40:14They don't pay taxes. Here, this will be distributions. When you get these distributions, now the nonprofits don't have to pay. So that's the big secret because they're a nonprofit, right? Harvard is a nonprofit. But all the other people, the GPs, the employees, the LPs, the LPs who are not nonprofits, they're all going to pay taxes on this. that's a great thing for society. So we want to see M &A. It's in everybody's best interest to see a lot of M &A. The only exception being if companies corner a market and then raise prices. Right. I dare you to find me an example of that in modern history.

40:52It doesn't happen anymore. Well, there are some examples of that, but I think a good point here is that - Give me one. Give me one in modern history. I put those conditions on it because in the age of technology, Lon, the idea that you can corner a market is very, very hard. The last time this happened when people had a market cornered would be like the telcos, right? Baby bells, that got broken up. We really haven't seen a market get cornered. You might say e-commerce, right? Like Amazon. If you look at Amazon as a percentage of commerce in the United States, it is low single digits of overall.

41:28If you look at e-commerce it's like medium double digits it's not like you would think oh amazon ran away with it people still order from you know walmart and target and they shop in specific vendors and they use shopify stores so give me but one anybody in the comments and you know uh after we publish this or anybody in the chat rooms while we're recording this live tell me the last time m &a caused a market to get cornered anyone feel free lawn i just say it hasn't happened in modern history that's the crazy thing and then give me an example of price time you can all go into chat and ask they put on the the total spot like this like i don't have a great immediate answer but i mean come on company like like what about well yeah what about all like the supermarkets like there's only like two or three supermarket companies and like they they can set whatever prices they want there's definitely price rigging going on in those companies?

42:25Or what about beer? Like big Anheuser-Busch and InBev and all those companies buy up all the crap breweries. Okay. So you make up a great point. You make up a great point here, which is, does price gouging occur? Price gouging can occur at times in markets. What we're talking about here is price gouging caused by M &A activity. Now in the beer market, maybe that's one. When I ask this question to people who are in the industry, right, and you say, hey, who has done price gouging after doing an M &A deal, right? They did M &A in order to raise prices. Nobody can give me a modern day example. I have two ideas, Jason.

43:06Do you want me to throw them out just for discussion? Yeah, sure, sure, sure, sure. Okay, so I was just thinking about how in geographic terms, broadband access is often controlled by one company and people therefore don't have the ability to kind of price up. Now, you can argue that Starlink is changing that and fair enough. But historically, you know, when I was in San Francisco, I think I had to get Comcast. I think that was the way it was set up. And so that was kind of crappy. I had to just take the price that was offered to me. Now, I know there's nuance to that. And then I would say in the realm of social media advertising, I think probably Facebook buying instagram did lead to some consolidation and therefore probably some price perfect let's on those two so when you look at advertising there is a duopoly uh google and meta that duopoly for online advertising has gotten most of the gains historically and that's a that's a perfect example meta um consolidated uh uh instagram and google consolidated youtube and double click if you look at those, they don't have pricing power because they're auctions, basically.

44:11So because they're auctions, they actually have not been able to price fix. So that would be their defense to it. So then you have to ask yourself, what percentage do they each have combined of online advertising? They're in the 80 % range. And you'll probably look it up. But that's a duopoly. So because there's two of them and then a long tail for the other 20 % or so, and my statistics might be a couple of years old here, you have new entrants come in. Amazon, as we've talked about here, Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, all becoming places where people do advertising. So let's put a pit in this for now.

44:47It's an interesting discussion because what I'd like to do is always deal in facts here and question our gut reaction to things. And I think this is, Lon, you're instinctual, aren't they doing this still? I think that the important part is to actually deal in the facts there. Have any of the recent mergers that we've had resulted in market dominance? That resulted in price gouging, right? That's what we need to know. And when did those occur? Because we are living in a belief system that these big companies are merging and then they're raising prices, but technology is deflationary. What typically happens when these things merge is you lower prices and you increased volume.

45:33Amazon is such an amazing deal, right? And even in travel, when they consolidated all these travel vendors, the response to that was United and different hotel chains building really great apps and going direct and then Airbnb and VRBO challenging them. The disruptive nature of markets now because of technology makes it very hard to lock in a monopoly. Abuse the power. Abuse the power. The one pin I'd like to put in it in terms of Google Whiz is that in this particular case, it's hard to make the argument that there are real antitrust concerns because Google's only in third place among the big cloud providers.

46:15They're behind Microsoft. They're behind Amazon. This is helping them to be competitive, not helping them to corner a market. They don't control this market. Right. And you just pointed out, if you look at cloud computing, there are four major players, actually, because Oracle is a major player now. So you have four major players. None of them have over 30 or 40. I think the lead is probably 35 percent for AWS or 40, somewhere in that range. So proving my point yet again, we have yet to see a consolidation getting to, and consolidation really takes getting to 80, 90 % of a market in order to have the pricing power to distort the market and price gouge.

46:57So let's, as a challenge to the audience and to you two, find me the worst example of price gouging that M &A enabled, because that's what we're talking about here. It has to be price gouging enabled by M &A. Can I, I want to make a, I'm not going to make this point. I'm going to quote the current DOJ because we're talking about the Department of Justice approving the whiz deal. Here is from the HPE Juniper suit from January of this year. This is a Trump administration DOJ argument against a corporate combination from the perspective of competition and prices. And I bring it up because they're not discussing price gouging, but discussing a cessation of competitive discounting.

47:39And it's slightly different, but roll with me here. Here's what the government said. Frontline sales executives regularly seek deep discounts to win or retain business. HPE contemplated price reductions for software and hardware products to avoid being undercut. Defendants merger, if consummated, would eliminate head-to-head competition that has lowered prices and would decrease pressure on HPE to discount and innovate. So that is the government's take on what these deals can do to be anti-competitive. Not taking a position on that. That's the current logic from the administration. I asked ChatGPT.

48:09Do you want to hear what ChatGPT thinks? i mean sure they named a bunch of different pharmaceutical companies martin shkreli's turing pharmaceuticals raising the price of daraprim after a merger uh the epipen price hike in 2007 valent pharmaceuticals uh acquired many smaller drug companies and then raised prices by over 3 000 botox ab ab v required allergan and a 63 billion hold on a second though aren't those because they have a patent, not because... So because of patents, they don't actually have a competitor. So that's different. Well, they're buying their competitors. Like Botox, the company that makes Botox bought the company that makes competitor Humira and then raised prices.

48:56Okay, that would be a legit one. And then they also mentioned AT &T and Time Warner. AT &T acquired Time Warner for$85 billion. Shortly after the merger, direct tv and hbo subscription prices increases as did cable bundle fees finally they also mention ticketmaster and live nation as our commenters all right here we go that's valid spicy today getting spicy all that's valid but i don't think actually undercuts the point that i think matters most which is that technology in general is deflationary we're referring in those cases mostly to things that are predicated on ip which is a little bit different but patented okay we only have time for one more thing and i'm gonna throw this i'm gonna throw this in a bone here today i'm gonna throw them okay what are my choices what are my choices let's talk about xrp oh yeah this is an interesting one um i have been very um uh you know i basically said like the xrp is such a centralized company you know the howey test is pretty clear on this one we can pull up the four parts of the howey test you know you if you allow xrp to uh operate as like something other than a security and they don't have to follow securities law, then, well, anybody can go and launch a token for their company.

50:07And why would you actually do anything else? So let's start with explaining to the audience what's happened. All right. So the news here is that after a four year period, the SEC, according to Ripple Labs, is dropping their suit against the company and some of its executives. This was a bombshell suit when it landed and Ripple and the XRP team have been very much opposed to it. They've called it lawfare, unfair use of the government power to essentially suppress the crypto market. Jason, the context here more recently is that we've seen the SEC drop a number of suits against companies like Coinbase, etc.

50:44So this is part and parcel of a cessation of regulatory hostility towards players in the crypto space. The difference between this suit and criticism of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, etc. is the point of centralization. The history of XRP Ledger or XRPL and Ripple is a little complicated, but essentially Ripple got a whole lot of the tokens that are on the XRP blockchain. And therefore, Jason, you've argued that it's centrally controlled and therefore should be considered a security. Now it is not. And my read of this, plain text, is that now, Katie, bar the door, everyone can launch a token, centrally controlled or not.

51:21If it's not a security, then why wouldn't you go play? just because they dropped the case doesn't mean that they didn't break securities law so i just okay i want to put that out there to begin they did uh you know donate five million dollars to trump's inauguration campaign i believe that was the largest single donation was xrp's donation and then suddenly here we go the case is dropped so that looks terrible it has the appearance of impropriety that they paid to get this shut down. But what people have to understand is SEC raised a billion dollars selling XRP. That money went to the company.

52:00The company then claims to have all this technology. It is an incorporated company, but they couldn't. The first part of the case they lost was that the company was not found guilty in the first case, and this is slightly technical, of an exchange trading the XRP. Because what they found was you couldn't tie an exchange, let's say Coinbase, and the three of us trading XRP between each other. Well, XRP was not selling it to us, right? It was just us selling them between us. So how could they be guilty of anything? So that would be like me starting a company. Hey, this company's called Airbnb. It's got a billion shares or a dollar each.

52:41And I put that out into the world and I make money selling it the first time and then you all start trading it back and forth. I made it the first time when I sold it because it was centralized and you all then started trading it back and forth because you saw value in it and you implied some value to it. So this case proves perfectly why crypto is slightly different than securities. The securities that you would own in a company would be in a cap table somewhere, and it would be recorded, and the transactions would have to be approved. So it would be more centralized. But this was centralized in itself.

53:21And what they found was they did actually sell it. The thing that they were still going, the part that's been dropped is the second piece, which is they were selling to accredited investors without filing with the SEC. So when you issue shares to a company, you have to tell the SEC. That's how we keep people from launching companies without any regulations. So they weren't able to prove that consumers bought this stuff, but they did have a case. And that's the piece that got dropped as the second piece. Now, XRP is coming out or Ripple's coming out the company and saying like, hey, we've been proven correct.

54:00Not exactly. But what this does mean is, I guess I could launch tomorrow a billion J coins and say, I'm going to go invest in startups. And this coin is going to be used by startups to trade some value in the world. I take the billion dollars and I don't know what I can do with it. But I tweeted to Saks today, you know, David Saks 47 in his official capacity. What are the rules of the road here? because just because this case is off doesn't mean that it's legal for startups to go do that. And that's the gray area we're in now. It was too cold when Gensler was running this. He wouldn't give people a path to do what I've described.

54:43And now they're not giving a path to making it legal so it's maybe too hot. So is everybody going to just launch a crypto offering tomorrow now that this has been dropped. What's amazing, Jason, is that we've done this before. Do you recall the 2017 ICO boom? I do. That was a wild time period. That was insane. A lot of people lost money. A lot of people got in trouble with the SEC. So this is now becoming the Wild West. I think they got to get their hands around this. The same thing happened with the Trump coin, which was obviously a grift. And then the SEC responded to that and they made rules around it.

55:21Specifically. Specifically saying like, I don't like the way they're doing this. This is too hot. Gensler was too cold. They need to get ahead of this, is my belief. I'm not in the administration. My friend is the crypto czar. He's not the head of the SEC. There's a new head of the SEC. Why not put these projects into a new class? And this is what I suspect, and I don't have inside information, that the SEC and SACS, SACS will advise and the SEC and other people will execute, which is how about a sandbox for crypto? And the sandbox is you can be of a certain size. You can sell to certain people.

55:59You have to know your customer. You have to have insurance. You have to have a board. You have to have some oversight. And you can sell up to 10 million coins with$10 million in insurance for lawsuits, whatever losses. And you have to have a board and you have to have accounting. In other words, some version of securities law applied to crypto, but not so much that you can't do creative things like burn tokens and use them for utility or trade them very quickly, etc. I really like the idea of an insurance version, like making companies up front, put money aside in case they rug pull people and need to pay off lawsuits.

56:38Like that would go a long way towards making it less appealing to rug pull people. Because right now it's just like, if you could figure out how to do it, there's no downside. Maybe you have to list on the blockchain who each beneficial owner is. Each of those beneficial owners has to have their name or their company associated with it. And the director of that company. Because when you buy into, say, like Trump coin or Malay coin, do you know who those insiders are? I think the Trump coin actually, to their credit, I hate to give too much credit here because I do think it was like a horrible, terrible grift that took advantage of the goodwill of the crypto community and the goodwill of his constituents.

57:19But they did put in it that this has no monetary value, that there are insiders, like literally their terms of service was written to be like, you can't even set in there, you can't join a class action suit. Or if you do join a class action suit, you have to let us know within the first 30 days. they really wrote a bulletproof proof terms of service there, which I'll give them some credit for. Making people walk through that and sign off on each piece in plain English. Like, you know, you ever sign a document for buying a home or buying a car, you have to initial like 30 different things. There's a reason why they have you initial those and they write them in plain English.

57:54It's because they know that you could get screwed. Yeah. So what I pulled up here, this is the kind of co-economics, if you will, from the Trump coin. Now, what this document says is terrifying because it's so centrally controlled, but at least they broke it down for you. So you know how you're getting screwed. It's like if Jason wanted to loan me a hundred bucks and he said, sign here, it's 10 ,000 % interest per minute. And I signed it, not a great deal, but at least I was informed of what I was getting into. They can get away with this on Trump coin that you couldn't with other crypto projects because other crypto projects, people are actually reading the terms.

58:28They're investing in the coin. In this one, it's Trump fans. They just love Trump and they want to support Trump. They're not really into the coin economics. And so they're probably skipping a lot of which means like, again, and I hate to give too much credit here, but using the analogy of it's a it's a it's a what is what is Sacks call it? It's like a collective, a collective coin. It does have a flavor of that to certain individuals. Certain individuals are buying it to support him and as memorabilia. Other ones are buying it because they want to gamble. Other people are buying it because they're probably confused and think it's kind of like Bitcoin.

59:07So there's, I think there's different groups of suckers at this poker table, just like at a regular poker table. You might have pros, you might have criminals colluding, you might have semi-pros, and you might have drunk people who don't know how to play. Or you might have drunk people who do know how to play, and then people who are playing poker for the first time and don't know if a flush or a straight is better. You got a lot of people at the table. They got to clarify this. Just follow my advice, folks. Have a very simple rule set for crypto projects and keep them under a certain size offering.

59:39Maybe you can offer 10 million for the first year, 25 million the next year, 100 million the next year. So it's kind of staged. What that would do is the good actors would be like, yeah, that's great. I don't need to like make some quick hit and run. And I don't mind being incorporated. I don't mind having these rules. and then you put on shore the good actors and you push offshore the bad actors. Then you have a license, like a driver's license, not a license like a brokerage license, but it's a driver's license or a haircutting license where you can say, hey, this is an offshore account. Are you sure you want to buy something in the BVI or in Venezuela?

1:00:14You think that's a good idea to buy the North Korean-based coin? Okay. Or do you think you should buy the US-based ones that are in this area? It's like a little clippy that pops up. Like, are you sure you want to buy this meme coin? Yes. All right. If you need to clip it. That's my thought on it. Of course, Brad Garlinghouse is going out. Chris Larson's the other guy. And Brad Garlinghouse is dunking on everybody and saying like, oh my God, we told you it's lawfare, pandering to Trump because Trump experienced lawfare. It's going to be their claim. We were just like that. No, I think what you did was you skirted securities law.

1:00:47And at the same time, yeah, the system wasn't clear. but man, if you can let people sell a billion dollars in a centralized token and there's no ramifications, this could cause chaos in markets, folks. So here's the thing though, and I know we got to wrap it. I'll just say this. Crypto folks have been saying, less regulation, make US the crypto capital of the world. We're being held back. We're being suppressed. Okay, here is a playing field so open that even our resident venture capitalists are saying, hey, maybe we need a couple of rules here. So this should be the absolute blank slate that should allow for a cambrane explosion of awesome crypto projects that will change my life.

1:01:27I'm ready. Show me. There have been none. I mean, tell me who's using XRP. Brad Garlinghouse. This is always so. On one level, crypto is just like the world's favorite Ponzi scheme of the moment. I'm not saying it's only useful for that, but it does, a lot of these coins end up feeling like it's just about who gets, who's the last in the musical chairs, who gets left without a chair. Yeah, the greater fool theory. All right, everybody, it's been another amazing, cantankerous, contentious episode. Let's see if we maybe leave a little spice in Lon in the post edit, but clean it up a little bit so people can follow it.

1:02:07Yeah, I think it's pretty good to have a little spicy spice in there. A little sweet, a little spicy. I don't know what that dish is, but yeah. I think General Tso's is like sweet, and then they sometimes put chili peppers in it. That's always a good name. Someone said on YouTube that I'm now the show's mom. Oh, coming in trying to - Keeping the siblings separate, yeah. All right, he's at Lon's, at Alex, at Jason. Go ahead and just tell us your opinion. And let's on Friday, let's talk on Friday, just see if we can find some specific examples of an M &A transaction resulting in abuse in terms of pricing and consumers being harmed.

1:02:44So M &A leading to consumer harm, like actual case of that. I want to just go through it in tech specifically and media. We know obviously that, yeah, sometimes the drug companies do crazy stuff. OK, we'll see you all next time. Bye bye.