Speaker 1: Zone media, I'm better off line and this is ed Zetron. Wait,
Speaker 1: that's right, folks. We're here for part two of our
Speaker 1: multi part series about the final casualty of the incertification
Speaker 1: process the financial markets. You see, we're in a world
Speaker 1: where because companies can no longer stimulate growth by just
Speaker 1: script mining their individual and business users, they've now resorted
Speaker 1: to just lying. And lying is an interesting word because
Speaker 1: they will claim we're not lying, we used words to
Speaker 1: vaguely avoid telling you the truth, or we were technically
Speaker 1: true in what we say. There are various kinds of
Speaker 1: lies that don't have to just be I told you
Speaker 1: something that was not categorically yes or no force. I mean,
Speaker 1: you've spoken to other people, but they will say this
Speaker 1: for legal purposes. So fine, it's not technically lying, it's
Speaker 1: just bullshit. But I think it's important to give you
Speaker 1: some examples and to talk about how analyst in the
Speaker 1: media simply allowed these lights to propagate unchecked. Let me
Speaker 1: set the scene. Our story begins on September tenth, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. I was for some reason in Los Angeles
Speaker 1: that I can't remember. Maybe a concert, maybe an interview.
Speaker 1: Truly don't know. Oracle announced its unfillable, unpayable, three hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollar deal with open AI, which they didn't have
Speaker 1: the capacity to serve, and open a I didn't have
Speaker 1: the cash to pay them, and this led to a
Speaker 1: thirty percent or more bump in stock price. Analysts who
Speaker 1: should extensibly be able to count, called it momentous and
Speaker 1: said they were in shock. On September twenty second, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, CEO Saffracats stepped down. She stepped down from oraclen.
Speaker 1: Nobody seemed to think that was weird or suspicious or worrying.
Speaker 1: This was this was meant to be the beginning of
Speaker 1: the AI like boom too. I mean, we kind of
Speaker 1: really in the AI bool, but this was meant to
Speaker 1: be the even more bigger one, right, Why would you
Speaker 1: step down? Why would you step down? Why would you
Speaker 1: step down? And then have two guys like two different
Speaker 1: They have co CEOs. Very sorry to my friend Jim,
Speaker 1: but co CEOs don't usually do well. Look at BlackBerry.
Speaker 1: But anyway, two months after that, Oracle stock was down
Speaker 1: forty percent, with investors worried about Oracle's growing capex, which
Speaker 1: is surprising. I suppose if you didn't think about how
Speaker 1: Oracle would build the data centers to serve the three
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollar deal. A makes me feel insane when
Speaker 1: I say these things out how loud, But just to
Speaker 1: be clear, anybody who traded on that got burned. Now
Speaker 1: another thing happened on September twenty second, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: in Vidio announced what they called a strategic partnership to
Speaker 1: invest up to one hundred billion dollars and build ten
Speaker 1: gigawads of data centers with open Ai, with the first
Speaker 1: to gigawatt to be deployed in the second half of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six. Just a few questions from me personally,
Speaker 1: where would the data centers go, How would open Ai
Speaker 1: afford to build them? How would open Ai build a
Speaker 1: gigawa in data centers in less than a year? Don't
Speaker 1: ask questions. Pig back in your cage now. In video
Speaker 1: stock bumped from one hundred and seventy five point three
Speaker 1: to one hundred and eighty one dollars in the space
Speaker 1: of a day. Said they're very normally moving on and
Speaker 1: the media wrote about the story as if the deal
Speaker 1: was done, with CNBC claiming that and I quote the
Speaker 1: initial ten billion dollar tranch was expected to close within
Speaker 1: a month or so once the transaction had been finalized.
Speaker 1: I read at least ten stories that said in Video
Speaker 1: had invested one hundred billion dollars in open Ai. Analysts
Speaker 1: would go on to say that in Video was locking
Speaker 1: in open Ai and I quote again to remain the
Speaker 1: backbone of the next gen AI infrastructure, and that demand
Speaker 1: for in video GPUs is effectively baked into the development
Speaker 1: of frontier AI models, and that the deal, the partnership
Speaker 1: between the two companies and Validate did in Vidia's long
Speaker 1: term growth numbers with so much volume and compute capacity.
Speaker 1: Others would say that in Video was enabling open Ai
Speaker 1: to meet surging demand. Three analysts, rask Gone at Bernstein Laurier,
Speaker 1: DA Davidson, and Wagner at Aaptors Capital all raised circular
Speaker 1: deal concerns, but they were in the minority, and those
Speaker 1: concerns were still often buried under buoyant optimism around the
Speaker 1: prospects of the company, and nobody just fucking saying the words, Hey,
Speaker 1: no one could afford any of the Oracle can't afford
Speaker 1: to build it, they don't have the capacity, they ust
Speaker 1: can't get paid by open Ai. Open Ai doesn't have
Speaker 1: the money. But in Vidia, this deal also doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: You know. It feels like open ai is just promising
Speaker 1: everyone's stuff they can't afford. All of these things seemed
Speaker 1: like very obvious questions, but people just kind of clapped
Speaker 1: their hands and went, fuck, yeah, we're doing Ai even
Speaker 1: more now. But then there was this other thing about
Speaker 1: the Nvidia deal. It's this quincy teeny weeny quincy little
Speaker 1: problem one little pro everyone about the Invidia deal. The
Speaker 1: deal that everyone said was done. It was a letter
Speaker 1: of intent. It said so in the announcement and on
Speaker 1: Invidia's November runnings it said that it had entered into
Speaker 1: a letter of intent with an opportunity to invest in
Speaker 1: open Ai. It turns out the deal didn't exist, and
Speaker 1: everybody fell for him. Invidia hasn't sent a diamond, likely won't.
Speaker 1: A letter of intent is also known as the concept
Speaker 1: of a plan. A little over two weeks later, on
Speaker 1: October first, twenty twenty five, Reuters reported that Samsung and
Speaker 1: sk Heinex had signed letters of intent to supply memory
Speaker 1: chips for open AI's data centers, with South Korea's Presidential
Speaker 1: Office saying that said chip demand was expected to reach
Speaker 1: nine hundred thousand wafers a month, with and I quote
Speaker 1: much of that from Samsung and esk Heinex, which was
Speaker 1: quickly extrapolated to meet around forty percent of global dram
Speaker 1: outpum stocks in both companies to quote Reuter's Sword, with
Speaker 1: Samsung climbing four percent and sk Heinex more than twelve
Speaker 1: percent to an all time high. Analyst Jeff Kim KB
Speaker 1: Securities said that and I quote, there have been worries
Speaker 1: about high bandwidth memory prices falling next year on intensifying competition,
Speaker 1: but such worries will now be easily resolved by the
Speaker 1: strategic partnership, adding that since Stargate is a key project
Speaker 1: led by President Trump, wrong lie, there also is a
Speaker 1: possibility that partnership will have a positive impact on South
Speaker 1: Korea's trade negotiations with the US, which is just to
Speaker 1: be clear, total and utter bollocks. It's wank, it's scrap,
Speaker 1: it's nonsense, boop them above all the technical terms. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is not leading Stargate. Stargate is a name used
Speaker 1: to refer to data centers built by open Ai, by
Speaker 1: which I mean other people building them for open Ai.
Speaker 1: KB Securities is around forty three billion dollars of assets
Speaker 1: under management. This is the level of analysis you get
Speaker 1: from these analysts. This is how much they know. There
Speaker 1: are people that study JoJo's bizarre adventure that have more
Speaker 1: economic analysis than any of these fucking people. Most Star
Speaker 1: Wars fans who have just memorized all the names of
Speaker 1: the glop shittos of the world have better analysis than this.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, you'd think, right that these companies have made
Speaker 1: all this noise, and they've talked about this stuff, the
Speaker 1: Presidential Office all involved, you think we'd be able to
Speaker 1: get a whiff of that on their earning scores, right well.
Speaker 1: On I sk Hihenex's October twenty ninth, twenty twenty five
Speaker 1: earning score. Weeks after the announcement, it's CEO Kim Wu
Speaker 1: Yun was asked a question about high bandwidth memory growth
Speaker 1: by Eskkim from Daiwa Securities and I quote, so this
Speaker 1: is this is SKKM asking the question. Thank you very
Speaker 1: much for taking my question. It is on demand now.
Speaker 1: There have been a series of announcements of GPU and
Speaker 1: a six supply cooperation between big techs and AI companies,
Speaker 1: fueling expectations of further AI market growth. Then, against this
Speaker 1: back drop, what is the company's outlook on high bend
Speaker 1: with memory demand as well as a broadening of the
Speaker 1: customer base, es sk Heinex. Thank you for the question. Now,
Speaker 1: with upward adjustment in big text CAPEX and increasing investment
Speaker 1: by AI companies, the high bandwidth memory market, even by
Speaker 1: a conservative vestmer, will keep growing at an average of
Speaker 1: over thirty percent for the next five years. I will
Speaker 1: point to our recent letter of intent with open Ai
Speaker 1: for large scale DRAM supply as an example of the
Speaker 1: very strong demand for AI as well as the need
Speaker 1: to secure AI memory based on HBM more than anything
Speaker 1: else went developing AI technology. That is it. That is
Speaker 1: the only mention of open AI. That's it. No other
Speaker 1: mentions otherwise, sk Heinex has not added any guidance that
Speaker 1: would suggest that it's DRAM sales will spike beyond overall
Speaker 1: growth where it's already grown because everyone's running out of
Speaker 1: ramthanks to fucking AI. Other than mentioning that it had
Speaker 1: an I quote completed year twenty twenty six supply discussions
Speaker 1: with key customers, there is no mention of open AI
Speaker 1: in any earning's presentation. Now You may think there were
Speaker 1: two companies. You said two company names. There were Samsung
Speaker 1: as well. Right well. On Samsung's October thirtieth, twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five earning school Samsung mentioned the term d RAM eighteen
Speaker 1: times and neither mentioned open AI nor any letters of
Speaker 1: intent of any kind. In its Q three twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five earnings presentation, Samsung mentions it will a quote prioritize
Speaker 1: the expansion of high bandwidth memory four business with differentiate
Speaker 1: performance to address increasing AI demand. Great place to mention
Speaker 1: open AI. Right, yeah, that would be if the money
Speaker 1: existed and they were gonna do anything Now, analysts do
Speaker 1: not appear to have noticed the lack of revenue from
Speaker 1: an apparent deal for forty percent of the world's RAM.
Speaker 1: Oh well, Pobody's perfect right. My frustration, you hear in
Speaker 1: my voice is that I'm a guy with a Google doc.
Speaker 1: I'm not a financial analyst, but I appeared to be
Speaker 1: able to do what they're doing because I'm able to
Speaker 1: fucking read a Both Samsung and s k Heinez's stocks
Speaker 1: have continued to write since, and you'd be forgiven for
Speaker 1: thinking this deal was something to do with it, even
Speaker 1: though it was not. But silly season was not yet over, however,
Speaker 1: and on October fifth, twenty twenty five, AMD announced that
Speaker 1: it had entered a multi year, multi generation agreement with
Speaker 1: open Ai to build six goddamn gigawads of data centers,
Speaker 1: with the first one gig what deployment said to begin
Speaker 1: in the second half of twenty twenty six, calling the
Speaker 1: agreement definitive with terms that allowed open ai to buy
Speaker 1: up to ten percent of AMD stock, festing over specific
Speaker 1: milestones that started with the first giga what of data
Speaker 1: center development, said data centers would use AMDs yet to
Speaker 1: be released four to fifty GPUs. The deal would per
Speaker 1: reuters bring in tens of billions of dollars of revenue. Now,
Speaker 1: I know, hate to be an asshole, right, I know,
Speaker 1: I'm always on this shit, right Yeah? Where would those
Speaker 1: data centers go? How much? How much would they cost?
Speaker 1: How would open Ai pay for them? Would the jips
Speaker 1: be ready in time? Silence? Well, how dare you ask questions?
Speaker 1: How dare you? Why are you asking questions? Number? Go up?
Speaker 1: Number go up? Look look at number? Go up. AMD
Speaker 1: shares searched by thirty four percent, with the analyst Dan
Speaker 1: Ives of Webbush, who appears to dress like the San
Speaker 1: Diego Padres Didy connect Jerseys, saying that this was a
Speaker 1: major evaluation moment for AMD. As in the side, I've
Speaker 1: said that in video would benefit from the meta verse
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one, and told CBS News in November
Speaker 1: on November twenty second, twenty twenty one, that and I quote,
Speaker 1: the metaverse was real and that Wall Street was looking
Speaker 1: for winners, were they dan? Now one more thing, that
Speaker 1: AMD's November earnings a month after that announcement might be
Speaker 1: a barn burner full of remaining performance obligations from Open AI.
Speaker 1: Things that Open appaying them moost tens of billions of
Speaker 1: dollars of revenues right. In fact, CEO Lisa Sun who
Speaker 1: said that AMD expected this partnership will significantly accelerated Stata
Speaker 1: Center AI business and with the potential to generate well
Speaker 1: over one hundred billion dollars in revenue over the next
Speaker 1: few years in the announcement, and here's how AMD's ten
Speaker 1: Q filing referred to it, and I quote. As of
Speaker 1: September twenty seventh, twenty twenty five, the Aggagut transaction price
Speaker 1: allocated to remaining performance applications on the contracts with an
Speaker 1: original expected duration of more than one year. It was
Speaker 1: two hundred and seventy nine million dollars, of which one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty nine million dollars is expected to be
Speaker 1: recognized in the next twelve months. The revenue allocated to
Speaker 1: remaining performance applications does not include amounts whichever original expected
Speaker 1: duration of one year or less. Now, I don't know
Speaker 1: about you. I did not I didn't do economics in school,
Speaker 1: didn't do anythin like that, didn't do well at maths
Speaker 1: in school. But two hundred and seventy nine million dollars
Speaker 1: seems lower than over one hundred billion dollars. So I
Speaker 1: guess just just no revenue from open AI, no revenue
Speaker 1: of any kind. I guess. Now, AMD did raise guidance
Speaker 1: by thirty five percent of the next five years, and
Speaker 1: they're trailing. Twelve month revenue is thirty two billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Tens of billions of dollars would surely lead to more
Speaker 1: than a thirty five percent boost, because that would be
Speaker 1: like eleven billion. That's just eleven billion dollars. That's a
Speaker 1: lot less. That's a lot less than one hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 1: I don't know guess all that was for nothing. No
Speaker 1: follow up from the media, no questions from analysts, just
Speaker 1: the shrug and we all move on. They were at ces.
Speaker 1: Greg Brockman came on AMD's Lisa Sue said something about
Speaker 1: Yachta flops, which really just pissed me off to think about.
Speaker 1: Still nothing anyway. AMD stock is now down from a
Speaker 1: high of two hundred and fifty nine bucks at the
Speaker 1: end of October to around let's see md stocks understand
Speaker 1: about two hundred and thirty one bucks right now. Everybody
Speaker 1: who traded in based on an analyst and media comments
Speaker 1: got fucked. Now let's go to my favor them, and
Speaker 1: that's a little company named Broadcom. So back on September fifth,
Speaker 1: Broadcom send and it's earning school that it had a
Speaker 1: ten billion dollar order from a mysterious customer, which analysts
Speaker 1: quickly assumed was open Ai, leading to Broadcom stock probably
Speaker 1: nine percent and gradually increasing to a high of a
Speaker 1: three hundred and sixty nine dollars on September tenth, before
Speaker 1: declining a little until October thirteenth, when Broadcom announced a
Speaker 1: ridiculous ten gigawa deal with open Ai, claiming that it
Speaker 1: would deploy ten gigawats of open Ai designed chips, with
Speaker 1: the first ranks to deploy the second half of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six and the entire deployment completed by the end
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty ninth. So three fucking years for ten
Speaker 1: fucking gigawatts. Just to give you an idea, it's about
Speaker 1: two and a half years a gigawat right now. And
Speaker 1: that's for open Ai slush fun projects, the ones that
Speaker 1: have all the money and none of the oversight. Now.
Speaker 1: The same day, President of Semiconductor Solutions Charlie Cowas added
Speaker 1: that said mystery customers actually not open Ai, and I quote,
Speaker 1: I would love to take a ten billion dollar purchase
Speaker 1: order from my good friend Greg Brockman, CEO of open Ai,
Speaker 1: Cowas said he has not given me that purchase order yet. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: Broadcom stock popped nine percent on the news about the
Speaker 1: ten gigawa deal with CMBC, adding that the companies have
Speaker 1: been working together for eighteen months because it's open Ai.
Speaker 1: Nobody sat and thought about whether somebody at Broadcom was saying, wow,
Speaker 1: well open has yet to ward these chips, yeah, and
Speaker 1: whether that was a problem. In fact, the answer to
Speaker 1: how does open Ai thought this appeared to be they'd
Speaker 1: afford it when it came to analysts. Now I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm about to read you a quote that is so
Speaker 1: funny when you realize that this is someone who makes
Speaker 1: like a shit ton of money. Ahem. The twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six timelines set out by open Ai for the buildout
Speaker 1: is aggressive, but the startup is also best position to
Speaker 1: raise funds required for the project given the heights of
Speaker 1: investor confidence, said gad Joe Sevilla, an analyst eMarketer. Financing
Speaker 1: such a large chip deal will likely require a combination
Speaker 1: of funding grounds pre orders, strategic investments and support from Microsoft,
Speaker 1: as well as leveraging future revenue streams and potential credit facilities. Hogwash,
Speaker 1: just complete, complete bollocks. Insane that people pay these analysts bullshit. Okay,
Speaker 1: So just let's just break this down financing such a
Speaker 1: large chip deal. So ten gigawats, you're going to be
Speaker 1: looking at fifty bill dollars a gig was you look
Speaker 1: at that half a trillion dollars. So to do this
Speaker 1: for this aggressive buildout, which was ten giga Watson three years,
Speaker 1: just not possible. They would fund this by pre orders,
Speaker 1: pre orders for what exactly, because pre orders would be
Speaker 1: then pre ordering something from Broadcom. Not really sure how
Speaker 1: that fixed the problem. Strategic investments from whom just funding
Speaker 1: I guess, support from Microsoft funding again, I guess, And
Speaker 1: I don't know why Microsoft be paying for that, as
Speaker 1: well as leveraging future revenue streams and potential credit for
Speaker 1: say what what does that mean? Saving money doing like
Speaker 1: a revenue trade deal? Like what are you talking about? Anyway,
Speaker 1: you don't need to worry because open ai solution to
Speaker 1: this was far simpler. It didn't order anything. During Broadcom's
Speaker 1: November earning school, where Broadcom revealed that the ten billion
Speaker 1: dollar order was actually from Anthropic, another l of them
Speaker 1: started that burnst billions of dollars, which was actually buying
Speaker 1: Google's TPUs from Broadcom, and he also added the Anthropic
Speaker 1: had made a second eleven billion dollar deal. Alice somehow
Speaker 1: believed that Anthropic is positioned to spend heavily despite being
Speaker 1: yet another venture backed welfare recipient in the same flavor
Speaker 1: as open Ai. Oh right, right, sorry, okay, Broadcom. You
Speaker 1: may be wondering about the ten gig what deal though,
Speaker 1: because those earnings right well, Broadcom CEO hoc Tan said
Speaker 1: that he did not expect much in twenty twenty six
Speaker 1: from the deal, and guidance did not change to reflect it. Now,
Speaker 1: what was great about this as well? And I linked
Speaker 1: to this in the newsletter. I really need you to
Speaker 1: go and look up how hoc Tan had the conversation
Speaker 1: because someone asked him for more detail and he just
Speaker 1: straight up said, like, I don't want to talk about it.
Speaker 1: It rocks. I honestly fucking love that. Anyway, Broadcom climbed
Speaker 1: to a higher four hundred and twelve dollars a share
Speaker 1: leading up to its earnings, and I imagine it did
Speaker 1: so based on people trading on the belief that open
Speaker 1: Air and Broadcom were doing a deal of some sort together,
Speaker 1: which does not appear to be happening. While there is
Speaker 1: an alleged seventy three billion dollar backlog for Broadcom, every
Speaker 1: dollar from Anthropic is utterly questionable. Now, some of you
Speaker 1: might say, ed, we can't just automatically distrust public companies. Actually,
Speaker 1: yes we can. I'm doing it right now. Whenever a
Speaker 1: company says a litter of intent, as in Video and
Speaker 1: sk Heinez and Samsung did, it's important to immediately stop
Speaker 1: taking the deal. Seriously until you get to a specific
Speaker 1: word contract, not agreement or deal or announcement, but contract,
Speaker 1: because contracts are the only thing that actually matters. A
Speaker 1: great example of this is in in Video's last earnings,
Speaker 1: they said they would be investing up to ten billion
Speaker 1: dollars in Anthropic. Right, you'll notice that that was in
Speaker 1: the middle of November. It's now January and we haven't
Speaker 1: heard boo about it. It's probably because nothing's fucking happening.
Speaker 1: And also that phrase up to as well means that
Speaker 1: it will be However much in Video wants to invest,
Speaker 1: if at all. They only just did their Intel investment. Anyway,
Speaker 1: whenever they say these terms, you need to just get suspicious.
Speaker 1: It's time. It's time to stop trusting them, because they've
Speaker 1: played enough hide the sausage for one EPOC. I think
Speaker 1: it's time for everybody, analysts, the media, members of Congress,
Speaker 1: the fucking pope. I don't care, to start treating these
Speaker 1: companies with actual suspicion and to start demanding timelines like
Speaker 1: I said. In Video and Microsoft announced that fifteen billion
Speaker 1: dollar investment, and in Anthropic, where's the money? Why does
Speaker 1: the agreement say up to ten billion for in Video
Speaker 1: and up to five billion for Microsoft. Where's the money?
Speaker 1: Where is it? We haven't heard shit about it since.
Speaker 1: What we have heard is that Anthropic is raising either
Speaker 1: ten billion dollars or twenty five billion dollars at a
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifty billion dollar valuation. Where'd the money go?
Speaker 1: Where the money go from? Those fuck nuts? But they go, Sorry,
Speaker 1: Jensen won for calling you a fuck n All right,
Speaker 1: you're acting like one though, mate. Anyway, these deals are
Speaker 1: announced with the intention of suggesting there is more revenue
Speaker 1: and money and generative AI that actually exists. Furthermore, it
Speaker 1: is irresponsible and actively harmful for analysts in the media
Speaker 1: to continually act as if these deals will actually get
Speaker 1: paid when you consider the financial conditions of these companies.
Speaker 1: As part of its alleged funding announcement within Video and
Speaker 1: Microsoft and Thropic also agreed to purchase thirty billion dollars
Speaker 1: as your Compute, which is, for those of you who
Speaker 1: don't know, the compute cloud platform, the competitors to Amazon
Speaker 1: Web Services and Google Cloud that Microsoft runs. It also
Speaker 1: agreed to Anthropic agreed to spend tens of billions of
Speaker 1: dollars with Google Cloud. They ordered ten billion dollars of
Speaker 1: chips from broad Coom earlier in twenty twenty five, and
Speaker 1: apparently another eleven billion dollars of them in the last
Speaker 1: fiscal quarter. How does Anthropic pay for them? How Anthropic
Speaker 1: allegedly burned two point eight billion dollars last year twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, though I think they burn much more and
Speaker 1: raise sixteen point five billion dollars in funding before Microsoft
Speaker 1: and then Videa's imaginary money. How are investors tolerating Broadcom
Speaker 1: not directly stating the future financial condition of this company
Speaker 1: is questionable? Has Broadcom created a reserve for this deal?
Speaker 1: If not, why not? Anthropic will make no more than
Speaker 1: five billion dollars in twenty twenty five, I'm sure of it,
Speaker 1: and raised about seventeen point five billion dollars with another
Speaker 1: two point five billion dollars coming in debt. How can
Speaker 1: it foreseeably afford to pay ten billion, eleven billion or
Speaker 1: twenty one billion dollars considering it's already massive losses and
Speaker 1: all those other obligations I mentioned. Will Jensen one hand
Speaker 1: over ten billion dollars so that Anthropic can hand it
Speaker 1: straight to Broadcom? I don't think so. I realize the
Speaker 1: counter argument is that the companies aren't responsible for the
Speaker 1: counterparty's financial health. But my argument is that it's the
Speaker 1: responsibility of any public company to give a realistic view
Speaker 1: of its financial health and revenue sources, which includes not
Speaker 1: to give a chunk of its revenues from a startup
Speaker 1: that can't afford to pay for its orders. There's no
Speaker 1: counter for that. Anthropic cannot afford to pay broad Com
Speaker 1: ten billion dollars right now or eleven billion dollars in
Speaker 1: a few months. Where is the money coming from. They're
Speaker 1: allegedly raising twenty five billion dollars. Great that ac shud
Speaker 1: lead them with four billion dollars to pay for what
Speaker 1: like thirty forty fifty billion dollars of compute costs. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Again, I ain't no mathematician, but I can
Speaker 1: put those numbers together and I can say that's a
Speaker 1: pretty big minus. Again, I'm not even trying to be
Speaker 1: sarcastic here. The things I'm saying are actually very rational.
Speaker 1: They're very reasonable. Anthropic even if they raised twenty five
Speaker 1: billion dollars, cannot pay even like a quarter of the
Speaker 1: things they've agreed to their existent revenue sources. Even if
Speaker 1: they made twenty billion dollars in twenty twenty six, which
Speaker 1: they will not. By the way, they are absolutely I
Speaker 1: just don't believe them about their revenues at all or
Speaker 1: any of the estimates. But the problem is that in
Speaker 1: any bubble, being really stupid and ignorant works right up
Speaker 1: until it doesn't. And however harsh the dot com bubble
Speaker 1: might have been, it wasn't harsh enough, and those who
Speaker 1: were responsible were left unpunished and unashamed, and that guaranteed
Speaker 1: that the cycle would happen again, and then it would
Speaker 1: be worse. I want to be really abundantly clear about
Speaker 1: what's happening. Every single stock you see growing because of AI,
Speaker 1: outside of those selling RAM and GPUs, is actually growing
Speaker 1: because of something else. Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Meta all
Speaker 1: have other products that are making the money and are
Speaker 1: still growing. AI is not growing them. And because analysts
Speaker 1: and investors in the media do not think about things
Speaker 1: for two seconds, they have allowed themselves to be beaten
Speaker 1: down and turned into supplicants for future public stock growth.
Speaker 1: Investors have allowed themselves to be played, and the results
Speaker 1: will be worse than the dot com bubble bursting by
Speaker 1: several echelons and perhaps the biggest victims will be venture capital,
Speaker 1: which is existentially threatened by the AI bubble, But the
Speaker 1: actual victims will be regular people who made the mistake
Speaker 1: of trusting analysts or anyone who told them to invest
Speaker 1: in the markets. But I'm going to be really simplistic
Speaker 1: for a second. I am skeptical of AI because everybody
Speaker 1: loses money. I believe every AI company is unprofitable with
Speaker 1: margins that are getting increasingly worse as they scale, and
Speaker 1: as a result, none of them will be able to
Speaker 1: get acquired or go public. This means that venture capitalists
Speaker 1: that have sunk money into AI stocks and private AI stocks,
Speaker 1: I should be clear, are going to be sitting on
Speaker 1: a bunch of assets under management AEM the same assets
Speaker 1: they collect fees on because that's how venture capitalists make
Speaker 1: money that will eventually creter or go to zero because
Speaker 1: there will be no way for any liquidity events so
Speaker 1: taken in public or selling someone to occur. This is
Speaker 1: at a time of historically low liquidity for venture capitalists,
Speaker 1: with Pitchbook estimating that there would be only one hundred
Speaker 1: point eight billion dollars in venture capital funds available at
Speaker 1: the end of last year. Venture capitalists raise money from
Speaker 1: limited partners who invest in venture capital with the hope
Speaker 1: of returns that outpace investing in the public markets. Venture
Speaker 1: capital vastly overinvested in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two as well, and this was also a problem with
Speaker 1: private equity. In simple terms, this means that these funds
Speaker 1: are sitting on tons of stock that they cannot shift,
Speaker 1: and the longer it takes for a company to w
Speaker 1: either go public or required, the more likely it is
Speaker 1: the VC or the P firm will have to mark
Speaker 1: down its value to something more realistic. This is so
Speaker 1: bad that, according to Carter, as of August twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: and that CARTA some of you can't understand how I talk.
Speaker 1: As of August twenty twenty four, less than ten percent
Speaker 1: of VC funds raised in twenty twenty one have made
Speaker 1: any distributions to their investors, that's handing any kind of
Speaker 1: cash out. In a piece from September twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: Carter also revealed that about fifteen percent of funds from
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three have generated any disbursements as of Q two,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, and the media net internal rate of
Speaker 1: return was a median zero point one percent, meaning that
Speaker 1: at best most investors got their money back and absolutely
Speaker 1: nothing else. And just to be clear, you don't invest
Speaker 1: so you can get an exact amount. You don't give
Speaker 1: someone a dollar, wait four years and then get a
Speaker 1: dollar back. That's not investing, that's just putting money in
Speaker 1: a box. And in fact, investing in venture capital has
Speaker 1: kind of fucking sugged for a while. According to Carter,
Speaker 1: as of the end of Q two, most VC funds
Speaker 1: across all recent vintages that's after twenty eighteen had a
Speaker 1: TVPI somewhere between zero point eight x and two x
Speaker 1: TVPI I'll get to in a second, but there are
Speaker 1: some areas where standout tvpis are surfacing. TVPI means total
Speaker 1: value to paid in capital, or the amount of money
Speaker 1: you made for each dollar invested. So if you invested
Speaker 1: a dollar point eight x would mean you got eighty
Speaker 1: cents back, and if you invested a dollar you get
Speaker 1: two bucks on two X. I hope that makes sense. Now,
Speaker 1: there's a chart in the newsletter version of this episode,
Speaker 1: which I encourage you to check out, but it tells
Speaker 1: you that for the most part, vcs have struggled to
Speaker 1: provide even money returns. Since twenty seventeen, decent TVPI is
Speaker 1: two point five x, and as you'll see from the chart,
Speaker 1: things basically collapsed since twenty twenty one. Companies are not
Speaker 1: going public or being acquired at the same rate, meaning
Speaker 1: that investor capital is increasingly locked up, meaning that limited
Speaker 1: partners are still wing for a payoff from the last bubbles.
Speaker 1: Let learn this one now. Carter would update the chart
Speaker 1: in December twenty twenty five, and things would somehow get worse.
Speaker 1: TVPI soured further, suggesting a further lack of exits across
Speaker 1: the board. The only slight improvement was the median IRR,
Speaker 1: which rose from zero point five percent from funds from
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one and zero point one percent for funds
Speaker 1: from twenty twenty two. Those are still real, fucking terrible.
Speaker 1: Those are absolutely astonishing. I mean, a good IRR is
Speaker 1: ideally like fifteen to twenty percent, not zero point five percent.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but in simpler terms, we are looking
Speaker 1: at years of locked up capital, even venture capital cash starved,
Speaker 1: and a little ESPRA. The worst part is that all
Speaker 1: of this is happening during a generational increase in the
Speaker 1: amounts that startups need to raise thanks to the ruinous
Speaker 1: costs of generative AI and the negative margins of AI
Speaker 1: powered services. Now, I'm going to quote myself from a
Speaker 1: December fifth newsletter called the Ways the AI Bubble Might Burst. Cursor,
Speaker 1: Anthropic's largest customer and now it's biggest competitor in the
Speaker 1: AAI coding sphere, raised two point three billion dollars in
Speaker 1: November after raising nine hundred million dollars in June. Now
Speaker 1: for twenty twenty five, and I should add these are
Speaker 1: on revenues of eighty three million dollars in the month
Speaker 1: of I think November October, because they said annualized revenues
Speaker 1: of one billion dollars. Is dogship perplexity one of the
Speaker 1: most And I say this presitantly popular AI companies raised
Speaker 1: two hundred million dollars in September after using one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars in July, after seeming to fail to raise
Speaker 1: five hundred million dollars in May. After raising five hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars in December twenty twenty four for a fucking
Speaker 1: search engine, Cognition raised four hundred million dollars in September
Speaker 1: after raising three hundred million dollars In March, Coher raised
Speaker 1: one hundred million dollars in said temper, a month after
Speaker 1: it raised five hundred million dollars. That's a lot of money,
Speaker 1: and that's a lot of money in a very small
Speaker 1: amount of time, and that's taking money away from everyone
Speaker 1: else because they need that money. You need the money
Speaker 1: to invest in the stops. But none of these companies
Speaker 1: are profitable, nor do they have a path to end
Speaker 1: acquisition or IBO. And why do you say, why why
Speaker 1: do you ask? Ede? You're being so horrible? What's because
Speaker 1: even the most advanced AI software companies ultimately prompting open
Speaker 1: AI or Anthropics models, meaning that their only real intellectual
Speaker 1: property is those prompts and their staff and whatever they
Speaker 1: can build around the models they don't control, which has
Speaker 1: been obvious from the meager acquisitions we've seen so far.
Speaker 1: Another fun fact, Anthropic ended up cutting off people that
Speaker 1: worked to Xai that were using Cursor from using their models. So,
Speaker 1: just to be clear, Cursor completely different company Anthropic. If
Speaker 1: you work at a company at Anthropic doesn't like and
Speaker 1: I know we don't, we don't like elon mask, I
Speaker 1: get that. But if Anthropic can arbitrarily cut off their
Speaker 1: models from somebody's completely independent product. Just because they're deciding
Speaker 1: to cut off a competitor, they're just going to broaden
Speaker 1: the term competitor to mean anyone they don't like, anyone
Speaker 1: that gets in the way. Now, Windsurf, which was allegedly
Speaker 1: being sold to open Ai last year, ended up selling
Speaker 1: its assets to Cognition in July twenty twenty five, with
Speaker 1: Google paying two point four billion dollars just to hire
Speaker 1: its co founders. And this nebulous licensing agreement similar to
Speaker 1: the thing it did with Character to AI, where it
Speaker 1: paid two point seven billion dollars to reheigh Nome Shazir,
Speaker 1: who he was one of the authors of the Attention
Speaker 1: is All You Need paper that started this spars licenses
Speaker 1: tech can pay off the stock of its remaining staff.
Speaker 1: This is also exactly what Microsoft did with Inflection AI
Speaker 1: and it's co founder, mister Suliman, who, and I quote
Speaker 1: someone who messaged me really recently, is a huge fucking asshole. Now,
Speaker 1: mister Sulliman, if you hear this, I'm just quoting someone
Speaker 1: that works for you. If they're saying that about you,
Speaker 1: perhaps it's worth asking why are people calling me a
Speaker 1: big fucking asshole. I don't know. Must Far come on
Speaker 1: the show and ask me yourself. Now open Aiyes, acquisitions
Speaker 1: of Statsic one point one billion dollars, Ioproducts six point
Speaker 1: five billion dollars, in Neptune four hundred million dollars. We're
Speaker 1: all in stock. Every other major acquisition of this era, Wiz, Confluence, Confluent,
Speaker 1: even Informatica and so on, is either someone trying to
Speaker 1: pretend that something is related to AI, like Wiz, or
Speaker 1: trying to say that a data streaming platform is heavily
Speaker 1: AI related because AI needs data, which which may be true,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't mean that AI companies are selling and
Speaker 1: they're not, by the way, which is a problem. As
Speaker 1: forty one percent of US venture dollars in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five went to AI as of August, and according to Axios,
Speaker 1: the global number was around fifty one percent. A crisis
Speaker 1: is brewing. NERD Lawyer back in October wrote about the
Speaker 1: explosive growth of secondary markets, and I quote enter the
Speaker 1: secondary market a once niche corner of venture capital that
Speaker 1: has transferred into a primary liquidity mechanism. What's remarkable is
Speaker 1: how quickly this market is matured at least five major
Speaker 1: venture funds have hired full time staff dedicated to manufacturing
Speaker 1: non traditional exits. As Hans Swilden's CEO of Industry Ventures explained,
Speaker 1: all the brand named funds are all staffing and thinking
Speaker 1: through liquidity structures and professional buyers have flooded in. Megafunds
Speaker 1: specializing in secondaries have raised unprecedented amounts. Lexington raised a
Speaker 1: record twenty three billion dollars, or harbor Vest, Ardient and
Speaker 1: Collar Capital have raised funds in the ten to twenty
Speaker 1: billion dollar range. In simpler terms, there are now hot
Speaker 1: potato funds where either another limited partner buys and other's allocation,
Speaker 1: the companies themselves by back their stock, or the stock
Speaker 1: is resold to other private investors who are building venture
Speaker 1: capital firms out of shit. The venture capitalists can't sell.
Speaker 1: You're seeing where the problem might be. Eventually, someone's going
Speaker 1: to be. It's not Bomberman. It's not good now from
Speaker 1: the same NERD lawyer piece and I quote again, and
Speaker 1: they're not alone. The secondary market is projected to handle
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty two billion dollars in assets in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, Yet that still represents just one point
Speaker 1: nine percent of the total Unicorn value. As in the
Speaker 1: side of Unicorn is a company worth a billion dollars,
Speaker 1: there's six plus trillion dollars in untapped liquidity potential as
Speaker 1: aside here. That's a really nice way of looking at this.
Speaker 1: The transformation of the secondary market from emergency tool to
Speaker 1: standard operating procedure represents the most significant structural shift in
Speaker 1: venture capital since the rise of unicorns. It's not a
Speaker 1: temporary fix. It's a permanent evolution driven by misaligned timeframes
Speaker 1: between fund life cycles ten years and company maturation eleven
Speaker 1: plus years. I read that it's not just a temporary
Speaker 1: fix thing. I'm like, is this ai anyway back to
Speaker 1: quoting for better or worse? This is the new reality
Speaker 1: of startup funding. Vizs can no longer afford to simply
Speaker 1: spray and pray and wait for exits. They need active
Speaker 1: liquidity management strategies, and that fundamentally changes what kind of
Speaker 1: companies are getting funded and how. I'm just going to
Speaker 1: be honest. That last parts bullshit. I wrote this in
Speaker 1: the newsletter. That last part is whang. This is not
Speaker 1: changing anything about what companies get funded or how they're
Speaker 1: still funding these unprofitable monstrosities. Nothing has changed, and I
Speaker 1: would argue this piece frames that as a positive when
Speaker 1: the reality is far grimmer. Venture capitalists are sitting on
Speaker 1: piles of immovable equity and companies worth far less than
Speaker 1: they invested in. And the answer, it appears, is to
Speaker 1: find somebody else who is able to buy the dead weight.
Speaker 1: I assume because they are stupid, Like I mean, I
Speaker 1: realize someone is going to say, well, actually, it means
Speaker 1: maybe they see maybe they can afford to hold it
Speaker 1: for longer. No. Now, if you're buying anything since twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, you're probably get swindled. And according to Newcomer Only,
Speaker 1: oney one hundred and seventeen venture funds closed in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, down from twenty one hundred and twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: and forty three percent of dollars raised went to the
Speaker 1: largest venture funds, per The New York Times and Pitchbook,
Speaker 1: suggesting limited partners are becoming less interested in pumping cash
Speaker 1: into the system at a time when AI startups are
Speaker 1: demanding more capital than has ever been raised. How long
Speaker 1: can the venture capital industry keep handing out one hundred
Speaker 1: million to five hundred million dollars to multiple startups a year,
Speaker 1: because all the signs suggest that the current pace of
Speaker 1: funding must continue in perpetuity as nobody appears to have
Speaker 1: worked out the generative AI is inherently unprofitable, and thus
Speaker 1: every single company is on the Silicon Valley welfare system
Speaker 1: until somebody or everybody gives up or the system itself
Speaker 1: cannot sustain the pressure. I've read too many people make
Speaker 1: offhanded comments about this being like the dot com boom,
Speaker 1: and saying that lots of startups might die, but what's
Speaker 1: left over will be good. And I hate them. I
Speaker 1: hate so much. I hate them both for their flippancy
Speaker 1: and for their ignorance. None of the current stack of
Speaker 1: AI companies can survive on their own, meaning that the
Speaker 1: venture capital industry is holding them up. If even one
Speaker 1: of these companies faulters and dies, the entire narrative dies
Speaker 1: with it. If that happens, it will be harder for
Speaker 1: other AI companies to raise and even harder to sell
Speaker 1: an AI company to somebody else. And if you can,
Speaker 1: you'll be selling it for less. This is a punishment
Speaker 1: for a decade plus of hubris, where companies were invested
Speaker 1: in without ever considering a path to profitability. Venture capital
Speaker 1: has made the same mistake again and again and again,
Speaker 1: believing that because Uber or Facebook or Airbnb or any
Speaker 1: number of other companies found in nearly twenty years ago
Speaker 1: were unprofitable, at some point with past the profitability, I
Speaker 1: might add, it was totally okay to keep pumping, pumpaning, pumping,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying it, pumping up companies that have had
Speaker 1: no path to profitability, which eventually became had no apparent
Speaker 1: business models see the metaversal Web three, which eventually have
Speaker 1: negative margins so severe, evaluation so high that we will
Speaker 1: need an IPO at the a market cap higher than
Speaker 1: Netflix at minimum. This is Silicon Valley's rot economy, the
Speaker 1: desperate growth at all costs attachment the startups where you
Speaker 1: and I quote really liked the founder, where and I
Speaker 1: quote again the market could be huge who knows if
Speaker 1: it is, and where you just don't need to worry
Speaker 1: about profitability because IPOs and exits were easy. Yeah, you see,
Speaker 1: venture capital used to be real easy because we were
Speaker 1: still in an era of hypergrowth. You could be a
Speaker 1: stupid asshole who doesn't know anything, but there were so
Speaker 1: many good deals, and the more well known you were
Speaker 1: the more likely be brought them first, guaranteeing a bigger payout,
Speaker 1: guaranteeing more LP capital, guaranteeing more opportunities that were of
Speaker 1: a higher quality. Because you were a big name. It
Speaker 1: wasn't about being smart and knowing the fundamentals. It was
Speaker 1: about being handed things. It was easier to make a
Speaker 1: valuable company too, easier to get funded, and easier to
Speaker 1: sell because the goal was always get funded, grow as
Speaker 1: large as possible, or well go public. And here's the
Speaker 1: thing about that as well. They were just more ideas.
Speaker 1: They want more ideas to do. Like I said with
Speaker 1: the rock com bubble, they were just there were more
Speaker 1: things that people could create. That's the thing that ideas
Speaker 1: are a finite source. And when you incentivize this kind
Speaker 1: of thinking, you eventually stop incentivizing good ideas. You incentivize
Speaker 1: the growth. And as a result, venture capital encouraged growth
Speaker 1: at all cost, thinking above everything else. In twenty ten,
Speaker 1: ben Horowitz said and I quote that the only thing
Speaker 1: worse for an entrepreneur than startup hell, which was bankruptcy,
Speaker 1: is startup purgatory. And I quote when you don't go bankrupt,
Speaker 1: but you fail to build the Number one product in
Speaker 1: the space that's purgatory. You have enough money with your
Speaker 1: conservative burn rate to last for many years. You may
Speaker 1: even be cash flow positive. However, you have zero chance
Speaker 1: to becoming a high growth company. You have zero chance
Speaker 1: of being anything but a very small technology business. From
Speaker 1: the entrepreneur's point of view, this can be worse than
Speaker 1: start up hell, since you're stuck with the small company.
Speaker 1: What a fucking, noxious, ugly, horrifying thing to say. Let
Speaker 1: me put it like this. If you run a good
Speaker 1: business that people like and it's profitable, and you have
Speaker 1: good your employees like it, your customers like it, that's
Speaker 1: a good company. That isn't hell. And if you think
Speaker 1: that way, you're a fucking psychopath. You're an actual nutter.
Speaker 1: And this poisonous theory sadly paid off for him in
Speaker 1: that startups got used to building high growth, low margin
Speaker 1: companies that would easily sell to other companies of the
Speaker 1: markets themselves, right up until it didn't. Of course, per
Speaker 1: nerd Lawyer, IPOs have collapsed as next sit route along
Speaker 1: with easy to raise capital. Per pitch Book, since twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, seventy percent of VC backed exits were valued
Speaker 1: at less than the capital put in, with more than
Speaker 1: a third of them being startups buying other startups. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, the money is drying up as the
Speaker 1: value of VC's assets is decreasing at a time when
Speaker 1: vcs need more money than ever because everybody is heavily
Speaker 1: leveraged in the single most expensive funding climate in history,
Speaker 1: and as we hit this historical liquidity crisis, the two
Speaker 1: largest companies, open aron Anthropic are becoming drains on the
Speaker 1: system that in a very real sense, are participating in
Speaker 1: a massive redistribution of capital reserved for startups to one
Speaker 1: of a few public companies. No really hear me out.
Speaker 1: Open Ai is trying to raise as much as one
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars in funding so it can continue to
Speaker 1: pass money to one of a few public companies, thirty
Speaker 1: eight billion dollars to Amazon Web Services over seven years,
Speaker 1: twenty two point four billion dollars to Core We've over
Speaker 1: five years, and two hundred and fifty billion dollars over
Speaker 1: an indeterminate period on Microsoft Azure. If successful, open AI's
Speaker 1: venture Telethon will raise more money than it has ever
Speaker 1: been raised in a single round, draining funds that actual
Speaker 1: startups need. Anthropic has agreed, as I mentioned, to over
Speaker 1: seventy billion dollars in compute and chips deal across Google, Amazon,
Speaker 1: and Broadcom. And that's not including this hut eight compute
Speaker 1: deal at Google is backing that I don't even really
Speaker 1: want to think about. Think about it, just pre or
Speaker 1: simple for a second. Instead of venture capital going to startups,
Speaker 1: you know, early stage companies taking a risk that much
Speaker 1: is going to Open AI and Anthropic so they can
Speaker 1: hand it to big tech. This is big tech stealing
Speaker 1: from Silicon Valley and to see it as anything else
Speaker 1: is naive. And this money will come from what remains
Speaker 1: of venture capital, private equity, and whatever hyperscalers will hand
Speaker 1: over yet elsewhere, even the money that goes to regular
Speaker 1: startups is ultimately being sent to those hyperscalers. That AI
Speaker 1: startup that needs to keep raising one hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: in a single round isn't sending that cash to other startups.
Speaker 1: It's mostly going to Open Ai, who sends it to Microsoft, Amazon, Core, Evil, Google,
Speaker 1: Anthropic who sends it to Google, Microsoft or Amazon or
Speaker 1: one of the large hyperscalers such as Amazon, Microsoft or Google.
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley didn't birth the next big tech firm. It
Speaker 1: incubated yet another hyperscalar level parasite, except instead of just
Speaker 1: spending money on hyperscalar services and raising money to do so,
Speaker 1: both Anthropic and open ai actively drain the venture capital
Speaker 1: system as well as they both burn billions of dollars
Speaker 1: and need those billions of dollars to keep running the models.
Speaker 1: The AI startups can pay them by creating something that's
Speaker 1: incredibly expensive to run, so destructively expensive to run, they
Speaker 1: can naturally create startups more dependent on the venture capital system,
Speaker 1: and the venture capital system has no idea what to
Speaker 1: do other than say, just grow baby. Both open ai
Speaker 1: and anthropics models might be getting cheaper on a per
Speaker 1: million token basis, but they use more tokens, which increases
Speaker 1: the cost of inference, which in turn increases the cost
Speaker 1: of startups doing business, which in turn means Open Ai,
Speaker 1: Anthropic and all connected startups lose more money, which increases
Speaker 1: the burn on venture capital. This is a doom spiral,
Speaker 1: one that can only be reversed through the most magical
Speaker 1: and aggressive turnaround we will see in history, and it
Speaker 1: will have to happen in the next year without fail,
Speaker 1: and it won't. It's not going to happen and to
Speaker 1: find out why. You just have to join me tomorrow
Speaker 1: for part three of the in shitter financial Crisis. I'm
Speaker 1: Better Offline. This is ed z trn fuck. Thank you
Speaker 1: for listening to Better Offline.
Speaker 2: The editor and composer of the Better Offline theme song
Speaker 2: is Matasowski. You can check out more of his music
Speaker 2: and audio projects at Matasowski dot com, M A T
Speaker 2: T O S O W s ki dot com. You
Speaker 2: can email me at easy at Better offline dot com
Speaker 2: or visit Better Offline dot com to find more podcast
Speaker 2: links and of course, my newsletter. I also really recommend
Speaker 2: you go to chat dot Where's youreaed dot at to
Speaker 2: visit the discord, and go to our slash Better.
Speaker 1: Offline to check out our reddit. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for listening.
Speaker 3: Better Offline is a production of cool Zone Media. For
Speaker 3: more from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool Zonemedia
Speaker 3: dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 3: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts, film
Speaker 1: Scho