저자: ChamathPalihapitiya · 외국인
요약 보기
시장 밸류에이션 지표(Shiller PE, 버핏지수)는 역사적 고점 수준이나 소수 대형주만 신고가인 디스퍼전이 나타남. 호르무즈 관련 유가 급락 직전 대규모 선물 거래 의혹과 CFTC 조사 언급, 비트코인으로의 유동성 유입 기대. AI 컴퓨트 부족, 데이터센터 반대 확산, OpenAI/Anthropic의 자체 인프라 필요성 강조. 단기적으로 리스크오프 성향이며 SpaceX·AI 기업 IPO 후 차익실현을 고려. 장기적으로는 시스템 유동성 증가에 따라 비트코인에 우호적이라고 봄.
다듬은 글
historical indicators of value. So, if you look at Schiller 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 Schiller index, and he's looking at his own indicator, which shows all-time highs, and he's waiting for a correction.
Right now, the markets are sending confusing messages. Just hours after Iran said the Strait of Hormuz would reopen temporarily due to a ceasefire, oil prices dropped more than 10%. Bitcoin went up to $78,000, and risk assets generally went up. Making what at first glance look like a relief rally, but the timing raises a lot of questions.
Just minutes before news came out, someone put $760 million short on oil, and at almost the same time, millions of Bitcoin were aggressively accumulated, which suggests that some players may have been in place well before the news came out. Rich investor Chamath Palihapitiya sees this as proof that the market isn't logical or clear-cut anymore, but is instead being influenced by more and more mixed signals.
Making it look strong on the outside while being supported by a small group of powerful players on the inside. When you add in trades that happen at just the right time, global drama, and quick changes in the story, you get a picture of market cycle that is less natural and more carefully managed. To make things even less clear, Iran is already sending signals that the war might not be over.
This is why many experts see the ceasefire as more of a break than a resolution. Concerns about manipulation are rising. And the video gives an important update on the Clarity Act, which will affect the next wave of institutional capital entering the space. 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 uh essentially a new Neoscalar, 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 the bill that bans all data center buildings.
So, I think the reason why all birds 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 Open AI. 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.
great pair of guys is important. It doesn't change the business model of the utility. Meaning, Mhm. what the utility is allowed to do is every year build a budget. And the way that they decide how to charge you is that they are allowed to make investments, right? And then they're allowed to earn 10% roughly on the amount of investment that they make.
What do you think their incentive is? Their incentive is to find ways to keep investing and upgrading the infrastructure. So, I suspect what you'll see is independent of what the data centers do on-site, which I think is smart and good, and I'm glad you guys did that. It doesn't slow down the actual fundamental business model of the utility because those are local monopoly licenses that are granted at the state and county level.
And so, when you go inside and you look at those utilities, what they're allowed to do is say, "Well, I'm going to bury the lines underground because there's a wildfire threat. That's going to cost 10 billion." And they present that, the PUC has to say yes, and they're allowed to make 10% on 10 billion.
So, the business model of the utility has to be looked at because it is independent of all of these other things. And they have an incentive, like insurance companies, to just walk prices up over time. greatest legacy, I pointed out one unavoidable fact, which is his returns were bimodally distributed pre- and post-Reg FD.
Mhm. When 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 got to just 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 SKIF. Yeah, get out of the SKIF 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 truth. What's he going to do with that cash position, Chamath, speaking of Buffett? They The market What? 300 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 Schiller 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 Schiller index, and he's looking at his own indicator, which shows all-time highs, and he's waiting for a correction.
It wasn't just one trade that happened right before the Strait of Hormuz announcement. It was a third one in the past few weeks. The first two were $500 shorts before the US announced a delay in its attacks on Iran on March 23rd, and $950 million longs hours before news of a ceasefire on April 7th. Together, these three trades happened at suspiciously good times, resulting in a total loss of over $2.2 billion.
This pattern has now caught the attention of regulators. The CFTC has started an investigation to see if certain players had access to private information. If this is true, price action would no longer be a response to news, but rather an anticipation of it by people who already know what's going to happen.
At the same time that oil was being aggressively shorted, Bitcoin was seeing the opposite. Large institutional buyers putting in a lot of money when uncertainty was high. This is a pattern that's been seen over and over again over the past year. Buyers pile in when they're afraid, prices rise when news stories are positive, and then buyers sell when retail investors start chasing prices.
A lot of Bitcoin buyers now think that this cycle is being planned, at least in part, by big players like BlackRock and Binance. But, behind all of this short-term chaos is a much bigger force that is slowly building up. This force is liquidity, and it could have a bigger effect on a market than any single trade or news story.
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 uh 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 Sach said, you know, 7 and 1/2% already in the first half of the year. graph. 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, delever and get some chips off the table. I think that it is crucial that this 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. 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 were 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 related to complex, long-horizon coding tasks.
What I can tell you from my team at 8090 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 is 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. Yes and no. Hold on, because if you look on 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 redefined. 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 Sach'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 it'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 Sach, 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.
The main point of this argument is not about politics or questionable trades. It's about how the financial system depends on ever-growing liquidity. Rising deficits, ballooning interest payments, and a constant need to borrow money all make it likely that more money will enter the system. And that money is always flowing into assets like Bitcoin.
However, regulatory clarity, specifically the Clarity Act, is still needed before the next big wave of institutional capital arrives. The bill is currently at risk of being delayed again, even though insiders say it could free up huge amounts of dormant institutional money once it passes. Stablecoin yield regulations are a major sticking point that, if not resolved, could push the bill all the way back to 2027 and reset the whole timeline for institutional adoption.
As you look farther away, you can see the bigger picture. In the short term, this market is being driven by news stories, changes in geopolitics, and maybe even insiders' opinions. But in the long term, things will stay the same. It all depends on whether systemic liquidity continues to grow. If it does, Bitcoin doesn't need perfect conditions to thrive.
It just needs more money flowing into the system, which is what it has always needed.
Comments 0