I have mixed feelings about this episode primarily because of how it has left me feeling.
On Twitter:
Phil seemed to be somewhat compromised through his connections to many of the characters under discussion and he was clearly unable to note anything negative with regards to Elon which led me to feel that many of his points were bordering on being intellectually dishonest.
For example, one of the counterfactuals raised was the possibility that we might still be observing the dumpster fire now underway even if Elon had NOT made any changes. This strains credulity to put it mildly. A now very popular, (and I assume at face value to be accurate) Tweet about why a major advertiser paused Twitter spending is a case in point:
Clearly advertisers’ concerns aren’t just the hate speech and inappropriate content now proliferating on the site but the fact that all their account managers and contact points at Twitter have disappeared without a trace leaving advertisers hanging in the wind whilst their brand reputations are being tarnished. I find it hard to believe this type of situation would be occurring had Elon not made any changes (i.e., Phil’s repeated contention).
On Fraud:
I found the discussion on sentencing for fraud a tad superficial but more worryingly there was a sense from the panel that Holmes was somehow different from Madoff because she dreamed of changing the world with a revolutionary idea. Perhaps she’s just the innocent by-product of the “fake it till you make it” culture. Sorry, but this doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It was premeditated fraud plain and simple and the only good thing about the whole mess is that thank goodness no-one lost their lives (that we know of) because of faulty, fraudulent tests.
However, Phil’s honesty here about his near-miss investment decision in Theranos was robust and perhaps a poignant reminder not to invest in things that you don’t fully understand, even if the founder is charismatic, and especially when you are experiencing intense FOMO.
On FTX and Crypto:
You may have seen the video from a VC partner who was pitched by SBF who then sent through conditions that they would need to see a governance board and various financial controls be put in place before they could invest. SBF called them up to say, no joke, “F YOU”.
Why is the industry enabling this kind of behaviour? What has gone wrong that you can play video games whilst pitching to Sequoia; describe your business as a literal Ponzi scheme on a prominent podcast; have little to no experience in the domain in question*; and swear at an investor in the rudest possible manner and the market is still going wild to try and throw money at you. This is honestly a travesty of our own making.
*I am aware that SBF and his alleged co-conspirators worked at Jane Street and Credit Suisse but from what’s being reported none were in roles for sufficient time to have moved beyond having responsibility for the coffee run let alone knowing anything about risk management, compliance systems, custodial, financial controls, accounting systems, liquidity management, counterparty contracts, or any of the other hundred or so systems actual exchanges need to have in place.