WEBVTT - Starlink in Ukraine and Meta's FTC Troubles

0:00:02.480 --> 0:00:05.800
<v Speaker 1>From the heart of where innovation, money and power collive

0:00:06.600 --> 0:00:11.119
<v Speaker 1>in Silicon Valley and beyond. This is Bloomberg Technology with

0:00:11.200 --> 0:00:27.360
<v Speaker 1>Emily jay My, Memily Tang in San Francisco, and this

0:00:27.400 --> 0:00:30.080
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg Technology. Coming up in the next hour, Starlink

0:00:30.360 --> 0:00:35.200
<v Speaker 1>in focus after Elon Musk says SpaceX can't fund satellites

0:00:35.200 --> 0:00:39.640
<v Speaker 1>in Ukraine indefinitely. How could it impact the war? Will

0:00:39.680 --> 0:00:43.720
<v Speaker 1>discuss plus new filing show Elon Musk is under federal

0:00:43.760 --> 0:00:47.280
<v Speaker 1>investigation over his deal with Twitter or potential deal. We

0:00:47.320 --> 0:00:49.080
<v Speaker 1>should say, we'll talk about all this and what it

0:00:49.080 --> 0:00:51.519
<v Speaker 1>means for the company's future with Twitter founding member and

0:00:51.560 --> 0:00:57.040
<v Speaker 1>a former board member, Jason Goldman, and pure speculation that

0:00:57.160 --> 0:01:00.280
<v Speaker 1>is what Meta is calling the FTCs antitrust concerns over

0:01:00.320 --> 0:01:04.080
<v Speaker 1>a deal to buy the VR fitness company within unlimited

0:01:04.319 --> 0:01:07.920
<v Speaker 1>What hurdle Zuckerberg will face trying to dismiss the case

0:01:08.480 --> 0:01:10.919
<v Speaker 1>this hour, all of that in a moment, But first

0:01:11.000 --> 0:01:13.279
<v Speaker 1>it was a brutal end of the week for markets.

0:01:13.280 --> 0:01:16.959
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna get the latest now with Bloomberg's Emily Graffito. Emily,

0:01:17.120 --> 0:01:19.760
<v Speaker 1>what a week? And what a Friday? Hi, Emily, what

0:01:19.880 --> 0:01:22.160
<v Speaker 1>a week? I mean? Stocks pretty much ending in the red.

0:01:22.200 --> 0:01:24.640
<v Speaker 1>To finish a volatile week. We saw the SMP five

0:01:24.720 --> 0:01:28.160
<v Speaker 1>hundred pretty much falling all day, finishing down about two

0:01:28.240 --> 0:01:31.360
<v Speaker 1>point four percent. This is after that one year um

0:01:31.360 --> 0:01:35.040
<v Speaker 1>you Michigan inflation expectations survey rose for the first time

0:01:35.240 --> 0:01:38.920
<v Speaker 1>in seven months. We saw traders ramping up expectations for

0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:41.360
<v Speaker 1>how aggressive the federal reserve was going to be. That

0:01:41.560 --> 0:01:44.880
<v Speaker 1>US two year yield topping four point five percent for

0:01:44.920 --> 0:01:48.520
<v Speaker 1>the second day in a row. NASDAC one hundred underperforming

0:01:48.560 --> 0:01:52.960
<v Speaker 1>and really coming under pressure. In the technology spaces, those semiconductors,

0:01:53.120 --> 0:01:56.360
<v Speaker 1>the Philadelphia semi Conductor's indexed down about four point four

0:01:56.760 --> 0:01:59.720
<v Speaker 1>six percent, all about a lack of demand and again

0:01:59.760 --> 0:02:02.640
<v Speaker 1>can scerns of those rising rates. Taking a look at

0:02:02.640 --> 0:02:05.720
<v Speaker 1>some of the individual movers in the SMP five hundred

0:02:05.720 --> 0:02:08.680
<v Speaker 1>in the stock market, Apple down about three point two

0:02:08.680 --> 0:02:12.120
<v Speaker 1>percent today. It was actually the biggest contributor to the

0:02:12.280 --> 0:02:16.679
<v Speaker 1>SMP five hundreds declined today. Twitter, though rare stand out here,

0:02:16.800 --> 0:02:19.520
<v Speaker 1>up just a little bit about point two percent to

0:02:19.639 --> 0:02:22.960
<v Speaker 1>finish the day. This is after it's reversing course after

0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:27.000
<v Speaker 1>it fell yesterday on news that Twitter sawt documents last

0:02:27.040 --> 0:02:31.320
<v Speaker 1>week related to a federal investigation into that Musk deal.

0:02:31.400 --> 0:02:33.960
<v Speaker 1>And speaking of Elon Musk, let's take a look at

0:02:34.000 --> 0:02:39.280
<v Speaker 1>Twitter stock falling about seven percent seven point seven percent today.

0:02:39.320 --> 0:02:45.520
<v Speaker 1>It actually closed today fifty percent below it's November closing high.

0:02:45.800 --> 0:02:48.359
<v Speaker 1>The stock has just been absolutely crushed me one year

0:02:48.360 --> 0:02:52.200
<v Speaker 1>down about twenty percent. However, I looked back to how

0:02:52.240 --> 0:02:55.600
<v Speaker 1>it performs since the end of twenty nineteen, it's still

0:02:55.720 --> 0:02:59.240
<v Speaker 1>up about six hundred thirty percent. It's easy to forget

0:02:59.280 --> 0:03:01.840
<v Speaker 1>about that that Tesla has had when we look at

0:03:01.880 --> 0:03:04.840
<v Speaker 1>these short term movements, but overall, Tesla getting crushed with

0:03:04.840 --> 0:03:08.560
<v Speaker 1>the rest of the stock market. Emily Good good point, Emily,

0:03:08.760 --> 0:03:12.760
<v Speaker 1>thank you for that update, Emily Graffeo. Meantime, the Pentagon

0:03:12.800 --> 0:03:15.760
<v Speaker 1>says it is in touch with SpaceX in regards to

0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:19.800
<v Speaker 1>Starlink satellites in Ukraine that provide crucial broadband support in

0:03:19.800 --> 0:03:23.480
<v Speaker 1>the war against Russia. This following Elon Musk's threat to

0:03:23.560 --> 0:03:26.880
<v Speaker 1>cut off financial support for Starling terminals in the region.

0:03:27.080 --> 0:03:30.200
<v Speaker 1>He's putting pressure on other entities now to step in

0:03:30.360 --> 0:03:34.200
<v Speaker 1>and make up the shortfall after costing SpaceX at least

0:03:34.240 --> 0:03:37.880
<v Speaker 1>eighty million dollars. The Pentagon says it could turn two

0:03:37.920 --> 0:03:41.440
<v Speaker 1>options other than Starlink. This all following an earlier dispute

0:03:41.440 --> 0:03:46.040
<v Speaker 1>over public comments suggesting the government and Kiev seed territory

0:03:46.080 --> 0:03:49.200
<v Speaker 1>in exchange for peace with Russia. For more on this,

0:03:49.240 --> 0:03:51.200
<v Speaker 1>I want to bring in Bloomberg's at Ludlow as well

0:03:51.200 --> 0:03:54.560
<v Speaker 1>as Dr d J. Peterson, president of long Geoglobal Advisors,

0:03:54.560 --> 0:03:57.760
<v Speaker 1>which is advising business leaders and investors on short and

0:03:57.920 --> 0:04:01.120
<v Speaker 1>long term risks of the Russia. You crane war and

0:04:01.160 --> 0:04:03.480
<v Speaker 1>I want to start with you. What exactly did Elon

0:04:03.560 --> 0:04:06.200
<v Speaker 1>Musk say and why is he saying it right now? Yeah?

0:04:06.320 --> 0:04:11.119
<v Speaker 1>So in a tweet response, uh, he basically said that

0:04:11.160 --> 0:04:16.560
<v Speaker 1>he was following the advice of a Ukrainian diplomat Ukrainian

0:04:16.720 --> 0:04:19.800
<v Speaker 1>envoy who had used profane language which I won't repeat

0:04:19.800 --> 0:04:23.120
<v Speaker 1>on this program, but basically said Elon Musk should take

0:04:23.120 --> 0:04:27.159
<v Speaker 1>a hike for want of a better expression, and must

0:04:27.200 --> 0:04:30.080
<v Speaker 1>said in his tweet, we're just following his recommendation. That

0:04:30.160 --> 0:04:34.320
<v Speaker 1>led to a wide range of media coverage and suggestions

0:04:34.360 --> 0:04:38.760
<v Speaker 1>that actually Elon Musk might pull support either funding support

0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:42.400
<v Speaker 1>or literally operational support for Starlink in the country. And

0:04:42.440 --> 0:04:44.880
<v Speaker 1>we know, as you said, m that that the Pentagon

0:04:45.240 --> 0:04:48.839
<v Speaker 1>say As of Friday, they're engaged with SpaceX over the

0:04:48.880 --> 0:04:51.440
<v Speaker 1>broad issue of starlink and depends on saying that they'd

0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:54.000
<v Speaker 1>have other issues. But for SpaceX, this is very much

0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:57.480
<v Speaker 1>an issue of cost in terms of how starlink's operating

0:04:57.480 --> 0:05:02.560
<v Speaker 1>in that country. Did you how crucial is starlink to

0:05:03.200 --> 0:05:08.720
<v Speaker 1>Ukraine's defenses? Emily, I think it's central to their defenses.

0:05:08.800 --> 0:05:12.000
<v Speaker 1>If you think about first of all their ability to

0:05:12.000 --> 0:05:15.840
<v Speaker 1>wage war, you think about how much they have integrated

0:05:15.920 --> 0:05:21.760
<v Speaker 1>Western military gear into their operations. Well, the communications is

0:05:21.920 --> 0:05:24.680
<v Speaker 1>essential as well. And one of the things that Ukrainians

0:05:24.680 --> 0:05:28.800
<v Speaker 1>have done much better than the Russians is actually coordinate

0:05:29.320 --> 0:05:34.560
<v Speaker 1>their defense and offense across a very very long a

0:05:34.680 --> 0:05:41.080
<v Speaker 1>line of contact. And so this is essential, um for coordination,

0:05:41.400 --> 0:05:47.080
<v Speaker 1>it's essential for targeting and using the Western technology very well. Um,

0:05:47.120 --> 0:05:49.200
<v Speaker 1>if you think about a lot of this area, it's

0:05:49.320 --> 0:05:52.160
<v Speaker 1>very rural, it's spread out, their very great distances, so

0:05:52.240 --> 0:05:56.279
<v Speaker 1>traditional radios might not work. As we know, Um, the

0:05:56.320 --> 0:05:59.880
<v Speaker 1>Russians have knocked out so much infrastructure, So this is

0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:04.320
<v Speaker 1>crucial and it's it's actually a very important leveraging factor

0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:07.520
<v Speaker 1>of leveraging all this other assistance at the West is giving,

0:06:09.400 --> 0:06:11.960
<v Speaker 1>can you give us an idea dj how much these

0:06:12.000 --> 0:06:18.120
<v Speaker 1>satellites costs to manage and whether that resonates with what

0:06:18.160 --> 0:06:22.000
<v Speaker 1>Elon Musk has said here right that there's a lot

0:06:22.040 --> 0:06:24.600
<v Speaker 1>of just kind of debate around the numbers, and as

0:06:24.640 --> 0:06:27.880
<v Speaker 1>we saw with the Twitter deal, kind of playing loose

0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:30.200
<v Speaker 1>with numbers around what is real and what is not

0:06:30.320 --> 0:06:32.640
<v Speaker 1>real in the in the Twitter verse. So I think

0:06:32.960 --> 0:06:35.480
<v Speaker 1>we do have to take these numbers with the grain

0:06:35.520 --> 0:06:39.200
<v Speaker 1>of salt um. You know, generally speaking, if you look

0:06:39.240 --> 0:06:41.680
<v Speaker 1>at what has been deployed in the field already that

0:06:41.760 --> 0:06:44.400
<v Speaker 1>we know is about twelve thousand units, it is has

0:06:44.520 --> 0:06:48.920
<v Speaker 1>cost probably around eighty eight million UM two hundred millions.

0:06:48.920 --> 0:06:51.560
<v Speaker 1>So that number that that that that that he has

0:06:51.600 --> 0:06:54.760
<v Speaker 1>put out is not is not too bad. I mean

0:06:54.760 --> 0:06:57.120
<v Speaker 1>when you get to these issues around he's raised the

0:06:57.120 --> 0:07:00.760
<v Speaker 1>issue of just maintaining the satellite network and side or security. Well,

0:07:00.760 --> 0:07:03.479
<v Speaker 1>that's the cost of doing business as a big global firm.

0:07:03.680 --> 0:07:07.200
<v Speaker 1>So I'm a little bit less um, I'm a little

0:07:07.200 --> 0:07:10.160
<v Speaker 1>bit more skeptical of that. I think another thing we

0:07:10.200 --> 0:07:12.000
<v Speaker 1>need to pay attention to if you're looking at the

0:07:12.040 --> 0:07:15.880
<v Speaker 1>cost side is obviously the Ukrainians have asked for much

0:07:15.960 --> 0:07:18.960
<v Speaker 1>more in terms of these units on the ground, the

0:07:19.000 --> 0:07:21.720
<v Speaker 1>transmitter units, I mean, do they need them all when

0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:24.560
<v Speaker 1>they get them all? So that goes into say the

0:07:24.600 --> 0:07:29.520
<v Speaker 1>four hundred million dollar number that UM that UM SpaceX

0:07:29.560 --> 0:07:32.360
<v Speaker 1>has put out, So that's that's an ask, it's not

0:07:32.400 --> 0:07:35.400
<v Speaker 1>necessarily going to be delivered. And then finally I want

0:07:35.440 --> 0:07:39.480
<v Speaker 1>to add that we've talked about a commitment about over

0:07:39.560 --> 0:07:43.800
<v Speaker 1>a year, and frankly, from my perspective, long Global Advisors

0:07:43.800 --> 0:07:46.280
<v Speaker 1>take is that this war is not gonna last another year.

0:07:46.720 --> 0:07:49.920
<v Speaker 1>Russia has only months to fight, so it's not clear

0:07:50.000 --> 0:07:53.040
<v Speaker 1>really how at this point. Well, they need all these

0:07:53.440 --> 0:07:57.280
<v Speaker 1>all the satellite comms for for an entire year, so

0:07:57.320 --> 0:07:59.920
<v Speaker 1>it needs to be played out. But officials that I've

0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:02.120
<v Speaker 1>talked to in the US government say it's not a

0:08:02.160 --> 0:08:05.520
<v Speaker 1>reasonable ask, and it's not an unreasonable left not only

0:08:05.520 --> 0:08:08.480
<v Speaker 1>for the US but also for all of our allies

0:08:08.520 --> 0:08:11.840
<v Speaker 1>that are supporting so combined UM, I think there's a

0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:16.080
<v Speaker 1>lot of countries that would be willing to contribute. Meantime,

0:08:16.480 --> 0:08:21.400
<v Speaker 1>there's a report that Elon Musk spoke to Russian President

0:08:21.480 --> 0:08:26.000
<v Speaker 1>Vladimir Putin before he made those public tweets public comments

0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:32.080
<v Speaker 1>that public Twitter Bowl poll suggesting how Ukraine could seek

0:08:32.200 --> 0:08:36.160
<v Speaker 1>peace with Russia, of course widely criticized. Elon Musk is

0:08:36.200 --> 0:08:38.800
<v Speaker 1>denying that that he spoke to Putin. What do we

0:08:38.840 --> 0:08:42.040
<v Speaker 1>know about this? Yeah, and categorically Elon Musk has denied

0:08:42.120 --> 0:08:45.760
<v Speaker 1>that he spoke directly to put In about Ukraine. So

0:08:45.960 --> 0:08:49.240
<v Speaker 1>Monday of this week, Ian Brema, who is the head

0:08:49.240 --> 0:08:53.439
<v Speaker 1>of Risk consultancy Group Eurasia, said that he spoke to

0:08:53.640 --> 0:08:57.000
<v Speaker 1>Musque about two weeks ago. He hadn't been planning on

0:08:57.120 --> 0:09:01.400
<v Speaker 1>revealing what was in that conversation, but decided to in

0:09:01.520 --> 0:09:05.400
<v Speaker 1>his regular newsletter after he saw Musk's own comments on

0:09:05.400 --> 0:09:08.880
<v Speaker 1>Twitter about Ukraine, and he said that Musk had told him.

0:09:09.040 --> 0:09:12.520
<v Speaker 1>Musk had told Maramma that he had spoken to Putin

0:09:12.679 --> 0:09:17.160
<v Speaker 1>about the issue of Ukraine, you know, which was controversial.

0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:20.800
<v Speaker 1>Um so must denied it that. Musk went further to

0:09:20.880 --> 0:09:24.080
<v Speaker 1>say that he hadn't spoken to Putin for about eighteen months,

0:09:24.440 --> 0:09:28.199
<v Speaker 1>which you know essentially predates the war the current conflicts

0:09:28.280 --> 0:09:34.240
<v Speaker 1>in Ukraine. Did you why imagine Musk would present this

0:09:34.320 --> 0:09:37.760
<v Speaker 1>starlink issue to the public, given the controversy about whether

0:09:37.840 --> 0:09:40.280
<v Speaker 1>or not he spoke to Putin and when, and given

0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:45.800
<v Speaker 1>the controversy over his Twitter poll in general. Emily, that's

0:09:45.800 --> 0:09:49.280
<v Speaker 1>a great question, and frankly I find a dumbfounding. Um

0:09:49.679 --> 0:09:54.760
<v Speaker 1>really Um. Musk got into a lot of trouble um

0:09:54.800 --> 0:09:58.839
<v Speaker 1>politically obviously as as as as as well as reputationally

0:09:58.920 --> 0:10:02.320
<v Speaker 1>by making uh this statement about Russia. He got a

0:10:02.400 --> 0:10:07.040
<v Speaker 1>lot of favorable press in Russia. Um. Not a good thing.

0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:10.440
<v Speaker 1>I also think the timing is very bad because it's

0:10:10.559 --> 0:10:14.320
<v Speaker 1>on the heels of days of massive Russian attacks on

0:10:14.480 --> 0:10:19.160
<v Speaker 1>Ukrainian infrastructure. So is he It looks like he's you know,

0:10:19.240 --> 0:10:22.920
<v Speaker 1>he's trying to pick play up a situation where Ukraine's

0:10:22.920 --> 0:10:25.719
<v Speaker 1>in a bind um and that's not good either. There

0:10:25.760 --> 0:10:28.160
<v Speaker 1>is a deal to be had here. I think the

0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:30.920
<v Speaker 1>Allies are more than willing given all that we've spent.

0:10:31.080 --> 0:10:35.720
<v Speaker 1>Four million UM dollars is actually not that much. So

0:10:35.800 --> 0:10:38.160
<v Speaker 1>there is a deal to be had here. But he's

0:10:38.240 --> 0:10:41.480
<v Speaker 1>not doing He should not be presenting himself as a

0:10:41.480 --> 0:10:44.040
<v Speaker 1>global states and as not his strength, and he is

0:10:44.080 --> 0:10:50.280
<v Speaker 1>clearly screwing up on this repeatedly. All right, not mincing

0:10:50.320 --> 0:10:54.880
<v Speaker 1>words there. Dr D J. Peterson, long View Global Advisors President,

0:10:54.920 --> 0:10:57.880
<v Speaker 1>along with our own ad Ludlow, we're gonna have a

0:10:57.880 --> 0:11:00.840
<v Speaker 1>little bit more on the musk Twitter saga later this hour.

0:11:02.120 --> 0:11:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Here's something else we're following. Instacart slashing its valuation for

0:11:05.679 --> 0:11:08.360
<v Speaker 1>the third time. The new valuation of about thirteen billion

0:11:08.400 --> 0:11:11.920
<v Speaker 1>dollars was announced internally this week. According to sources, it

0:11:12.040 --> 0:11:16.000
<v Speaker 1>was valued at most thirty nine billion dollars back in March,

0:11:17.520 --> 0:11:22.000
<v Speaker 1>instat Carts executives reiterated the company still intends to go public,

0:11:22.120 --> 0:11:35.800
<v Speaker 1>but is waiting for market conditions to improve. Meta is

0:11:35.840 --> 0:11:38.840
<v Speaker 1>pushing back against the FTC's attempt to block its acquisition

0:11:38.920 --> 0:11:42.560
<v Speaker 1>of the virtual reality app within Unlimited Meta, arguing the

0:11:42.600 --> 0:11:45.680
<v Speaker 1>FTC hasn't laid out the elements to show the deal

0:11:45.679 --> 0:11:51.680
<v Speaker 1>announced in October would actually hurt potential competition in VR fitness.

0:11:52.000 --> 0:11:55.760
<v Speaker 1>Earlier this week, Mark Zuckerberg advertised the metaverse as the

0:11:55.800 --> 0:11:59.720
<v Speaker 1>future of work, gaming and entertainment. Here to discuss Bloomberg's

0:11:59.760 --> 0:12:04.040
<v Speaker 1>alec sparanka, So what precedent, Alex is this feud between

0:12:04.520 --> 0:12:08.680
<v Speaker 1>Meta and the FTC setting. Yeah, so this is actually

0:12:08.880 --> 0:12:12.400
<v Speaker 1>um a move that is under the umbrella of FTC

0:12:12.720 --> 0:12:15.680
<v Speaker 1>chair Lena Cohn. She's taking a much more aggressive stance

0:12:15.760 --> 0:12:19.439
<v Speaker 1>against big tech and this suit to block the acquisition

0:12:19.440 --> 0:12:22.760
<v Speaker 1>of within this virtual reality fitness company is one of

0:12:22.800 --> 0:12:25.320
<v Speaker 1>those kind of big swings she seems to be taking now.

0:12:25.520 --> 0:12:29.320
<v Speaker 1>The latest drama Emily Um last week the FTC actually

0:12:29.600 --> 0:12:33.880
<v Speaker 1>narrowed its argument to block the deal, uh, basically only

0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:37.840
<v Speaker 1>leaning into this idea that the acquisition would kill potential

0:12:37.920 --> 0:12:41.720
<v Speaker 1>competition in a future market. They killed the argument that

0:12:41.800 --> 0:12:45.160
<v Speaker 1>the acquisition would consolidate power under Meta with its feat

0:12:45.160 --> 0:12:48.080
<v Speaker 1>Saber app. In response to that, Meta is coming out

0:12:48.160 --> 0:12:50.720
<v Speaker 1>this week and basically saying, Hey, if this is the

0:12:50.800 --> 0:12:53.800
<v Speaker 1>argument you're making, we don't think you have enough here

0:12:54.160 --> 0:12:56.440
<v Speaker 1>um to actually block this deal, and they're asking the

0:12:56.520 --> 0:12:59.680
<v Speaker 1>judge to dismiss it. In terms of what happens next, Emily,

0:12:59.760 --> 0:13:02.640
<v Speaker 1>the judge can rule on this and have some hearings

0:13:02.760 --> 0:13:07.160
<v Speaker 1>or uh, the hearings on the injunction could actually still

0:13:07.200 --> 0:13:09.600
<v Speaker 1>go forward in December and the judge make a decision

0:13:09.640 --> 0:13:12.760
<v Speaker 1>after that. But either way, Emily, folks who watched the

0:13:13.000 --> 0:13:17.360
<v Speaker 1>FTC and it's anti trust Um actions and Meta and

0:13:17.400 --> 0:13:20.000
<v Speaker 1>the metaverse be paying attention to this at least through

0:13:20.040 --> 0:13:23.560
<v Speaker 1>the end of the year. Why is Meta so keen

0:13:23.640 --> 0:13:27.760
<v Speaker 1>to buy a virtual fitness company? Yeah, and and I

0:13:27.800 --> 0:13:30.240
<v Speaker 1>think an illustration of that, Emily, we saw it firsthand,

0:13:30.280 --> 0:13:33.000
<v Speaker 1>if you were like me with an oculust dropped your face.

0:13:33.080 --> 0:13:37.760
<v Speaker 1>This week, Meta had their Connect product conference on Tuesday,

0:13:38.120 --> 0:13:40.880
<v Speaker 1>and they showed off basically all of the things they're

0:13:40.880 --> 0:13:44.280
<v Speaker 1>bringing to the metaverse right now. Uh, Meta's argument to

0:13:44.320 --> 0:13:48.160
<v Speaker 1>get folks living in this virtuality world, it's really dependent

0:13:48.200 --> 0:13:51.400
<v Speaker 1>on what you can do there. They talked about video games,

0:13:51.480 --> 0:13:54.480
<v Speaker 1>they talked about a lot of new partners, but this

0:13:54.640 --> 0:13:59.320
<v Speaker 1>fitness idea that they spent a number of minutes talking

0:13:59.360 --> 0:14:02.240
<v Speaker 1>about it on Tuesday. Fitness is one of the things

0:14:02.320 --> 0:14:04.599
<v Speaker 1>that they said their users come in every month for

0:14:05.160 --> 0:14:08.480
<v Speaker 1>and within game Supernatural is one of these fitness apps

0:14:08.480 --> 0:14:11.120
<v Speaker 1>where you can have the controllers in your hand, you

0:14:11.160 --> 0:14:13.079
<v Speaker 1>can have the oculus on your face, and you can

0:14:13.120 --> 0:14:15.520
<v Speaker 1>move their body. So it's key to this kind of

0:14:15.720 --> 0:14:18.360
<v Speaker 1>argument for them of why people need to show up

0:14:18.600 --> 0:14:21.800
<v Speaker 1>to the virtual world that frankly, they're spending ten billion

0:14:21.840 --> 0:14:26.920
<v Speaker 1>dollars a year on now. Meta reports earnings in just

0:14:27.080 --> 0:14:30.800
<v Speaker 1>a few weeks. Obviously, the market cape cap has tanked

0:14:31.360 --> 0:14:35.400
<v Speaker 1>over the last year. It's of the revenue is going

0:14:35.400 --> 0:14:40.320
<v Speaker 1>to metaverse efforts. What are you watching for I mean,

0:14:40.480 --> 0:14:42.840
<v Speaker 1>I'm watching what investors think. As you said, the stock

0:14:42.920 --> 0:14:46.040
<v Speaker 1>is down more than six since January. UM. They are

0:14:46.080 --> 0:14:49.120
<v Speaker 1>also paying attention to what's paying the bills for Meta

0:14:49.360 --> 0:14:51.400
<v Speaker 1>you know Meta who used to be called Facebook, who

0:14:51.400 --> 0:14:54.520
<v Speaker 1>owns Instagram and all of the social media properties. It's

0:14:54.560 --> 0:14:59.520
<v Speaker 1>been a really tough year for marketing budgets. Advertisers haven't

0:14:59.520 --> 0:15:02.160
<v Speaker 1>been spending us much on ads, which is where all

0:15:02.200 --> 0:15:05.080
<v Speaker 1>of the social media properties make their money. So that's

0:15:05.080 --> 0:15:07.040
<v Speaker 1>what I'll be paying kind of the most attention to.

0:15:07.200 --> 0:15:10.440
<v Speaker 1>And frankly, Emily, that is probably the thing that's going

0:15:10.560 --> 0:15:14.280
<v Speaker 1>to determine how much patients investors continue to have with

0:15:14.360 --> 0:15:18.640
<v Speaker 1>Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO, and his aspirations to spend a

0:15:18.760 --> 0:15:22.120
<v Speaker 1>tenth of every dollar that comes in onto something that

0:15:22.200 --> 0:15:28.040
<v Speaker 1>you know hasn't really materialized, this metaverseus digital universe. Alright,

0:15:28.120 --> 0:15:32.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg's Alex Bringa, who covers social media for us, Thank

0:15:32.080 --> 0:15:36.160
<v Speaker 1>you for keeping us up to date. Okay, coming up,

0:15:36.360 --> 0:15:41.120
<v Speaker 1>network effects made Facebook, Uber, even Bitcoin a thing. What's

0:15:41.160 --> 0:15:43.080
<v Speaker 1>the next big thing? We're going to talk to an

0:15:43.120 --> 0:15:46.640
<v Speaker 1>investor focused on betting on network effects. Next. This is

0:15:46.640 --> 0:16:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Network effects impacts all of them. If you're gonna

0:16:14.840 --> 0:16:17.000
<v Speaker 1>be spending your life synergies building a startup, it's going

0:16:17.040 --> 0:16:21.000
<v Speaker 1>to take your effort. You're trying to defend the business

0:16:21.080 --> 0:16:23.360
<v Speaker 1>area that you've carved out, you might as well be

0:16:23.400 --> 0:16:26.120
<v Speaker 1>working on a business that has network effects, because then

0:16:26.160 --> 0:16:29.080
<v Speaker 1>you'll have a shot at going the distance and making

0:16:29.080 --> 0:16:31.800
<v Speaker 1>a real impact in the world and creating true value

0:16:32.080 --> 0:16:37.040
<v Speaker 1>for your employees, for your investors, and for your whole network.

0:16:38.000 --> 0:16:40.960
<v Speaker 1>Part of the teaser there for the venture firm NFX

0:16:41.080 --> 0:16:44.640
<v Speaker 1>is Master Class on Network Effects, a new program by

0:16:44.640 --> 0:16:48.080
<v Speaker 1>the venture capital firm to help startups build at scale

0:16:48.120 --> 0:16:49.920
<v Speaker 1>from more on. And I want to bring an NFX

0:16:49.960 --> 0:16:52.400
<v Speaker 1>founding partner, James Currier. James, it's kind of like a

0:16:52.520 --> 0:16:57.200
<v Speaker 1>VC master class if you will. What who founders get

0:16:57.240 --> 0:16:59.720
<v Speaker 1>access to with this and what are you hoping they

0:16:59.720 --> 0:17:02.840
<v Speaker 1>take a way? Yeah, So, as you know, Nfects is

0:17:02.880 --> 0:17:06.439
<v Speaker 1>a seed stage firm, uh, probably the largest seeds stage

0:17:06.480 --> 0:17:08.639
<v Speaker 1>only firm in the in the world. And you know,

0:17:08.680 --> 0:17:13.240
<v Speaker 1>our mission is to help ten million founders. We can

0:17:13.240 --> 0:17:16.000
<v Speaker 1>only invest in a few hundreds, but we can help

0:17:16.040 --> 0:17:21.159
<v Speaker 1>them with software and with content. And the content that

0:17:21.200 --> 0:17:25.080
<v Speaker 1>we've most recently released is this masterclass on network effects.

0:17:25.119 --> 0:17:26.960
<v Speaker 1>So the name of our firm is n Effects, which

0:17:26.960 --> 0:17:30.400
<v Speaker 1>stands for network effects. But you know, and we've done

0:17:30.400 --> 0:17:32.600
<v Speaker 1>blog posts, and we've done tweets, we've done other ways

0:17:32.600 --> 0:17:36.560
<v Speaker 1>of sort of educating folks about what we see with

0:17:36.640 --> 0:17:38.919
<v Speaker 1>network effects and how you use them to build the

0:17:38.960 --> 0:17:42.639
<v Speaker 1>giant companies of today in the future. Uh. This masterclass

0:17:42.760 --> 0:17:46.760
<v Speaker 1>is our next level product where we encapsulate about twenty

0:17:46.840 --> 0:17:50.359
<v Speaker 1>years of learning about network effects and then bring that

0:17:50.400 --> 0:17:54.400
<v Speaker 1>into three hours of video so that founders and teams

0:17:54.440 --> 0:17:57.560
<v Speaker 1>with the founders can really educate themselves quickly about this

0:17:57.640 --> 0:18:03.280
<v Speaker 1>most powerful tool in building giant, important tech companies. So

0:18:03.400 --> 0:18:06.840
<v Speaker 1>we mentioned companies like Facebook and Uber and you know,

0:18:06.880 --> 0:18:10.640
<v Speaker 1>even bitcoin um has been a success because of network

0:18:10.760 --> 0:18:13.040
<v Speaker 1>network effects. What are the startups that are being built

0:18:13.119 --> 0:18:16.760
<v Speaker 1>now based on network effects that you think are going

0:18:16.800 --> 0:18:20.119
<v Speaker 1>to be the next big thing. Yeah, So companies like

0:18:20.480 --> 0:18:24.719
<v Speaker 1>Mammoth Biosciences is building a platform network effect like an

0:18:24.720 --> 0:18:28.199
<v Speaker 1>operating system really like a Microsoft or an iOS but

0:18:28.240 --> 0:18:30.439
<v Speaker 1>they're doing it in the biotech space. They're based in

0:18:30.440 --> 0:18:33.000
<v Speaker 1>the Bay Area, recently raised it over a billion dollars

0:18:33.400 --> 0:18:35.320
<v Speaker 1>and we think, you know, Jennifer Doubt of the ERN

0:18:35.280 --> 0:18:38.080
<v Speaker 1>Nobel Prize winner is one of the founders. This company

0:18:38.119 --> 0:18:40.320
<v Speaker 1>is going to be a monster. Another company you might

0:18:40.320 --> 0:18:43.399
<v Speaker 1>have heard of recently is called Incredible Health, which is

0:18:43.480 --> 0:18:46.640
<v Speaker 1>run by him On Abuside uh in Rome, and they

0:18:46.880 --> 0:18:51.480
<v Speaker 1>have built a marketplace between nurse labor forces and then

0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:54.440
<v Speaker 1>the hospitals that hire them, so they install software in

0:18:54.480 --> 0:18:57.960
<v Speaker 1>the hospitals and then they bring the hiring to to

0:18:58.080 --> 0:19:00.320
<v Speaker 1>the hospital so they can find the nurse. Is that

0:19:00.359 --> 0:19:04.600
<v Speaker 1>they're understaffed on so many businesses, both in marketplaces platforms

0:19:04.640 --> 0:19:07.200
<v Speaker 1>as well as the ones you're talking about like Twitter

0:19:07.240 --> 0:19:10.359
<v Speaker 1>and Facebook which have direct network effects because there are

0:19:10.359 --> 0:19:13.040
<v Speaker 1>actually sixteen different network effects. We're finding a lot of

0:19:13.080 --> 0:19:17.680
<v Speaker 1>different companies that are today building a new ways using

0:19:17.720 --> 0:19:21.160
<v Speaker 1>these techniques that can create multibillion dollar companies and Incredible

0:19:21.160 --> 0:19:23.920
<v Speaker 1>Health at Mammoth or two that are our unicorns and

0:19:23.920 --> 0:19:27.920
<v Speaker 1>and heading on up from there. While we've had both

0:19:28.200 --> 0:19:30.640
<v Speaker 1>u I mon Abusie and Jennifer down on the show,

0:19:30.680 --> 0:19:33.119
<v Speaker 1>so I'm glad we're on the right track. Um, you know,

0:19:33.240 --> 0:19:35.400
<v Speaker 1>we are in the middle of a massive downturn. There

0:19:35.400 --> 0:19:38.560
<v Speaker 1>could be a lot farther to fall here. How concerned

0:19:39.119 --> 0:19:41.439
<v Speaker 1>are you about that? And you know how is it

0:19:41.480 --> 0:19:47.360
<v Speaker 1>impacting your investment strategy. Yeah, you know, NFECTS as sort

0:19:47.359 --> 0:19:50.120
<v Speaker 1>of largest c fund, we see across a whole bunch

0:19:50.119 --> 0:19:55.240
<v Speaker 1>of different verticals like marketplaces and fintech, prop tech, games, biotech,

0:19:55.320 --> 0:19:58.920
<v Speaker 1>web three. We're investing across a lot of different verticals,

0:19:59.640 --> 0:20:02.400
<v Speaker 1>and but we're investing for seven to ten years from now,

0:20:03.040 --> 0:20:05.840
<v Speaker 1>So in that way, we're a little bit insulated from

0:20:05.840 --> 0:20:09.960
<v Speaker 1>the current market conditions and are still looking for founders

0:20:09.960 --> 0:20:13.840
<v Speaker 1>with big ideas, particularly ones with network effects, because the

0:20:13.920 --> 0:20:16.120
<v Speaker 1>next two or three years won't really matter for them

0:20:16.119 --> 0:20:18.600
<v Speaker 1>when we invest this year. What will matter is what

0:20:18.640 --> 0:20:21.640
<v Speaker 1>the market conditions are seven years from now and what

0:20:21.920 --> 0:20:25.120
<v Speaker 1>the market will value them at. Then the market will decide.

0:20:25.119 --> 0:20:27.680
<v Speaker 1>But in the meantime, we're looking to build you a

0:20:27.760 --> 0:20:31.080
<v Speaker 1>hundred million of revenue two million of revenue in real businesses,

0:20:31.520 --> 0:20:34.359
<v Speaker 1>and we can invest now. So actually, we do feel

0:20:34.359 --> 0:20:36.280
<v Speaker 1>like now is the best time in the last four

0:20:36.359 --> 0:20:39.880
<v Speaker 1>years to start a company, So we're leaning aggressively in.

0:20:40.240 --> 0:20:43.879
<v Speaker 1>We leaned aggressively in during COVID. We actually ran a

0:20:43.920 --> 0:20:47.800
<v Speaker 1>program called fast where we offered one to one, one

0:20:47.840 --> 0:20:52.399
<v Speaker 1>to two million dollars for fiftcent of companies within nine days, okay,

0:20:52.440 --> 0:20:55.840
<v Speaker 1>and we touched four thousand companies at that time, right

0:20:55.880 --> 0:20:57.760
<v Speaker 1>at the beginning of COVID, and now that we're in

0:20:57.800 --> 0:21:02.040
<v Speaker 1>this downturn, a similar thing is happening. So so does

0:21:02.040 --> 0:21:03.840
<v Speaker 1>that mean you're not worried? I mean, last quick question.

0:21:03.840 --> 0:21:06.000
<v Speaker 1>I mean we're talking about instant We just talked about

0:21:06.000 --> 0:21:10.119
<v Speaker 1>instat cart slashing its valuation from thirty nine billion to billion.

0:21:10.200 --> 0:21:14.520
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you're seeing some huge haircuts here we are,

0:21:14.720 --> 0:21:19.320
<v Speaker 1>and those companies were seated six twelve years ago. Our

0:21:19.400 --> 0:21:23.120
<v Speaker 1>venture firm started five years ago. So we are still

0:21:23.160 --> 0:21:25.000
<v Speaker 1>in the period of rapid growth for a lot of

0:21:25.000 --> 0:21:27.720
<v Speaker 1>our companies, and so far we're not affected by these

0:21:27.800 --> 0:21:31.040
<v Speaker 1>huge markdowns we're seeing. And again, where we're deploying capital

0:21:31.359 --> 0:21:33.040
<v Speaker 1>is for seven to ten years from now, and most

0:21:33.040 --> 0:21:35.960
<v Speaker 1>seed funds are doing that. That includes us, because we're

0:21:35.960 --> 0:21:41.640
<v Speaker 1>focused on that stage. All right. NFX founding partner James

0:21:41.800 --> 0:21:52.120
<v Speaker 1>Courier on your new VC masterclass, Thank you for stopping by.

0:21:54.880 --> 0:21:57.480
<v Speaker 1>Welcome back to bloom More Technology. I'm emily changing San Francisco.

0:21:57.520 --> 0:22:00.119
<v Speaker 1>We've got some breaking news crossing the terminal now that

0:22:00.240 --> 0:22:05.080
<v Speaker 1>News Corps does indeed UH confirm it will explore a

0:22:05.119 --> 0:22:09.720
<v Speaker 1>combination with Fox Corporation, News Corps saying received letters from

0:22:09.880 --> 0:22:13.479
<v Speaker 1>Rupert Murdoch and his trust to that effect. There had

0:22:13.520 --> 0:22:18.840
<v Speaker 1>been some reporting that Murdoch was considering reuniting his media

0:22:18.920 --> 0:22:22.840
<v Speaker 1>empire if you will, that he split back in, news

0:22:22.880 --> 0:22:27.560
<v Speaker 1>Corps now confirming that it will explore combining once again

0:22:28.320 --> 0:22:33.560
<v Speaker 1>with Fox. Meantime, Elon musk steal to buy Twitter has

0:22:33.600 --> 0:22:36.480
<v Speaker 1>had so many twists and turns that one might forget.

0:22:36.920 --> 0:22:41.159
<v Speaker 1>This all started back on January thirty one, that is,

0:22:41.200 --> 0:22:45.240
<v Speaker 1>when Musk quietly began buying Twitter shares. He's since gotten

0:22:45.280 --> 0:22:48.600
<v Speaker 1>a lot louder in so many ways, and Bloomberg Business

0:22:48.640 --> 0:22:52.560
<v Speaker 1>Week broke down Musk's tweets by the numbers, joining us

0:22:52.560 --> 0:22:54.440
<v Speaker 1>now for more on an in depth look at what's

0:22:54.440 --> 0:22:58.400
<v Speaker 1>been going viral all year long? Really is Bloomberg's at ludlow.

0:22:58.640 --> 0:23:03.760
<v Speaker 1>So Business Week seek the numbers here. What interesting insights

0:23:04.240 --> 0:23:06.480
<v Speaker 1>did that yield? Yeah? I think first of all, it's

0:23:06.520 --> 0:23:09.920
<v Speaker 1>the frequency and volume of the tweets since January, right.

0:23:10.000 --> 0:23:13.240
<v Speaker 1>I think in May we were surprised how quickly Elon

0:23:13.320 --> 0:23:16.320
<v Speaker 1>must put the deal on hold and raise his concerns

0:23:16.359 --> 0:23:18.280
<v Speaker 1>about the level of bots on the platform and if

0:23:18.280 --> 0:23:21.280
<v Speaker 1>we put the chart of his weekly tweets volume of

0:23:21.320 --> 0:23:24.240
<v Speaker 1>weekly tweets, you can see that just after that deal

0:23:24.320 --> 0:23:26.639
<v Speaker 1>is put on hold, there's kind of a big spike

0:23:27.359 --> 0:23:29.600
<v Speaker 1>in the number of tweets he's making, right, and he's

0:23:29.600 --> 0:23:32.920
<v Speaker 1>talking a lot about the concerns, in particular about bots,

0:23:33.000 --> 0:23:35.040
<v Speaker 1>and then things go very quiet, and of course, just

0:23:35.080 --> 0:23:38.439
<v Speaker 1>a few weeks laid everything changed because Twitter sues to

0:23:38.600 --> 0:23:44.919
<v Speaker 1>enforce the original terms of the deal. He tweets, means,

0:23:45.000 --> 0:23:48.359
<v Speaker 1>he tweets emojis, he tweets pauls. Does he have a

0:23:48.480 --> 0:23:52.280
<v Speaker 1>favorite kind of tweet? What's really interesting is that the

0:23:52.359 --> 0:23:56.119
<v Speaker 1>overwhelming number of tweets that must sends a replies, and

0:23:56.160 --> 0:23:58.120
<v Speaker 1>this was why everyone was so interested in this deal

0:23:58.119 --> 0:24:00.080
<v Speaker 1>in the first place. Right. Elon Musk is one of

0:24:00.160 --> 0:24:03.960
<v Speaker 1>the most active and well followed users on Twitter. But

0:24:04.320 --> 0:24:07.160
<v Speaker 1>it's not just him sending original tweets. It's mostly him

0:24:07.200 --> 0:24:09.719
<v Speaker 1>replying to other users. And we know that he engages

0:24:10.240 --> 0:24:13.639
<v Speaker 1>really actively with other Tesla users, people that he is

0:24:13.640 --> 0:24:17.359
<v Speaker 1>a fan of, people interested in SpaceX, and you can

0:24:17.400 --> 0:24:20.159
<v Speaker 1>see from that chart quite clearly that that's how he

0:24:20.280 --> 0:24:23.000
<v Speaker 1>uses engagement. Very few of the tweets he sent since

0:24:23.119 --> 0:24:27.760
<v Speaker 1>January thirty one, have been retweets either what's you know

0:24:27.800 --> 0:24:30.280
<v Speaker 1>tweeting about the most? Is it Tesla? Is it Twitter?

0:24:30.400 --> 0:24:35.439
<v Speaker 1>Is it's SpaceX? Isn't repopulating the world? You know, m

0:24:35.480 --> 0:24:37.600
<v Speaker 1>you and I have been living this deal night and

0:24:37.680 --> 0:24:40.280
<v Speaker 1>day about Elon must buying Twitter. But actually, if you

0:24:40.400 --> 0:24:43.200
<v Speaker 1>break down the tweets and do the analysis, he's not

0:24:43.240 --> 0:24:45.520
<v Speaker 1>obsessed with Twitter. He's not tweeting a lot about Twitter.

0:24:45.760 --> 0:24:49.160
<v Speaker 1>Most of it is about his other companies, Tesla, SpaceX.

0:24:49.200 --> 0:24:52.720
<v Speaker 1>You know, he's really engaged when SpaceX has a successful mission.

0:24:52.720 --> 0:24:56.359
<v Speaker 1>He tweets a lot about Tesla. Space generally is a

0:24:56.440 --> 0:24:59.119
<v Speaker 1>topics high up there ev you no surprise and you

0:24:59.200 --> 0:25:02.560
<v Speaker 1>look down, they're Actually the interesting number to me is Crypto.

0:25:02.680 --> 0:25:04.760
<v Speaker 1>You know, he hasn't tweeted as much as one might

0:25:04.840 --> 0:25:07.520
<v Speaker 1>think about Crypto, at least in the tweets sent since

0:25:07.600 --> 0:25:13.040
<v Speaker 1>January thirty one of this year. And and you know

0:25:13.200 --> 0:25:17.080
<v Speaker 1>when he has talked about Twitter, you know where does

0:25:17.160 --> 0:25:20.480
<v Speaker 1>he focus? I mean certain there are certain tweets, of course,

0:25:20.520 --> 0:25:23.480
<v Speaker 1>that have gotten a lot more attention than others. Well,

0:25:23.480 --> 0:25:25.840
<v Speaker 1>this links to that first chart box. He tweets a

0:25:25.840 --> 0:25:29.080
<v Speaker 1>lot about the box issue on the platform, right, he

0:25:29.119 --> 0:25:32.600
<v Speaker 1>doesn't necessarily talk so much about some of the characters

0:25:32.760 --> 0:25:36.199
<v Speaker 1>involved management. He does on occasion, but the focus is

0:25:36.240 --> 0:25:38.760
<v Speaker 1>really on box, which is one big portion of that

0:25:38.840 --> 0:25:40.800
<v Speaker 1>pie chart on your screen. The other one that I

0:25:40.880 --> 0:25:43.159
<v Speaker 1>find really interesting is is the number of tweets about

0:25:43.560 --> 0:25:46.000
<v Speaker 1>issues of censorship and bias. And we know that one

0:25:46.000 --> 0:25:48.879
<v Speaker 1>of the big considerations for Elon Muskus policy, right, we

0:25:48.960 --> 0:25:51.520
<v Speaker 1>want to know what policies will change in terms of

0:25:51.560 --> 0:25:54.400
<v Speaker 1>content moderation and who will be allowed on the platform,

0:25:54.440 --> 0:25:57.080
<v Speaker 1>will allowed back onto the platform, if indeed he does

0:25:57.160 --> 0:25:58.800
<v Speaker 1>go through to buy this deal. But that to me,

0:25:59.280 --> 0:26:03.719
<v Speaker 1>of before that pie shots certainly the most telling. All right,

0:26:04.000 --> 0:26:06.320
<v Speaker 1>i'd lovelo. Thanks for walking through all of that for

0:26:06.400 --> 0:26:09.000
<v Speaker 1>us and bringing us all the data. Joinings. How to

0:26:09.040 --> 0:26:11.840
<v Speaker 1>continue this conversation. Jason Goldman one of the founding members

0:26:11.840 --> 0:26:13.879
<v Speaker 1>of Twitter. Of course, he's also the former White House

0:26:14.160 --> 0:26:18.480
<v Speaker 1>Chief Digital Officer under President Obama. Always some good insider

0:26:18.520 --> 0:26:21.960
<v Speaker 1>outsider perspective from you, Jason. You know, one of the

0:26:22.000 --> 0:26:24.359
<v Speaker 1>latest developments that we haven't talked a lot about yet,

0:26:24.400 --> 0:26:29.080
<v Speaker 1>these revelations from Twitter that Elon Musk was being investigated

0:26:29.119 --> 0:26:34.600
<v Speaker 1>by federal authorities over his acquisition conduct if you will.

0:26:34.680 --> 0:26:37.600
<v Speaker 1>What do you make of this? Yeah, I mean it's

0:26:37.600 --> 0:26:40.199
<v Speaker 1>difficult to say because we don't know which federal agency

0:26:40.280 --> 0:26:43.000
<v Speaker 1>was investigating. I think it's a little premature to think

0:26:43.000 --> 0:26:46.359
<v Speaker 1>there's much fire there, because this could be as simple

0:26:46.640 --> 0:26:49.480
<v Speaker 1>as Twitter's lawyers trying to get their hands on the

0:26:50.040 --> 0:26:52.679
<v Speaker 1>on the information that Ellen shared with the SEC. We

0:26:52.840 --> 0:26:56.040
<v Speaker 1>know that he was contacted by the SEC as related

0:26:56.040 --> 0:26:58.040
<v Speaker 1>to this deal, and so it might just have been

0:26:58.040 --> 0:26:59.960
<v Speaker 1>something that they put in the filing to get information

0:27:00.080 --> 0:27:04.080
<v Speaker 1>and about that. So without actually finding out what kind

0:27:04.119 --> 0:27:07.040
<v Speaker 1>of investigation was involved, it's a little premature to say, oh,

0:27:07.080 --> 0:27:10.640
<v Speaker 1>there's something super nutty going on here. That being said,

0:27:10.680 --> 0:27:13.000
<v Speaker 1>you can never really discount the super nutty in this

0:27:13.040 --> 0:27:17.879
<v Speaker 1>particular story. So what's your hunch. Does a deal happen

0:27:18.080 --> 0:27:22.440
<v Speaker 1>by October? They are there more surprises between now and then?

0:27:23.560 --> 0:27:26.439
<v Speaker 1>I think it's again, I would never rule out more surprises.

0:27:26.640 --> 0:27:28.879
<v Speaker 1>I I believe a deal happens, I just don't have

0:27:28.960 --> 0:27:31.720
<v Speaker 1>a ton of high conviction about it. Um. I think

0:27:31.760 --> 0:27:34.320
<v Speaker 1>what's likely happening now is that the lawyers from both

0:27:34.359 --> 0:27:38.320
<v Speaker 1>sides are trying to figure out how to execute this deal. Uh.

0:27:38.359 --> 0:27:41.840
<v Speaker 1>In in between two parties that have absolutely no reason

0:27:41.880 --> 0:27:44.119
<v Speaker 1>to trust one another. And so it's how do we

0:27:44.200 --> 0:27:46.600
<v Speaker 1>get all of the money in one place and you

0:27:46.640 --> 0:27:48.040
<v Speaker 1>show us that you have all the money, and then

0:27:48.040 --> 0:27:50.439
<v Speaker 1>we quickly take all the money and you get the Twitter,

0:27:50.960 --> 0:27:54.440
<v Speaker 1>uh without you know, without involving a lot of other contingencies,

0:27:54.800 --> 0:27:57.080
<v Speaker 1>which Twitter is just not going to accept at this point.

0:27:58.680 --> 0:28:02.040
<v Speaker 1>So say you On gets the Twitter and it happens

0:28:02.080 --> 0:28:04.840
<v Speaker 1>in a couple of weeks, what do you think happens

0:28:04.880 --> 0:28:08.080
<v Speaker 1>to Twitter under Elon Musk And what's the biggest risk?

0:28:09.000 --> 0:28:11.200
<v Speaker 1>I think the biggest risks are sort of twofold. One

0:28:11.240 --> 0:28:12.880
<v Speaker 1>is I think there's gonna be a lot of brain drain.

0:28:12.960 --> 0:28:14.560
<v Speaker 1>I think a lot of people are going to either

0:28:15.080 --> 0:28:18.679
<v Speaker 1>leave of their own volition or or be fired, and

0:28:18.720 --> 0:28:21.159
<v Speaker 1>we'll get into why I think that's a problem for

0:28:21.200 --> 0:28:23.280
<v Speaker 1>the company in the world. And then the other is

0:28:23.320 --> 0:28:24.960
<v Speaker 1>I think Twitter is just going to be subject to

0:28:25.000 --> 0:28:28.119
<v Speaker 1>the kind of reactive decision making that Ellen has shown,

0:28:28.200 --> 0:28:31.000
<v Speaker 1>both publicly in his comments about the company and now

0:28:31.040 --> 0:28:33.560
<v Speaker 1>privately in what we've seen from the tax Uh to

0:28:33.640 --> 0:28:36.119
<v Speaker 1>be someone who's just you know, doesn't respond well to

0:28:36.160 --> 0:28:39.880
<v Speaker 1>pushback or criticism, likes to be praised, likes to be given.

0:28:40.160 --> 0:28:42.880
<v Speaker 1>Uh you know, accolades about um, you know, how smart

0:28:42.880 --> 0:28:45.160
<v Speaker 1>he is and and and what great ideas you could

0:28:45.160 --> 0:28:47.640
<v Speaker 1>bring forward and but despite all of that, just still

0:28:47.720 --> 0:28:49.920
<v Speaker 1>does not have a serious plan for what to do

0:28:50.000 --> 0:28:51.680
<v Speaker 1>with the for what to do with the platform. And

0:28:51.680 --> 0:28:54.120
<v Speaker 1>I think that puts the company in a dangerous place,

0:28:54.120 --> 0:28:58.479
<v Speaker 1>and I think it puts its users in a dangerous place. Okay,

0:28:59.120 --> 0:29:01.960
<v Speaker 1>here here's a some our question another way. What's one

0:29:01.960 --> 0:29:04.200
<v Speaker 1>thing that Musk could do that would make Twitter better?

0:29:04.240 --> 0:29:07.479
<v Speaker 1>And do you think he'll do it? I think, oh,

0:29:07.600 --> 0:29:09.440
<v Speaker 1>the easiest thing that he could do to make it

0:29:09.480 --> 0:29:12.400
<v Speaker 1>better is to immediately remove himself from the decision making

0:29:12.440 --> 0:29:14.880
<v Speaker 1>involved in it, Like if he if he somehow moved

0:29:14.880 --> 0:29:17.440
<v Speaker 1>the company into some kind of foundation and said this

0:29:17.480 --> 0:29:20.000
<v Speaker 1>is going to be running a nonprofit way. You know, actually,

0:29:20.000 --> 0:29:21.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, Jack and I don't agree on a lot

0:29:22.000 --> 0:29:24.640
<v Speaker 1>of things. But Jack has this notion about, you know,

0:29:24.680 --> 0:29:27.400
<v Speaker 1>Twitter returning to be a protocol, and you know, this

0:29:27.400 --> 0:29:30.440
<v Speaker 1>this notion that it needs to be just one client

0:29:30.520 --> 0:29:33.320
<v Speaker 1>running on top of a technical protocol. If if Elon

0:29:33.440 --> 0:29:35.720
<v Speaker 1>were to kind of divest himself of the authority and

0:29:35.760 --> 0:29:38.680
<v Speaker 1>decision making power around the platform. That would be one

0:29:38.800 --> 0:29:41.000
<v Speaker 1>positive thing he could do and then just leave it

0:29:41.000 --> 0:29:43.880
<v Speaker 1>to actual subject matter experts to evolve the technology needed

0:29:43.920 --> 0:29:47.120
<v Speaker 1>to do that. So I've been dying to know what

0:29:47.160 --> 0:29:51.640
<v Speaker 1>your thoughts are on the text exchanges between Musk and Jack.

0:29:52.200 --> 0:29:54.480
<v Speaker 1>You know, what was your big takeaway? I mean, of

0:29:54.520 --> 0:29:56.840
<v Speaker 1>course you had this hunch all along that they were

0:29:56.920 --> 0:30:00.560
<v Speaker 1>somehow in cahoots. Yeah, I mean, I think it was

0:30:00.600 --> 0:30:03.200
<v Speaker 1>pretty obvious from the proxy filing that Jack had had

0:30:03.200 --> 0:30:05.640
<v Speaker 1>a conversation with Ellen in which he expressed his own

0:30:05.640 --> 0:30:08.360
<v Speaker 1>opinion that would be better in independent hands. We find

0:30:08.360 --> 0:30:11.000
<v Speaker 1>out from the text the text that Jack, when Ellen

0:30:11.080 --> 0:30:13.400
<v Speaker 1>agrees to do this, the Jack has overcome with emotion

0:30:13.600 --> 0:30:15.640
<v Speaker 1>that he would then say later publicly, as you know,

0:30:15.800 --> 0:30:18.680
<v Speaker 1>the singular solution to Twitter's problems has shown up. You know,

0:30:18.720 --> 0:30:20.720
<v Speaker 1>he was he just couldn't believe that this, you know,

0:30:20.760 --> 0:30:24.080
<v Speaker 1>Messiah had arrived to save Twitter from this board that

0:30:24.160 --> 0:30:27.200
<v Speaker 1>Jack had both put together as during his ten years

0:30:27.280 --> 0:30:29.400
<v Speaker 1>running the company, but now simply couldn't stand to be

0:30:29.440 --> 0:30:32.840
<v Speaker 1>in business with anymore. And so the text reveals someone

0:30:32.920 --> 0:30:35.080
<v Speaker 1>you know and Jack who was just frustrated and pretty

0:30:35.120 --> 0:30:38.640
<v Speaker 1>much done running the company, and then willing to completely

0:30:38.680 --> 0:30:42.000
<v Speaker 1>throw under the bus anyone at the company, including Prague,

0:30:42.080 --> 0:30:44.800
<v Speaker 1>the CEO, who got in the way of Ellen coming

0:30:44.800 --> 0:30:47.520
<v Speaker 1>in to take it over, despite the fact that Ellen

0:30:47.720 --> 0:30:50.520
<v Speaker 1>at no point to Jack, either in private or in public,

0:30:50.800 --> 0:30:53.239
<v Speaker 1>expressed any real idea of what he wanted to do

0:30:53.280 --> 0:30:55.360
<v Speaker 1>with it, certainly nothing that was in line with what

0:30:55.480 --> 0:30:57.840
<v Speaker 1>Jack thought needed to happen. This idea of making it

0:30:57.880 --> 0:31:00.520
<v Speaker 1>a protocol, that's nothing that Ellen has picked up at all.

0:31:01.080 --> 0:31:03.440
<v Speaker 1>So I think the text just revealed, not only from

0:31:03.560 --> 0:31:05.880
<v Speaker 1>Jack but in general, just how uh, you know, how

0:31:05.920 --> 0:31:09.160
<v Speaker 1>willing people are to appease Elon and that anyone who

0:31:09.200 --> 0:31:12.360
<v Speaker 1>pushes back on him immediately gets, you know, pushed to

0:31:12.400 --> 0:31:17.800
<v Speaker 1>the side. We haven't heard from the other Twitter founders

0:31:17.920 --> 0:31:20.680
<v Speaker 1>of Williams and biz Stone, you know, I know you're

0:31:20.680 --> 0:31:23.640
<v Speaker 1>close with them, and I'm what do they think about

0:31:23.680 --> 0:31:27.280
<v Speaker 1>this to the extent that you can share. Yeah, I

0:31:27.800 --> 0:31:30.200
<v Speaker 1>prefer to just sort of speak for myself. I I

0:31:30.280 --> 0:31:32.280
<v Speaker 1>am close with the other the founders and a number

0:31:32.280 --> 0:31:35.080
<v Speaker 1>of other early employees. Um, but you know, I think

0:31:35.080 --> 0:31:37.480
<v Speaker 1>for for all of us that were there in the

0:31:37.520 --> 0:31:40.080
<v Speaker 1>early time of the company, you know, we've all we've

0:31:40.080 --> 0:31:43.840
<v Speaker 1>always had self inflicted wounds. We've always had, you know,

0:31:44.040 --> 0:31:47.360
<v Speaker 1>periods of turmoil with the company. I think despite differences

0:31:47.520 --> 0:31:49.479
<v Speaker 1>in terms of like, oh, you know, I didn't think

0:31:49.560 --> 0:31:51.480
<v Speaker 1>Jack should be CEO, and then Jack didn't think that

0:31:51.480 --> 0:31:53.200
<v Speaker 1>I should be CEO, and that was a big rift

0:31:53.200 --> 0:31:56.640
<v Speaker 1>in the company, I never really doubted, for example, Jack's

0:31:56.640 --> 0:31:59.280
<v Speaker 1>willingness to do what was necessary to make Twitter a

0:31:59.280 --> 0:32:02.120
<v Speaker 1>better product in ordered, I doubt that he had true

0:32:02.120 --> 0:32:05.400
<v Speaker 1>conviction and passion about how Twitter should grow into the world.

0:32:05.840 --> 0:32:08.600
<v Speaker 1>What we're seeing now, though, is just someone who who

0:32:08.640 --> 0:32:11.480
<v Speaker 1>doesn't have that kind of expertise. We're seeing instead someone

0:32:11.480 --> 0:32:13.720
<v Speaker 1>who's been told by everyone who's blowing up his text

0:32:13.760 --> 0:32:16.000
<v Speaker 1>messages in the world where at large, that he's the

0:32:16.040 --> 0:32:18.280
<v Speaker 1>second coming of Thomas Edison. He's a genius who can

0:32:18.400 --> 0:32:21.760
<v Speaker 1>enter any problem, and despite a lack of subject matter expertise,

0:32:22.040 --> 0:32:24.560
<v Speaker 1>he's going to be able to um fix these very

0:32:24.600 --> 0:32:27.920
<v Speaker 1>difficult problems. And that's dangerous. That's dangerous for the geopolitical

0:32:27.920 --> 0:32:29.640
<v Speaker 1>reasons that you talked about at the top of the show.

0:32:29.920 --> 0:32:33.200
<v Speaker 1>That you're talking about someone who is incredibly susceptible to

0:32:33.240 --> 0:32:35.680
<v Speaker 1>flattery and influence and believes too highly in his own

0:32:35.720 --> 0:32:38.480
<v Speaker 1>abilities and that's going to create the context for a

0:32:38.560 --> 0:32:41.640
<v Speaker 1>large mistake to happen, whether that's you know, shutting off

0:32:41.680 --> 0:32:46.320
<v Speaker 1>access UH in Ukraine, or that's UH inadvertently or purposely

0:32:46.400 --> 0:32:50.160
<v Speaker 1>revealing user data to an authoritarian state that's trying to

0:32:50.160 --> 0:32:55.520
<v Speaker 1>get information about dissidents who are coordinating on Twitter. Remember

0:32:55.560 --> 0:32:57.400
<v Speaker 1>Twitter has never really had a problem with China because

0:32:57.400 --> 0:33:00.600
<v Speaker 1>Twitter doesn't exist in China, but Elon us in China.

0:33:00.680 --> 0:33:04.080
<v Speaker 1>Tesla exists in China. So now China has an incredibly

0:33:04.120 --> 0:33:07.680
<v Speaker 1>strong lever over Elon in order to jeopardize user safety

0:33:07.840 --> 0:33:10.360
<v Speaker 1>and and and jeopardize dissidents in Hong Kong, time one

0:33:10.440 --> 0:33:13.400
<v Speaker 1>or wherever else. That's a real problem. Uh. And it

0:33:13.520 --> 0:33:17.000
<v Speaker 1>doesn't require it doesn't require a secret you know, conversation

0:33:17.040 --> 0:33:19.400
<v Speaker 1>between Elon and Putin. It's just obvious on his face

0:33:19.600 --> 0:33:21.680
<v Speaker 1>that he's going to be susceptible to these kind of

0:33:21.720 --> 0:33:25.360
<v Speaker 1>pressures quickly. How concerned are you about this all happening

0:33:25.440 --> 0:33:28.640
<v Speaker 1>right before a midterm election, you know, especially given your

0:33:28.680 --> 0:33:31.880
<v Speaker 1>time with the Obama administration. I'm not too concerned about

0:33:32.000 --> 0:33:34.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm not too concerned about the mid terms. I think

0:33:34.040 --> 0:33:36.640
<v Speaker 1>it's too close to the to the mid terms to

0:33:36.680 --> 0:33:39.560
<v Speaker 1>be a problem I think for future election cycles, not

0:33:39.640 --> 0:33:42.160
<v Speaker 1>just domestically about but around the world. I think it

0:33:42.240 --> 0:33:45.000
<v Speaker 1>is a concern because not so much for putting the

0:33:45.000 --> 0:33:47.680
<v Speaker 1>thumb on the on the scale for a particular political party.

0:33:47.840 --> 0:33:49.760
<v Speaker 1>And I don't think Trump should be on Twitter, but

0:33:49.800 --> 0:33:52.680
<v Speaker 1>I also kind of discount how important that is. I

0:33:52.720 --> 0:33:55.479
<v Speaker 1>think it's more than a problem that around the world.

0:33:55.800 --> 0:33:58.720
<v Speaker 1>We know, as you know the Washington Report Washington Post

0:33:58.760 --> 0:34:01.440
<v Speaker 1>said that autocrats are to use the platforms to spread

0:34:01.520 --> 0:34:03.680
<v Speaker 1>lies about opponents and whip up violence and mail on

0:34:04.080 --> 0:34:06.480
<v Speaker 1>and that's a problem because Ellen is going to be

0:34:06.560 --> 0:34:10.360
<v Speaker 1>able to tip the scales for those kind of forces

0:34:10.400 --> 0:34:13.800
<v Speaker 1>around the world. Jason Goldman, one of the founding members

0:34:13.800 --> 0:34:17.240
<v Speaker 1>of Twitter, the former White House Chief Digital Officer. Always

0:34:17.320 --> 0:34:20.400
<v Speaker 1>good to hear your thoughts. Jason, thank you for stopping

0:34:20.440 --> 0:34:24.239
<v Speaker 1>by coming up the crypto exchange that just raised a

0:34:24.320 --> 0:34:27.399
<v Speaker 1>hundred ticks five million in a downturn. You just swap

0:34:27.480 --> 0:34:30.640
<v Speaker 1>CEO Mary Catherine later with us next to tell us

0:34:30.680 --> 0:34:58.400
<v Speaker 1>more this is Bloomberg crypto exchange unit swap is just

0:34:58.480 --> 0:35:01.560
<v Speaker 1>raised a hundred sixty five million dollars in a series

0:35:01.600 --> 0:35:04.560
<v Speaker 1>be funding round led by Polychain Capital. This value is

0:35:04.560 --> 0:35:07.439
<v Speaker 1>the company at one point six six billion dollars. Unit

0:35:07.440 --> 0:35:09.720
<v Speaker 1>Swap says it's one of the largest of funding rounds

0:35:09.760 --> 0:35:12.959
<v Speaker 1>for a crypto firm since the market downturn earlier this year.

0:35:13.080 --> 0:35:16.520
<v Speaker 1>Even as the cryptal market is still struggling and some

0:35:16.560 --> 0:35:19.279
<v Speaker 1>of investors are starting to lose confidence in d five,

0:35:19.600 --> 0:35:25.400
<v Speaker 1>Unit Swap CEO Mary Catherine later joins us. Now, So, um,

0:35:25.400 --> 0:35:28.960
<v Speaker 1>Mary Catherine, what is it do you think about unit

0:35:29.000 --> 0:35:31.720
<v Speaker 1>Swap that you know god investors to pay up given

0:35:31.760 --> 0:35:37.279
<v Speaker 1>these very difficult market conditions. Thanks well, thanks for having

0:35:37.360 --> 0:35:39.000
<v Speaker 1>me on. I think what we've learned in the past

0:35:39.040 --> 0:35:41.640
<v Speaker 1>six months in crypto as we've seen the importance of

0:35:41.680 --> 0:35:45.920
<v Speaker 1>decentralized systems at the core of some of this new technology,

0:35:46.000 --> 0:35:48.799
<v Speaker 1>and also the importance of safety and security. And Unit

0:35:48.840 --> 0:35:51.719
<v Speaker 1>Swap has been committed to safety and security since day

0:35:51.760 --> 0:35:54.520
<v Speaker 1>one and never takes custody of user funds. We are

0:35:54.840 --> 0:35:58.360
<v Speaker 1>decentral We've built decentralized trading protocols and then products on

0:35:58.440 --> 0:36:01.200
<v Speaker 1>top of them that essentially they are I mean that

0:36:01.239 --> 0:36:04.480
<v Speaker 1>you're not managing actual assets, you're not managing users assets,

0:36:04.480 --> 0:36:07.640
<v Speaker 1>You're giving them open source technology. And then web and

0:36:07.719 --> 0:36:10.600
<v Speaker 1>mobile applications to access that technology. So I think what's

0:36:10.600 --> 0:36:13.399
<v Speaker 1>really different about unit swap is again it's a fundamentally

0:36:13.400 --> 0:36:16.799
<v Speaker 1>different technology stack from a centralized exchange. It's a it's

0:36:16.800 --> 0:36:20.879
<v Speaker 1>a novel innovation, completely new technology, Whereas the crypto firms

0:36:20.880 --> 0:36:23.120
<v Speaker 1>that you saw software over the past six months are

0:36:23.160 --> 0:36:27.000
<v Speaker 1>those that are really using traditional, traditional tech stacts. Traditional

0:36:27.040 --> 0:36:30.759
<v Speaker 1>centralized exchange models ultimately had risk management failures. And so

0:36:30.800 --> 0:36:33.280
<v Speaker 1>I think that in our investors recognized and the market

0:36:33.320 --> 0:36:38.520
<v Speaker 1>recognized that decentralized protocols have unique advantages that not only

0:36:38.520 --> 0:36:41.640
<v Speaker 1>can benefit crypto markets, but also traditional markets more broadly,

0:36:41.960 --> 0:36:43.920
<v Speaker 1>and that you know, swap Labs is really committed to

0:36:44.280 --> 0:36:46.799
<v Speaker 1>as I mentioned, security, but also bringing more and more

0:36:46.920 --> 0:36:51.320
<v Speaker 1>users into this space because the entire ecosystem and market

0:36:51.600 --> 0:36:54.200
<v Speaker 1>needs to grow and again needs to be more accessible,

0:36:54.480 --> 0:36:57.360
<v Speaker 1>easier to use, and safer in order for that to happen.

0:36:59.040 --> 0:37:00.840
<v Speaker 1>What do you think this says about the popularity of

0:37:00.880 --> 0:37:07.040
<v Speaker 1>decentralized projects in crypto over the longer term. Well, my

0:37:07.120 --> 0:37:10.879
<v Speaker 1>hope is that the benefits of the decentralized protocols will

0:37:10.920 --> 0:37:14.120
<v Speaker 1>become recognized and that will have again more products that

0:37:14.160 --> 0:37:16.200
<v Speaker 1>make them easier to use. Today, it's still a little

0:37:16.239 --> 0:37:18.399
<v Speaker 1>bit too cumbersome. It's too hard to explain what are

0:37:18.520 --> 0:37:20.960
<v Speaker 1>the benefits of the central ovation or to the benefits

0:37:20.960 --> 0:37:25.120
<v Speaker 1>of being able to have different custody models, uh, the transparency,

0:37:25.239 --> 0:37:28.759
<v Speaker 1>the lower costs that come with the centralized technology as prastructure,

0:37:28.920 --> 0:37:31.520
<v Speaker 1>it's a lot to explain. And so what we're focused

0:37:31.520 --> 0:37:34.640
<v Speaker 1>on for the next several years with this funding is

0:37:34.719 --> 0:37:37.880
<v Speaker 1>making it easier and more accessible from more retail users

0:37:37.920 --> 0:37:42.480
<v Speaker 1>but also UM even traditional investors and pools of capital

0:37:42.640 --> 0:37:45.279
<v Speaker 1>to access the technology and realize it's benefits. So I

0:37:45.320 --> 0:37:49.120
<v Speaker 1>think it's an endorsement of the fundamental innovation in the

0:37:49.239 --> 0:37:52.800
<v Speaker 1>technology and in de centralized finance UM. But again when

0:37:52.880 --> 0:37:55.719
<v Speaker 1>it's being built by teams that really understand the importance

0:37:55.760 --> 0:38:00.319
<v Speaker 1>of security and simple use for experiences. And then still

0:38:00.320 --> 0:38:03.600
<v Speaker 1>a concern about security. Why has there been so many

0:38:03.680 --> 0:38:06.560
<v Speaker 1>hacks in defy and how do we prevent those in

0:38:06.600 --> 0:38:11.320
<v Speaker 1>the future. Yeah, well, just as with any financial system

0:38:11.440 --> 0:38:14.759
<v Speaker 1>or technology, UH, there are course risks UM that need

0:38:14.800 --> 0:38:17.719
<v Speaker 1>to be managed. Some of those are technical, So having

0:38:17.760 --> 0:38:21.680
<v Speaker 1>audited code is critical. UM. We have multiple audits, multiple

0:38:21.680 --> 0:38:24.040
<v Speaker 1>third party audits of all of our code. UM. It's

0:38:24.080 --> 0:38:27.239
<v Speaker 1>a key part of deploying smart contracts, and so I

0:38:27.280 --> 0:38:30.480
<v Speaker 1>think that's the best practice that in an open source

0:38:30.920 --> 0:38:33.520
<v Speaker 1>UM sort of open garden, what people can just launch

0:38:33.560 --> 0:38:37.320
<v Speaker 1>new technology, UH, they don't necessarily not all projects necessarily

0:38:37.360 --> 0:38:40.200
<v Speaker 1>go through those same controls UM. So that's a key

0:38:40.200 --> 0:38:42.560
<v Speaker 1>part of that technical risk. There's also an element of

0:38:42.600 --> 0:38:45.120
<v Speaker 1>just having a security mindset of anticipating all the different

0:38:45.120 --> 0:38:48.359
<v Speaker 1>things that can go long UM, both in the UM

0:38:48.680 --> 0:38:51.120
<v Speaker 1>in anything that's a financial transaction, and also into in

0:38:51.120 --> 0:38:55.239
<v Speaker 1>deploying smart contracts. When you deploy a smart contract to blockchain,

0:38:55.560 --> 0:38:59.680
<v Speaker 1>it's effectively permanent, it's effectively immutable, and so the level

0:38:59.719 --> 0:39:03.919
<v Speaker 1>of battle testing in advance of that is huge UM.

0:39:04.080 --> 0:39:08.520
<v Speaker 1>And not all projects treat deployment as a final commitment,

0:39:08.600 --> 0:39:11.960
<v Speaker 1>and so it means that sometimes people are launching projects

0:39:12.040 --> 0:39:15.480
<v Speaker 1>and users may access them UM and not realize the

0:39:15.560 --> 0:39:17.839
<v Speaker 1>risk that they're taking. So I think that we're going

0:39:17.880 --> 0:39:20.040
<v Speaker 1>to see UM, We're going to see a whole new

0:39:20.160 --> 0:39:22.960
<v Speaker 1>level of UM security and see if you expectation among

0:39:23.040 --> 0:39:26.520
<v Speaker 1>users and cautiousness and so winning users trust, earning their trust,

0:39:26.560 --> 0:39:29.080
<v Speaker 1>earning their UH their business is going to become all

0:39:29.120 --> 0:39:31.960
<v Speaker 1>the more important because unfortunately many people have been burned,

0:39:32.320 --> 0:39:34.239
<v Speaker 1>but that is in the context of defied where many

0:39:34.239 --> 0:39:36.799
<v Speaker 1>of the risks are like the technical. Over the past

0:39:36.800 --> 0:39:39.759
<v Speaker 1>six months, many of the large crypto challenges and failures

0:39:39.920 --> 0:39:43.280
<v Speaker 1>have been failures of risk management, had been traditional financial

0:39:43.320 --> 0:39:48.200
<v Speaker 1>services style failures of not managing users funds accurately. And

0:39:48.239 --> 0:39:50.920
<v Speaker 1>I think that it's it's really important that people understand

0:39:51.280 --> 0:39:54.640
<v Speaker 1>those companies, uh, you know, Celsius and the like. Um,

0:39:54.800 --> 0:39:57.200
<v Speaker 1>we're not necessarily we're not using the technology that we're

0:39:57.239 --> 0:39:59.600
<v Speaker 1>going to swop used for example. Um, they were traditional,

0:40:00.360 --> 0:40:04.319
<v Speaker 1>their traditional models were frankly they mismanaged their users assets.

0:40:04.360 --> 0:40:07.480
<v Speaker 1>So too important. It's very important we just aggregate those risks,

0:40:07.880 --> 0:40:10.320
<v Speaker 1>the financial risk management that is critical for those companies

0:40:10.320 --> 0:40:14.000
<v Speaker 1>that do touch users funds unlike us, and then also

0:40:14.040 --> 0:40:21.279
<v Speaker 1>the technical risks. All right, Mary Catherine later CEO of Units,

0:40:21.520 --> 0:40:33.920
<v Speaker 1>thanks for sharing your perspective. Guilty. That is the verdict

0:40:33.920 --> 0:40:36.240
<v Speaker 1>from a jury in the fraud trial against Nicola founder

0:40:36.239 --> 0:40:38.760
<v Speaker 1>Trevor Milton. Let's bring back I'd love who's been following

0:40:38.760 --> 0:40:41.120
<v Speaker 1>this case every step of the way, and you've been

0:40:41.120 --> 0:40:43.439
<v Speaker 1>in the courtroom. Tell us a little bit more about

0:40:43.480 --> 0:40:46.320
<v Speaker 1>the verdict today. Yes, so Trevor Milton was found guilty

0:40:46.400 --> 0:40:49.319
<v Speaker 1>on one count of securities fraud in two counts of

0:40:49.480 --> 0:40:51.760
<v Speaker 1>y fraud. It's important to note that he was found

0:40:51.800 --> 0:40:55.640
<v Speaker 1>not guilty on the most serious counts of securities fraud,

0:40:55.840 --> 0:40:58.480
<v Speaker 1>which would carry a maximum penalty of twenty five years

0:40:58.520 --> 0:41:01.920
<v Speaker 1>in prison. Um Like, this was an astonishing case. It

0:41:01.960 --> 0:41:04.240
<v Speaker 1>went on for a month and essentially what the government

0:41:04.280 --> 0:41:09.840
<v Speaker 1>proved was that Trevor Milton lied, made misleading statements and

0:41:09.920 --> 0:41:13.920
<v Speaker 1>exaggerations about the company's technology, it's progress, it's order book,

0:41:14.160 --> 0:41:19.160
<v Speaker 1>but crucially that those statements had pushed investors, retail investors

0:41:19.160 --> 0:41:21.759
<v Speaker 1>in particulars by the stock. That is the burden of

0:41:21.800 --> 0:41:24.440
<v Speaker 1>proof that was on the government, and the jury returned

0:41:24.840 --> 0:41:29.360
<v Speaker 1>an astonishingly quick verdict on Friday. Right. Why do you

0:41:29.360 --> 0:41:32.600
<v Speaker 1>think the jury returned it so quickly. It's it's impossible

0:41:32.640 --> 0:41:34.399
<v Speaker 1>to say, m I mean, it has been a one

0:41:34.440 --> 0:41:37.880
<v Speaker 1>month trial. Um that there was a pause for around

0:41:37.880 --> 0:41:42.440
<v Speaker 1>ten days because some of the defense council got COVID frankly,

0:41:43.080 --> 0:41:46.239
<v Speaker 1>um but one juror that Bloomberg spoke to leaving the

0:41:46.239 --> 0:41:49.800
<v Speaker 1>courts simply said the evidence was clear. That the government

0:41:49.880 --> 0:41:54.360
<v Speaker 1>presented a number of witnesses, many Nikler employees, present employees,

0:41:54.440 --> 0:41:58.480
<v Speaker 1>people that were there at the time, documentary evidence, appearances

0:41:58.520 --> 0:42:01.960
<v Speaker 1>from Trevor, text messages is um and the defense's argument

0:42:02.000 --> 0:42:05.160
<v Speaker 1>was very simple that that basically Trevor genuinely believed that

0:42:05.200 --> 0:42:07.399
<v Speaker 1>what he was saying was true. He never set out

0:42:07.440 --> 0:42:10.000
<v Speaker 1>to defraud everyone, and that everyone around him at the

0:42:10.040 --> 0:42:13.040
<v Speaker 1>company was saying the same thing, and that if investors

0:42:13.120 --> 0:42:16.960
<v Speaker 1>really looked at regulatory filing scuments, they would have found

0:42:16.960 --> 0:42:19.799
<v Speaker 1>the information that should have informed their decision anyway. So

0:42:20.120 --> 0:42:23.400
<v Speaker 1>it's it's been a very busy long trial, but five

0:42:23.440 --> 0:42:27.480
<v Speaker 1>hours that's a very quick verdict. Interesting, and you've made

0:42:27.520 --> 0:42:29.759
<v Speaker 1>the point that the defense argued he didn't lie, he

0:42:29.880 --> 0:42:33.200
<v Speaker 1>just may be overpromised and said what he believed to

0:42:33.200 --> 0:42:35.880
<v Speaker 1>be true with which is something that is, you know,

0:42:35.960 --> 0:42:38.840
<v Speaker 1>maybe kind of common in Toilkin Valley. So it'll be

0:42:38.840 --> 0:42:42.000
<v Speaker 1>interesting to see how this impacts the tech industry more broadly.

0:42:42.360 --> 0:42:46.840
<v Speaker 1>At Ludlow, thank you for your excellent reporting on this case.

0:42:47.280 --> 0:42:51.000
<v Speaker 1>That does it for this edition of Bloomberg Technology. Coming

0:42:51.080 --> 0:42:55.600
<v Speaker 1>up next week, we've got next few venture partners Melody

0:42:55.719 --> 0:42:59.600
<v Speaker 1>Co joining us to talk about women lead and minority

0:42:59.640 --> 0:43:03.239
<v Speaker 1>leads to artups um. Have a wonderful weekend everyone. I'm

0:43:03.239 --> 0:43:05.520
<v Speaker 1>Emily Check in San Francisco. This is Bloomberg