저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
AI 인프라(컴퓨트·전력·부지) 부족이 심각하며 Anthropic·OpenAI가 자체 인프라 확보에 실패하면 Friendster 효과로 수익 둔화 위험. 유가 급락과 비트코인 급등 직전 대규모 포지션은 의심스럽고 CFTC 조사 중이라는 주장. 시장은 Shiller PE·Buffett 지표 고점 등 상충 신호, 본인은 리스크오프 성향이며 IPO 이후 디레버리징 계획. 비트코인은 CLARITY Act 지연 시 2027년까지 제도권 유입 지연 가능성 언급.
다듬은 글
Maine just passed a bill that bans all data center buildings. So, I think the reason why Allbirds went crazy is a very, very small canary in a very important coal mine, which is we are absolutely compute constrained. I think if you play this out, the real problem again goes back to Anthropic and OpenAI.
If I were them, it is a five-alarm fire for them. They, more than anybody else, needs to get their hands on compute. They need to have land, power, shell, but otherwise that revenue could either slow down or hit a wall, and it will not be because of product quality and adoption. It will entirely be because of the Friendster effect.
You just couldn't keep the site up. And I think that that that would be a huge, huge problem for everybody. Hey guys, welcome to Everyday Finance. We're currently navigating a market climate where a much more uncomfortable reality of possible manipulation and deliberate positioning is concealed by surface level bullishness.
Although the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz caused oil prices to plummet by a staggering 10% and Bitcoin to soar to $78,000. The odd timing of a $760 million short on oil and aggressive cryptocurrency acquisition right before the news implies that major players are driving world events. According to billionaire investor Chamath Palihapitiya, the market has given up on logical and favor of managed cycles and contradicting signals where the narrative is determined by geopolitical theater and well-timed trades rather than by supply and demand.
As institutional factors and impending regulation revisions like the Clarity Act start to reshape the picture, this suggests that the current ceasefire may be a deliberate halt rather than a true resolution, leaving the larger economy exposed to abrupt upheavals. Determining whether we are seeing a real rebound or a well-planned illusion of strength requires an understanding of this discrepancy between public headlines and underlying data.
Like long horizon coding tasks, what I can tell you from my team at 80/90 is Codex is better generally than Anthropic. And so, what happens is from the more day-to-day work, I think it's more reliable to use the Claude ensemble of models. But when you're dealing with something that's very tricky and very complicated and a little bit more long horizon, Codex is really functional and really good.
So, I think if you're looking at it through the lens of OpenAI, what they're probably saying is, "Hey, hold on a second. If we allocate our resources and just double down and crush consumer, that's probably three or four trillion of enterprise value. And then if we slowly refocus the company with the rest of the resources and double down on Codex and do something meaningful in enterprise, we can probably capture two or three trillion there, and now all of a sudden you can paint a picture for a seven, eight, nine trillion-dollar market cap in the fullness of time, not tomorrow, obviously.
But Codex is really good, and there's a business to be had in both. You have to separate the two businesses. You can't have a lot of overlap because there's too much context switching. You got to let the consumer team run, and then you got to isolate the enterprise team and let them do what they think is right.
Because if you look at Twitter, people are panning Claude desktop, and what they said is this is all a bunch of vibe-coded slop. I think we have to remember, if you keep these agents on task and they're guardrailed properly, this stuff is a force multiplier. The problem is nobody knows how to do this really well yet.
Nobody has built real products of scale largely using agents yet. Nobody knows how to give an example of how an org structure should be redesigned. Nobody knows how to budget properly. We had the CTO of Uber say, "I give up. I've hit my token budget." The problems I see it are twofold. The first is, just to build on Sacks's point, all of these frontier labs have a very serious issue, which is both OpenAI and Anthropic are growing so fast that they're at a point now where they need their own infrastructure.
It's kind of like when you first start building any kind of company, you're just much easier renting capacity from the hyperscalers. And that's a dependency. Yeah. But then it becomes a dependency, exactly. And now when you're so big, it's actually strategically a huge mistake to not have your own compute supply.
Why? Because if you look at who's leading, the frontier labs are leading, and Sacks, to your point, you mentioned this on X. You're like, "There was all this doomerism, but maybe it was tied to compute capacity because when Bedrock opened up more capacity for Anthropic, all the doomerism went away." You're left wondering like, "Is it really tied to just the fact that they were just trying to throttle usage?" So, if you're a frontier lab, you don't want to have to go through Amazon and GCP and Azure and tin cup for access and capacity.
What you'd much rather have is go straight to your customer. On the other side, if you're Gemini or Microsoft or Meta and you have all this compute because I saw a stat this week, the hyperscalers control 60% of all the compute. So, the game theory there is if you kneecap the frontier labs, it'll give you some chance to catch up.
And it gives you time to catch up because no matter what the demand is on the upside, you remember you guys remember like in social networking when Friendster was the cat's meow? Yeah. Cat's meow. Remember what the biggest problem with Friendster was? Friendster was slow as a dog. Yes. Yes. Yes. And what happened?
Then MySpace came in and took all the share. Then we came in, Facebook, and we took all their share. So, there is a way where you can handicap and kneecap these companies by throttling compute access to them. So, A, they are forced to now go and get in the game, which is weird because look, OpenAI has tried to displace some of the stargate spend.
I don't see any path except they're going to have to do it themselves, and Anthropic will have to do it themselves. But then separately, the other problem is when you change the subscription model in enterprise and you say, "Hey, we're not going to subsidize any more tokens." What's going to happen is all these token budgets are going to go crazy and what Freeburg said is going to happen where he's like, "Hey guys, why are you spending all this money?
What are you making?" And you inspect the code and you're like, "What is this slop?" And you're not going to add 30, 40, 50% opex to produce nothing. So, I think that that's an open question, and that question will become more amplified over the next year as they push the cost off of them. So, as Travis said, no more subsidy from the capital.
You have to grow into it, but you're not going to support negative gross margins. So, you're going to pass through the token costs. So, I think it's a very dynamic moment right now. Yes, please. There are a handful of transactions that have happened in the last few days that if you look far away are head-scratchers.
So, this is one. I don't know if you guys saw recently, but Jane Street did a a billion-dollar investment in essentially a new neoscaler and then also did a $6 billion compute deal with them. That was like a little interesting. So, what would I like to say about this? I think the thing that the capital markets are getting right is that we are massively compute constrained.
Massively. And those are two problems. One is the power. So, if you look at companies like Bloom Energy, it has gone absolutely straight up vertical nuclear. And the reason is because Bloom has a solution that allows you to use nat gas, that allows you to do something on-site, and critically allows you to get your clean air permits very quickly because it has very, very little emissions.
And it's been proven as such. And so, instead of waiting for years to get on the grid, if you wanted to build a data center, you can now use their services. The other part that's going absolutely nuclear is the actual land and the shell because it's turning out it's impossible to get these approvals.
Now, why is that? And I sent Nick an image. The reason is because underneath at the core of it all is there's a tide that is shifting on AI. The American population is incrementally getting more and more negative on the whole subject matter writ large. And it's not clear exactly why they're doing that.
Maybe it's the doomerism, which we talked about last week. Maybe it's the fear of the job loss that Jason has been talking about. Maybe it's just this idea of yet another wave of innovation that's only going to benefit a few in an extreme way, minting trillionaires all over the place while everybody else stands still.
I don't exactly know what's causing it, but the sentiment is shifting. And as the sentiment shifts, the most scaled action that they can take, they're taking, which is then they are going and voting down data centers. Here's an example, which was insane. A town approves a $6 billion data center build, and then half the the the board gets ousted.
Just voted out overnight so that they can put in new people to undo the decision. So, if you look at this all around the country, the answer is not, "Oh, we're only going to build in Texas." That doesn't work. There's not enough power, there's not enough grid capacity, there's not enough nat gas that allows that to happen.
Maine just passed a bill that bans all data center buildings. So, I think the reason why Allbirds went crazy is a very, very small canary in a very important coal mine, which is we are absolutely compute constrained. I think if you play this out, the real problem again goes back to Anthropic and OpenAI.
If I were them, it is a five-alarm fire for them. They, more than anybody else, needs to get their hands on compute. They need to have land power shell, but otherwise that revenue could either slow down or hit a wall, and it will not be because of product quality and adoption. It will entirely be because of the Friendster effect.
You just couldn't keep the site up. And I think that that that would be a huge huge problem for everybody. The suspicious $760 million. Oil short is a part of a trend where large positions, totaling over $2.2 billion in three recent events, were timed precisely to coincide with significant geopolitical news.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has launched a formal investigation in response to this trend. In order to ascertain whether some organizations are using confidential information to strategically position themselves before the market can respond. Bitcoin is seeing significant institutional accumulation during these uncertain times, while oil is subject to aggressive shorting.
This suggests a cycle in which big players like BlackRock and Binance may be manipulating market movements by buying during fear and selling once retail investors start chasing the ensuing rallies. In the end, these well-thought-out trades suggest that the current price activity is more about strategic anticipation than actual market reaction.
All the while a much greater force of global liquidity quietly grows in the background. As a greatest legacy, I pointed out one unavoidable fact, which is his returns are bimodally distributed pre- and post-Reg FD. Mhm. When [clears throat] you have to follow the rules of disclosure, everybody's returns got knee-capped.
When there was no disclosure rules, his returns were off the charts. That's just a mathematical truism. Now, what's interesting to note is the reason why Nancy Pelosi's returns are so consistently good is Reg FD does not apply to people in Congress. That it should be the takeaway. They can learn things
to stop them. They can learn things in their committee meetings. In fact, there are situations where things are disclosed, and then they are trading in real time. Shout out to the skiff. Yeah, get out of the skiff quick and get that trade in. So, I have enormous respect for Warren Buffett and what he's done.
It's it's he's he's the goat of goats. But, the returns post-Reg FD are they are just materially worse than they were pre-Reg FD, and that's just the What's he going to do with that cash position, Chamath, speaking of Buffett? They The market the market is in a billion sitting there? The market is in a very complicated moment right now.
If you look at historical indicators of value, so if you look at Shiller as an indication of value, it's peaking. If you look at the Buffett index, it's peaking. So, there are things that when you look at it, look like all-time highs. And the problem with that is you would say, "Oh, man, but there's this weird dispersion happening in the market." Dispersion means literally a few companies are hitting all-time highs.
I think it's like eight or nine. And everybody else is not. So, it's a really complicated moment. It's hard to understand what's going on, but he's got a lot of cash. If he's sticking to his knitting, he's looking at the Shiller index, and he's looking at his own indicator, which shows all-time highs, and he's waiting for a correction.
Yeah, I mean, I'll just do it again, but I think the the Shiller PE, Nick, I sent it to you. Shows near all-time highs. Then the second is the Buffett index, which is the sum of all US equities divided by GDP, is also at all-time highs. So, this would generally mean that you need to be increasingly a little bit more risk-off.
But then the opposite side of that, and I sent you a third one, and this is why it's so confounding, is you have signals showing everything, which is which typically doesn't happen. And this is this dispersion point where when you see this performance, and it's up 5% in the first, you know, half of April, typically the market is up almost 32% on average for the rest of the year.
And we were already up, as Zach said, you know, 7 1/2% already in the first half of the year. This is crazy. I don't even know what's going on here. Hey, this is just a this is just a dispersion. But, the the the idea of all of this is I think we're in a moment where you can find a piece of data to underwrite your bias.
And I think that's where there's a lot of danger. I don't know, for me personally, I'm generally more risk-off right now. And more importantly, I'm waiting for these IPOs so that I can, to be very honest with you, de-lever and get some chips off the table. I think that it is crucial that the SpaceX IPO get done ASAP.
And then I think it's even more crucial that one of Anthropic and OpenAI front-run the other one and get out first. And the first two charts are the reasons why. Bullish. I'm in this I'm in the space. I'm doing it. You're in the arena. We have seen in every single wave. In the mobile wave, we needed consumers to show up at scale.
So, we needed consumer experiences, and it was very obvious that there were these consumer businesses that were going to be, if not already, incredibly incredibly profitable. Google and Facebook were profitable within the first few years. They never looked back. And all I'm trying to point out to you guys is there is not one great example yet.
If we believe enterprises is where all the money is, and if we believe that's what's going to underpin these trillion-dollar valuations, just please somebody show me a couple of good examples of scaled profits. The basic truth is that the global financial system is intrinsically dependent on increasing liquidity to handle growing deficits and enormous interest payments, regardless of geopolitics and dubious insider transactions.
The next significant wave of institutional funding depends on the outcome of the Clarity Act, which is currently facing possible delays due to stablecoin yield requirements. Historically, this inevitable inflow of capital has gone into assets like Bitcoin. Sector may face a major backlog if this crucial legislation is not approved by the Senate, delaying the date of widespread institutional adoption until 2027 in the end.
Bitcoin's long-term prospects are still linked to the ongoing growth of the money supply because the asset just needs more liquidity to enter the system rather than ideal economic conditions to flourish. Even though the short-term is still a a volatile landscape of headlines and possibly manipulated positioning,
Comments 0