Transcript of All-In's Best Ideas Pitch Competition: 4 Investors Present Their Top Trades Live New

Maybe you could tell us a little bit about how you selected our presenters and your vision for this.

I mean, for any of you guys who've been involved in Ira Sohn, this is a gentleman that passed away from cancer far too young, and his family created this thing called the Sohn Foundation, and they would host this event and it started in Lincoln Center and they would ask these managers. And so at the time I was like a young venture investor and I got this invite and I showed up in New York at Lincoln Center in 2015.. And I said Amazon's going to be a trillion-dollar company. And I was laughed out of the room. David Einhorn, who's a friend of mine but who is totally wrong, said, I know trillion-dollar companies. This is not a trillion-dollar company. Wrong. It turned out to be a great bet. I went back. I did Tesla in 2016. We picked the converts. And then in 2017, I was like, all right, this is my— this is— this is it. This is my magnum opus. And I said, AI is the future. And then I picked Box. I was like, if I had just picked NVIDIA, I would have been a legend. Legend. And I could have retired. Well, anyway, so we wanted to recreate Irisone and start to get these great managers who are making great picks, making a ton of money for their LPs.

They don't get the distribution. And so it's just a chance to like get to know some of these names. You don't have to see them on CNBC. You'll see them here more and more often. And we can just get to opine. Roll the video.

Yeah.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Best Ideas Pitch.

Let's meet our contestants.

Anyone should be able to trade any asset anywhere in the world, anytime, 24/7 with just an internet connection and a phone in their pocket. We're building a new financial system from the ground up here.

People are going to want to own equities and it's going to be fun the next couple of years. Companies going to innovate and create products and applications. And that's where hopefully long-short managers like us can make a boatload of money.

My fund, Eco R1 Capital, which is based in San Francisco, thinks of investing in biotech in a slightly different way. We're looking for unfollowed, unloved, misunderstood biotech companies. It's an amazing moment in time for those types of companies.

There has been a structural and permanent perception shift where both sides of the aisle are going to be leaning into nuclear in a big way. I'm massively optimistic. You know, all of this leads me to just be maximum risk on.

Thanks to the besties for having me. And this is obviously a fabulous event you guys put on. I'm happy to be here. For those who don't know me, I run a $4 billion firm in New York called Soreta Capital. Before founding my firm, I was— I ran the equities business for George Soros. I was then CIO for Steve Cohen. And I've been doing hedge funds now for 29 years. So definitely on the older edge of my peer group. So I was thinking about, you know, I run a generalist fund and, you know, we own a bunch of tech stocks. But, you know, given this audience here, for me to pitch a tech stock would be absolutely, completely stupid. So I was thinking about what else. And, you know, obviously the theme of this conference besides tech is poker. So I'm going to pitch to you MGM. Now, most of you know MGM as you think about it as the Vegas company. They own 13 properties in Vegas.

They're one—

they're them and Caesars are the two largest owners of casino assets in Vegas. Now, if you notice, the other day, Caesars got taken out. And so we think Vegas is actually starting to improve. But I'm not here to pitch MGM because of Vegas. What I'm going to tell you is there's a couple of things we noticed. One is this company has been very aggressively—

been—

stock's been aggressively acquired by Barry Diller lately. Barry now owns 26% of the company. Now, I put this presentation together 2 weeks ago. Yesterday, he actually bid for the company.

Okay?

So when I put the presentation together, the stock was about $37. It's now high 40s. He bid $48. Okay? I would not sell my shares to him for a second.

When did we get this presentation? Did we get it early enough to translate?

I would not sell his— I would not sell my stock to him for a second. The reason is also, besides him buying the stock, the company's also been buying the stock. Rarely have I ever seen a company in 6 years buy half their float back. So you have Barry Diller, who's the legend, aggressively buying the stock, and it's also now 80% of his NAV, okay? So you, most people think of Barry Diller as the ABC producer. He did IAC, which owned assets like Expedia. And now he's a casino guy. What is going on here? So we spent a lot of time asking ourselves why. And why is MGM has two hidden assets, okay? The first one is, and this is sort of our, the punchline of what we think the stock is worth. So you add the Vegas assets, plus China, you get about low 60s. So from $48 or $37 when I started this, great return. What is they— what they have now is a license to open a casino in Osaka, Japan. Japan a couple of years ago went through a whole referendum around the country. They have prefectures. The prefectures voted. The only one that decided to open a casino is Osaka.

Now, Osaka is— and this is what the asset's going to look like. It's going to open in 2030. If you go to the company's slide presentations, they sort of mention this, but they're not really talking about it. Japan, just for you people— sorry, I don't know, it's very slow. Japan actually has a reasonably large gambling market. They have pachinko parlors and they have horses. That's about a $40 billion market. If you look at the market in Macau, that's $30 billion. And if you look at Vegas, it's only $10 billion. So this could be a massive opportunity. You know, we're estimating they'll do about $2 billion of EBITDA. They own 40% of the property. They also get a management fee for this. If you also look at where Osaka is located, it's a great— you know, so the Japanese like to gamble, but the Chinese really gamble. Okay. So If you look at where it is from Shanghai, it's shorter than Macau and Singapore, which are the two big gaming options in Asia. And for us, and from Beijing, about the same distance as Macau, and obviously much shorter than going to Singapore. So if you wanna go gambling for a weekend and you live in Shanghai, live in Beijing, Osaka is great.

It's also a first world nation. And if you think about it as an investor, where would you wanna have your money? Look, Macau has issues.. It's a low multiple business. This is Japan. It's a first world country. So we think Barry Diller understands gambling. He understands casinos. But what he's really doing is now trying to pick off the company to get the Japanese opportunity, which we think is worth— will more than double the stock. The final option— and I'm keeping this simple— what I love about this pitch is it's really simple. It's not that hard to do the math. MGM is built— somebody there, they're branding, they're building a property in Dubai. Okay, now it's gonna— it's a grand complex. It has an Aria, it has an MGM, and it has a Bellagio. Gambling is illegal in Dubai right now, okay? But they have snuck in this building 300,000 square feet of space. Well, one day, if Dubai decides to Legalize gambling. Guess where it's going? Right there. Next year— sorry, 2 years from now, Wynn is going to open a casino in a place called Al Marjan, which is 45 minutes away from Dubai.

Now, any of us who want to go gambling in Dubai, we— Al Marjan is a bit of a pain in the ass to get to. We're going to want to go here. So we think there's a chance that especially when Wynn opens also, look, there's a possibility the war— you know, Dubai wants to reestablish themselves, that they open a casino in Dubai. And you know what that would be worth. So when you take the Vegas assets, which we think are worth about $60, when you take Japan, which we think is worth about $50, if Dubai happens, that's worth another $40 or $50. So we think the stock is a triple. Remember, Barry's bidding for the company, okay? He is not a strategic buyer. He is a financial buyer, and he's doing it to get rich. So therefore, I think this company is now in play. I don't know how it's all gonna play out, but if you own shares, don't tender them. And the risk-reward is incredible right now because, you know, I'm telling you, I think the stock could be easily worth over $100, could be worth $150. And now you have Barry Diller, who is a A has a firm bid, owns 26% of the company, basically at the same price.

So I think this is a cool idea.

Well done. OK, anybody? Let's do two questions. And yeah, we'll put— I'll give you both questions at the same time for efficiency.

How much have you looked at like the monetization of the assets outside of gambling? I had heard from someone that Barry Diller was spending a lot of time trying to reinvent the the entertainment piece of the properties. He was active on the board, and they were trying to identify that the entertainment property is way— the entertainment value is way under-monetized, and they could be making a lot more per—

okay, don't answer yet.

That's question 1.

And then question 2 is how, when you expand internationally, do you scale customer credit? Because that tends to be the thing that drives, you know, people to come back.

And well, obviously, MGM— let me start with your question first. MGM has a massive database of customers, right? So I assume the Vegas properties have guys that come from China, they come from Japan. They'll use that database to do it. They also have a loyalty program. I unfortunately made a bad investment in a company called Rio, the Rio, which was in Vegas, which we bought when they separate— when Caesars merged with Eldorado, they had to shed an asset. That was the Rio. I did an investment with a couple of friends, and we were buying the thing at $200 per square foot. The thing we forgot was when you separated from Caesars, you lost the loyalty program and that ended up—

and I have two quick questions from the audience.

Oh, I got to ask Jay Carl's question.

Hold on.

Question.

And then from the audience, let me get his first.

Yeah. The entertainment question.

I don't know the answer. I don't know the answer to that. If it's— if he can make them better, it will help. But as I'm saying, this is not really Vegas. This is an Asian casino play that the— and if you look at their presentations, which is really cool, they are not— they barely mention it. So what one of the things we happened beside— we were hoping one of the— so look, I worked at SAC, and one of the things we focus on is catalyst path, right? So what was the catalyst path? The catalyst path was they would have an investor day, blah, blah, blah. Barry just showed his cards. So, um, but you know, it's Aaron, 2 questions.

Caesars left Dubai waiting for a license. Why would this be different for MGM? That's question 1. And then question 2 is the Osaka casino was approved in 2023. Why was the market ignoring this hidden asset until the bid?

Sure. Let me answer this. So what's also cool about this idea was— so I've been doing this for 29 years. When they opened Macau, So Wynn started as a Vegas property, then opened Macau. The market started caring about it about 3 years before it opened. Um, so that the answer is they should care about it. The reality is it tends to be about 3 years before it opens. Well, we're almost in that time frame, which is why we think it's opportunistically the right period of time. Um, I, you know, regarding the question with Caesars, look, this is an option. As I told you, somebody built this project for them They are running it for them. And they were intelligent enough to leave 300,000 square feet of empty space in case they get a casino. Well, if that happens, great. If it doesn't, you know, you're still going to double it, more than double your money. So, you know, if it happens, you triple your money.

Free option, you're saying?

It's a free option.

Well done. Big round of applause.

Thanks, guys. Appreciate it.

Nicely done, Aaron. Next up, Daniel.

Long time no see. So today we're gonna talk talent energy, but first, the anatomy of a power cycle. So a power cycle typically goes like this. In normal times, power demand grows about GDP. So if GDP grows 2%, power demand grows 2%. If GDP grows 3%, power demand grows 3%. And there's moments in time where we get technological breakthroughs. And a lot of those technological breakthroughs are very power intensive. So power demand spikes. And once everybody adopts that technology, it trends back down to its on algorithm GDP growth. And then you go through the efficiencies phase where we say, let's try to conserve and figure out ways to consume less power. And then the cycle starts Starts again. all over again. So, you know, in history, the big technological boom that sent power demand skyrocketing was appliances and air conditioning. Everybody had to get their kettles and, and the aircon. Then in the '70s and '80s and '90s, demand normalized again. But then the 2000s were all about efficiencies. You know, we had like LED lighting, smart HVAC, tinted windows, smart electronics. And at the same time, as I said earlier, we were like you know, ripping down all our power-hungry infrastructure like aluminum smelters and moving over to China.

So we had two decades of effectively no power demand, and now we're just coming out of it and starting a technological cycle again where power demand is going to really start to explode from these sort of high 2% numbers you're seeing on the screen. Now, I want to say something right now that is incredibly important. We do not need AI demand to keep the power markets incredibly tight for the next 20 years. AI demand just turbocharges. That's all it does. And it creates shortages. So just remember that early in my career, I was on a panel with Sam Zell. Interestingly, it was a panel on opportunities in Mongolia. I was looking at a copper mine and he was looking at real estate. There was one thing he said that stuck with me for the rest of my career is he said, if you can buy an asset, a hard asset at below replacement cost for an asset that's going to be needed in the future where we're going to need to build new capacity of that asset, then you buy that asset at the discount to replacement cost. You hold it and you sell it at a big premium to replacement cost when the market wakes up.

That's exactly what we did with Equity Office Properties. Sold it at the peak of the market but bought it at a discount to replacement value. Talon Energy is a power producer. They have 2 gigawatts of nuclear power and they've got 6 gigawatts of natural gas baseload power. Today in the stock market, as a good speculation, you could purchase this company at a $25 billion enterprise value. The replacement cost is $45 billion. And because they've got debt, it means that the equity value just to get to replacement cost is more than a double from where it's trading today. And if you follow Sam's playbook, then we ultimately end this cycle at a big premium to replacement value. So when I see this, I say the plan for America on the power side has to be this: Make America Great Again. Copy China. If you look what China did over the last 20 years, we started out this cycle with having 2x the power generation that China had. Fast forward to today, China has 3 times the power generation capacity that we have. Now, if you believe that artificial intelligence is going to be responsible for scientific breakthroughs, you either have it or you don't have the scientific breakthroughs.

If you believe that artificial intelligence is going to drive robotics, you either have it or you don't have that productivity from the robots. If you believe that artificial intelligence is going to be helpful for national security and military affairs, then you either have it or you're dead. And so this is an absolutely mandatory buildout that we have to do, otherwise we're going to fall behind. Because at the end of the day, what is a data center? You know, in my world, in the commodities world, I look at the data center as the exact same thing as a refinery. In a traditional hydrocarbon refinery, you put oil in, crude oil in, you refine it into jet fuel or gasoline for your car. With a data center, you put electricity in, and on the other end Instead of gasoline or jet fuel, out comes photons or tokens or intelligence, whatever you want to call it.

But it's the same thing.

Big capital-intensive asset, $50 billion per gigawatt. And power, just like electricity, just like oil, is the input to that refinery. So here's Jensen, and he was just recently quoted that we need 1,000 times more power than we currently have. Now, if that's remotely true, we need every single source of power that you can imagine. We need hundreds of gigawatts of nuclear, we need solar, we need orbital, we need it all if this is even remotely true. But the challenge, as we spoke about before, is the supply chain, right? All of these, you know, a data center competes for the same supply chain of the critical minerals that space launches and orbital data centers do. Power plants need all the same nickel superalloys that it takes to launch rockets, and the silver that goes into these photovoltaic cells. And so, and so there's going to be shortages of everything and delays everywhere. And my point here is we are just going to need every solution that we can throw at this for the foreseeable future. So here's a little region in the US called the PJM, Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland. This is a forecast from the grid operator where they say that over the next 10 years, we're going to need 106 gigawatts of new power in the PJM, in just one little area of the US.

Now, in 10 years, in geological time, that's like tomorrow morning, right? We're all so used to internet time. You press a button and you get your food delivered to you, or your car picks you up in 2 seconds. You know, building infrastructure happens in geological time. 10 years to build out 106 gigawatts is literally a nanosecond from now. And, you know, you see that thermal coal retirements— we ain't retiring those coal plants because there's no world where we're going to be building 100 gigawatts in 10 years. That's the size of what Japan consumes today for one little part of the US. And, you know, what I'll say is those that understand the supply chain and what goes into building all this, everybody's in panic mode. Because we know that we don't have the raw materials to meet this level of demand that's coming our way. So that's going to keep existing capacity and power prices very tight. Now, the data centers and the hyperscalers are in a panic. They're trying everything they can to source as much power as they can under long-term PPAs, power purchase price agreements, at fixed prices for 20 years. There's a famous example.

You know, I thought Microsoft was a green company, but they went and convinced Constellation Energy, which is a company that owns the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor, you know, the one that melted down and created, you know, the nuclear meltdown that gave nuclear a bad name for 30 years. It was Microsoft that told them they needed to start it up, and in order to incentivize, to stimulate their hand-to-wallet reflex to start this thing up, they said, Power prices today are $50 a megawatt hour. We'll pay you $100 a year for 20 years, minimum price, for you guys to start this up. And so here we have it, Three Mile Island brought to you by Microsoft Azure. So, you know, it's getting harder to do these deals because the regulators are saying, wait a minute, if you're taking all this power off the grid for your data center, how are we gonna heat the homes of our customers? And so, you know, we're getting ourselves into the moment of what I call crunch time. So just to finish up, here are the numbers on Talon. The stock today is sort of in the high 300s. If they just do absolutely nothing, just absolutely nothing, just sit there and run the business, let their Amazon data center contract roll up, these guys will be generating $50 a share of free cash flow per year Again, the stock is in the high 300s.

It's about 7 times free cash flow. Good infrastructure assets in the US traded about 15 times. So that's pretty good. You get a double for basically management just sitting around and doing nothing. But if they continue to figure out ways to sign contracts with data centers at premium prices, or if power prices go up— I mean, the amazing thing right now is in the PJM where these guys operate, the power price is still too low to stimulate new capacity. The math still doesn't work, which is really mind-boggling. So if power prices go up a bit, they do more deals, you get to $70 a share of recurring annual free cash flow, put a 15 multiple on that, that's $1,050. But then if they get into building power plants, right, and right now the regulator is telling these companies to go sit in a room, power producer, data center, come in a room, make a deal so that you build power and get a good return on it, and the data center gets their power, gets a good return on it. And Talon is in a pole position to be able to do this. If they just build like 4 gigawatts of the 100 gigawatts that we need, you could get up to, you know, over $100 a share of free cash flow.

The stock's in the high $300s today. So go and buy the shares. It's a good speculation and we can chat. All right.

Not financial advice.

Gavin, Gavin, go.

I'm just, just very curious, like, how do you think about regulatory risks here? Nobody likes their electricity prices going up. AI is an increasingly political issue. Just like, how do you think about that risk?

We need AI, and we need to figure this out. And so there's different ways to skin a cat here, right? My personal view is during peak hours, right? If you go drive down a highway at 4 in the morning, you know, you would sit there and say, why do we have all this highway capacity? This is crazy. But then you go on that same highway at rush hour, you're like, oh, we don't have enough highway capacity. There's not enough lanes. Power is the same thing. There's only a few hours a day where you really stress the system. And so I think the working solution to get around this regulatory issue is you do the PPAs with the data centers, you force the data centers to throw a ton of battery behind it and some peakers just to get through that really intense period. And then, uh, that's a good Band-Aid solution until we build more power. So There's ways to do this. Human ingenuity is going to win here. We're going to get our data centers and consumer power bills are going to be, I think, relatively under control. They're going to go up. They're going to be under control.

Okay, Dan, I have 3 questions from the audience, really good ones. Number 1, does your thesis actually need behind-the-meter colocation to clear, or is it just a bet that clean firm baseload is scarce enough that it doesn't matter whether power flows in front of or behind the meter?

It's the latter. And that's why I gave 3 scenarios, right? The $50 a share of earnings per share. Again, high $300 stock, right? $50 a share of earnings. Nothing has to happen. You just sit, right? And then you double your money. Now, if you get more behind the meter or even front of the meter, that's how you get up to that $70 a share of earnings from $50. And then if you get up to the $70 but start building new capacity, then you get to the $100 plus.

Okay, question 2. From Brad. How do you think about competition for power from things like fuel cells, gas turbines, aeroderivative turbines, orbital compute, and other sort of IPPs, independent power producers?

We need all of it. We need all of it. We, you know, fuel cells and, you know, the Caterpillar solar turbines, these are fantastic bridge solutions. But the cost to run these things, the LCOE, is like through the roof. But, you know, look, Look, to build a $50 billion data center, you don't want it to sit idle for 3 years waiting for your baseload CCGT. So you do whatever it takes. You don't give a crap what you pay for that bridge solution. And so we're finding ways through fuel cells, through, you know, Caterpillar solar turbines, hopefully through orbital data centers where we can alleviate this because I want AI to happen in a really big way and we're gonna need all the above.

Okay, question 3. By the way, great questions, guys. Thank you for these. What is the right terminal multiple for Talon if the business mix shifts from merchant IPP to contracted infrastructure?

Fabulous question.

And the addendum here, and what percentage of EBITDA needs to be contracted before the market should re-rate it?

So that's a great question. And I only had 6 minutes to do this, and I think I blew through my time, so I couldn't get into this kind of detail, but it's something I would have really wanted to get into. So whoever asked that, thank you. I just use the 15 multiple because it's sort of a blended multiple between the contracted stuff, which will get a big premium multiple because, you know, it's a bond-like cash flow stream, and bond-like cash flow streams trade at a small spread to Treasuries. And so Treasuries, if they're at 5%, should trade at 20 times plus some growth or whatever, plus or minus. The uncontracted stuff, the merchant stuff that has spot market exposure, is more volatile, less visible. That should trade at a lower multiple. We can get into the minutiae, but just suffice to say, the more contracts, the higher the multiple. The less, the lower the multiple. Use 15 times as a good rule of thumb and you'll probably get to the right answer, which is what I used.

That last question from Daniel Scherer, thank you for that. Dan, thank you. That was great.

Oh, great. Thanks.

My name is Oleg Nodelman. I'm the founder and managing director of Equal Gloria One Capital, a San Francisco-based value-oriented biotech fund that I started about 13 years ago. Thanks a lot to the besties for having me here. I'm a huge fan of the pod, like I'm sure all of us are, and I know how challenged Science Corner can get, so I wrote this in a way that even David Sacks would appreciate and pay attention to if, if he were here.

Well, paradoxically, he's taking a nap, which is what he normally does during Science Corner.

Exactly.

Generally speaking, investing in biotech companies is a horrible idea, sandwiched somewhere between movies, wineries, and SPACs. In fact, our sector often feels a lot more like a casino than an actual financial market, and most of the tourists who are investing are playing the slots. Of course, at ecore1, we consider ourselves poker players. In a sector where virtually everyone else is a momentum investor betting on science, we focus on margin of safety. We're one of the few funds not managed by PhDs or MDs, and that's by design because we don't want to fall in love with the science. We fall in love with the risk-reward. And like the slide says, we want to monetize other kids' science projects. This is my 25th year investing in biotech. I started my career with an 11-year stint at another fund. And launched EcoR1 in 2013, humble beginnings with $13 million. Since inception, we've 10x'd to our investors and annualized at 20%, and today we have about $2.5 billion under management. We're lucky to have long-term partners, many of whom are biotech entrepreneurs themselves and have been with us since day one, and we recently reopened for the first time in 4 years.

Today, I'm gonna tell you about a company that's on the front lines of the war on cancer. Military terminology has been used when describing treatments for the disease since the early '70s, when President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act. The warfare analogy is actually perfect. The warfare analogy is actually perfect for cancer because both domains are trying to accomplish the exact same thing. Find the enemy, figure out the best weapon to kill them, and have minimal unwanted casualties along the way. First, a quick history of how this war has evolved. Early surgical cancer treatment and radiation was akin to a medieval siege: level the entire castle, burn the surrounding village, and hope the enemy was left somewhere in the rubble. Chemo actually evolved from an accidental observation during World War I that mustard gas killed rapidly dividing tissue. Tumor cells divide fast, so doctors would flood a patient's body with chemo and hoped it killed the enemy faster than it killed allies. Unfortunately, hair, skin, gut, and marrow cells also divide quickly, and the poison doesn't discriminate. First-generation targeted therapies were next, like a GPS-guided munition. Instead of carpet bombing every dividing cell, you identify the enemy's command and control center and destroy it.

The problem, like with any weapon, is that the enemy adapts and hides. And in cancer, these are called resistant mutations. Immunotherapy was first introduced to patients a decade ago. With IO, you don't send in your own troops. You recruit local allies, also known as T-cells. And let them do the fighting for you. Spectacular when it works, but highly dependent on the terrain or the tumor microenvironment. This brings me to the reason we're here today: modern-day radiopharmaceuticals. Like a swarm of micro drones, small enough to navigate the bloodstream and find their target by molecular recognition, then detonate a precisely sized warhead with a blast radius of 100 microns, or the diameter of a single cell. An autonomous assassination with the force of a bunker buster, and minimum collateral damage. The company I'm going to tell you about today is Actis Oncology. The ticker is AKTS. The company has a billion-dollar market cap, a $500 million enterprise value, and a stockpile of cash which should last them over 3 years, long past critical milestones that are coming next year. Actis was started 5 years ago but recently went public with a $300 million IPO that was 18 times oversubscribed.

And backstopped with a $100 million order by Eli Lilly, the folks who bring you all the weight loss drugs. The company has designed a platform that can carry any radioactive payload, is complex enough to go after a variety of targets, and small enough to clear your body with minimal side effects. The beautiful thing about this approach is that physicians can verify target engagement in early clinical trials with imaging. This significantly de-risks clinical development because you know the drug is getting to the tumor. Another de-risking strategy for their first few programs, Actis chose known valid targets like Nectin-4 and B7H3. Nectin-4 is critical in bladder cancer, and the company's second program targeting B7H3 is even more ambitious, expressed on every major solid tumor, including the big three: prostate, colorectal, and lung. Actis started clinical trials last year. And is publicly guided to initial clinical data in both of these lead programs in 2027, with Nectin-4 coming as early as Q1. So you won't have to wait long. If either program shows a signal, the company is likely to get value not only for those programs but the entire mini protein platform. This is the holy grail in biotech, getting value simply for the promise of what might come.

What's even more compelling is there's an amazing amount of interest in radiotherapies from pharma. The big ones, including Bristol, Novartis, Bayer, and Lilly, who backstopped the Actis IPO, have been building radiotherapy capabilities, and they're hungry for assets to add to their pipelines. There's been $15 billion in M&A and deal-making in radiotherapy in the last few years, and we're very much in the early innings. The neatest thing about this modality is that it's very hard to replicate. Generics generally don't traffic in radiopharma, and because the class involves radioisotopes, it's off-limits to China. So unlike most of biotech, there's a real moat. And now the obligatory safety warning. Actis is not for everyone. You should consult your biotech analyst before purchasing Actis. Initiating a position may cause increased anxiety, reduce sleep to the night. Serious, sometimes severe drops in stock price occur in biotech. Immediately after investing, you may experience sudden volatility due to headliners from competitors. If stock declines or expires for no apparent reason, call your broker immediately to decrease your position. Remember, serious safety concerns have arisen in other companies' clinical development programs. While no safety concerns have occurred with any Axis Clinical Program to date, they may in the future.

The use of any proteins delivered by any pharmaceuticals has not been proven. Axis has no marketed products and thus no recurring revenue. Dilution for equity offerings may occur. In the event of a secondary offering, immediately schedule a call with Axis management team to discuss placing an order. It's notoriously challenging to value biotech companies because when you risk adjust and discount back, you pretty quickly get to zero. For earlier stage opportunities like this, we like to triangulate. We think Actis could be worth $10 billion or $200 per share if even one of their programs makes it to market. And in this case, you have a lot of outs.

I'm not familiar with why radioisotopes are off limits to China.

So In this particular case, um, ACTIS's radioisotope payload is actinium, and actinium is manufactured from radium-233, which was used in our own nuclear programs in the US in the '50s and '60s, so it's a waste product from there. So actinium is not even available in other countries like China, because they had a completely different, uh, their own program was completely different with enriched uranium and plutonium.

But the, but the, the risk for a lot of biotech and China replication came about that Amgen-Synophi Supreme Court case, didn't it? Where they could, you could make a small, because they're, it basically said all patents are composition of matter patents. So you could change one amino acid, get around the patent.

Right.

And China's basically done that with a lot of biologics that are patented in the US and Europe. They just rip them off and then you attach the radio emitting radioisotope to the molecule and you can kind of chase it. That's kind of why a lot of biotech's been depressed. Is that not true?

Yeah. So with radioisotopes, again, because you have to have a manufacturing supply that you have to source locally in the US, we haven't seen any competition coming from China at all.

And if they have a successful readout though, would it not be like the case that someone in China would say, hey, let's go get some of the necessary radioisotopes—

I'm sure they can do it for the Chinese market, but in terms of then transferring that over here, we haven't seen it or any wind of it at all.

And so then my last question, I'm sorry for monopolizing, why do you think the market's discounted the value so much since the IPO?

Oh gosh.

Given the return in biotech valuation.

It's pretty classic biotech, so it's traded flat since the IPO. Biotech investors are so insanely short-term oriented that Even though we're now, call it 8 or 9 months from data, that's still way too long. And so our expectation is the folks will start accumulating this in the second half in anticipation of the data coming in the first quarter.

Gavin, you had a question?

Yeah, sure. Oh, look, so I, in, in the distant past, I ran a biopharmaceutical fund and, you know, it's a very hard job. Congratulations on those numbers. But I ran that fund right after the Human Genome the genome had been sequenced, and there was an expectation that the sequencing of the genome was going to lead to this explosion in therapies, personalized medicines, et cetera, et cetera. And I don't think broadly speaking we've made as much progress over the last 25 years as maybe people thought in the early 2000s. And my hypothesis is that the genome is too big of a problem space for the human mind or software written by humans and AI is going to unlock a lot of kind of revolutionary therapies. So my question to you, I will just admit, is a selfish question. It is not about your stock pitch, which is great. It's what do you think the odds are that in the lifetimes of everyone in this room, the average human lifespan in a developed country extends well past 100 to 125, 150?

I would take the over on that. In no small part because we already have one of the best longevity drugs out there, and folks don't even realize it, in the GLP-1s and the obesity drugs. So, one of the only things that's ever been shown in actual data to extend life is caloric restriction, and that's literally what all the obesity drugs do. So, I'm sure half the people in this room are on one of them, and that's just the beginning because it's trained people that you can inject yourself with something and have healthy living through pharmaceuticals. So I think that's only going to continue.

Oh, I got two questions from the audience. First one: as the launch costs per kilogram continue to fall, is there a credible pathway to use space and microgravity as a therapeutic variable, given that cancer cells appear to behave differently in low-gravity environments?

That is a great question. It's probably not applicable to this.

Okay. And then the second question: what would be a technological breakthrough through that could disrupt precision radiotherapy as a result of AI at scale to drug development and pre-cancer screening?

Yeah, another awesome question. There's a, a small skunkwork project within Actis, AI project. So with all these biotech companies, they have their little proprietary data sets that they hope to leverage with various insights. So a company like this, with their many proteins and everything else they're trying to accomplish, they have their own little tiny group of of PhD data scientist nerds who are seeing if they can leverage that in a pretty decent way.

Is it— so it's been really hard to get CAR-T in solid tumors. Um, is it the case that these kind of personalized, uh, peptide-based immunotherapy, uh, therapies are showing some efficacy in some solid tumors? And is that a space that's going to expand and kind of intersect here?

What's most promising that I think a lot of folks have probably heard of is a new drug for pancreatic cancer from a company called RevMed, which is just another targeted therapy. So for now, there's not a huge amount of progress from peptides.

And have you looked at D proteins before? These kind of right-handed proteins that seem to be able to penetrate solid tumors?

Well, so one of the, one of the neat things about these mini proteins is they're hopefully of the right size to be able to deliver their payload inside of the tumors.

Incredible. Oleg, thank you.

Thank you.

All done.

By the way, by the way, somebody just YOLO'd into the stock while Oleg was on stage. It's up 6%. Like, don't do that while we're all trying to buy as well, please.

Come on.

Morning, everyone. My name is Kyle Samani. Thank you for being with us at the All On Liquidity today. Thanks to the Besties for organizing. Today we're going to be talking about a little-known asset, a little crypto asset called GeoNet. Which is building the rails for AI. So let's jump in. Quick bit about me. I founded a firm called Multicoin Capital about 8.5 years ago. I stepped down a few months ago, and in my time there, I was probably most well known for leading all 3 rounds of investment in Solana prior to Solana's network launch in 2020. I've been deep in the crypto space for a very long time, and I thought this would be a very natural forum to talk about a very interesting investment. At the intersection of crypto and AI. Also, big shout out to David Sachs. Unfortunately, he's not here, but David did seed Multicoin back in the day. So thank you, David, for believing in me very early. All right, let's get into GeoNet. So the way to understand GeoNet first is to look at GPS. Probably everyone in this room has been in the situation on the left where you're using your phone and your phone is in the wrong spot facing the wrong way.

Right here you can see this guy looks like he's facing a wall according to his phone. Geonet fundamentally is a new— uses a technology called RTK, or real-time kinematics, where you can localize your location down to about 2 centimeters. For context, GPS, roughly the, the precision is about 2 meters. So you're getting about 100x accuracy for very precise geolocation. As you can imagine, any form of kind of robotics can make use of RTK drones being the very obvious example. I'll touch on a few more just in a couple of minutes here. Today, GeoNet is the world's largest RTK network in the world, and it's also the fastest growing. The 3 companies you see on the left here, Trimble, Hexagon, and Topcon, have all been building RTK networks in some form or fashion for, call it, 20 to 30 years. All of them combined have roughly 12,000 base stations deployed around the world. GeoNet was founded in 2021, began building out the network in 2022, and today they are roughly twice the size of the next 3 guys combined. Today GeoNet is live in 150 countries around the world, more than 11,000 cities, and covers roughly 80% of the global population, excluding some sanctioned countries.

So this thing is really growing quickly. You might say, how did these guys build this network so fast? And the key is really this decentralized crypto model. So here we're looking at literally a photo of a GeoNet base station on the roof of someone's house. The, the global GeoNet network, those 22,000 nodes, are not being built and deployed by someone that looks like AT&T or Verizon. Those base stations are being deployed by any random guy or hobbyist or professional or small business owner who wants to make some extra money. You can go on the GeoNet website today, you can buy one of these base stations, they're a few hundred bucks. You put it on your roof of your house or your small business, it broadcasts radio waves, you make money. You actually get paid in Geo tokens, which is the really cool part about this incentive system to bootstrap this thing to get it off the ground. So the GeoNet network started about 4 years ago doing this. Today it's now the largest, fastest growing in the world by a pretty wide margin. If you want a sense of scale, here we're looking at their coverage in the United States.

Obviously every single major metro is covered, but even if you look at most of the rural parts of the country, you're covering actually the vast majority of even the rural areas. Let's talk about some of their customers and use cases for this. We'll start with agriculture first. The USDA actually launched a couple years ago a program to encourage farmers and ranchers to use precise ag technologies, including RTK networks. Today, actually, the USDA is now actually subsidizing many farmers and ranchers all over the country to adopt high-precision ag, most of which is powered by GeoNet. Getting into some specific examples of that, here we're looking at what's called a robotic mule. This is made by a company called Burrow. Obviously this is transporting some grapes. You could put anything on this. Has pretty obvious application for almost any farm or ranch you can imagine. With the advent in computer vision, CPUs, batteries, all the other AI stuff, these things are growing like hotcakes. All of them are gonna be powered by Geonet or something like it. Here we're looking at John Deere. They have a new service that they rolled out recently called Global Unmanned Spraying Systems or GUS.

These things drive around, they literally spray plants with pesticides tides and other things like that. I did actually confirm this morning there are wineries here in Napa that are actually using John Deere GUS vehicles. That was pretty cool. So if you have some wine tonight, maybe it was powered by GUS, which is powered by GeoNet. Obviously autonomous vehicles has a pretty obvious application for this. TomTom is one of GeoNet's customers. TomTom is a supplier to basically every AV program in the world, excluding maybe a couple. And today, TomTom is using GeoNet's data to update their maps to get them more accurate and precise as they need to cover every square inch basically around the planet. One of my favorite use cases are kind of the next wave of consumer robotics, which are getting a lot of hype these days. I think the most obvious one are robotic lawn mowers. I don't think anyone loves to mow their lawn. Robotic lawn mowers are now actually rolling out at pretty good scale. They're estimated— they're going to sell 1 million robotic lawn mowers this year. Made by companies like YARBO, Sunseeker, and others. All of those guys are all powered by GeoNet.

Next up, let's get to drones. The world's largest drone manufacturer, DJI, is a GeoNet customer. It's not in all of their models, but it is in a lot of their models. And so obviously DJI is sending a ton of traffic now over GeoNet. In the coming months and years, as DJI winds down in the US and you have a new wave of American manufacturers pop up. I'm going to venture to guess that most, if not all, of them are going to end up on the GeoNet network as well. The GeoNet team is based in the US, has deep roots here. What I love about GeoNet is it's a very obvious network effect— network effects business. This thing looks like a natural telecom, right? You have base stations kind of all over the world. You got to cover the whole planet. Telecoms naturally form monopolies historically. I think the same is likely to be true here. Today GeoNet is the world's largest and fastest growing network. Work with also the lowest cost structure by a very wide margin because of this decentralized nature where people just put these things on top of their house. In terms of where the business at, the business just crossed about $11 million in annualized run rate a few days ago, uh, and it's growing more than 3x year over year.

I think it's going to probably more than triple over the next 12 months. Um, what's really cool about GeoNet is how capital efficient it is and how they're actually returning capital to token holders. So today, uh, The GeoNet network is taking of that $11 million in revenue, roughly 80% of it is being used to make open market purchases of GEO tokens. And this is all visible on the Solana blockchain. They have all the addresses are published and stuff, so it's all verifiable in real time. That means $8.8 million right now per year is going into buying GeoNet tokens on the open market. What's amazing is that last 20% is they're covering all their R&D costs and scaling out now their business development team. With a business like this, of course, like, it's a pretty small network of customers. The guys who work at John Deere know the guys who work at DJI, who know the guys who work at TomTom. And so this thing is now growing virally amongst this kind of core community of customers. And as you can imagine, with customers who sign up for a service like this, they tend to ramp up their usage of that service over time.

So once someone starts rolling out GeoNet, in the first year they're usually spending about $60,000 per year. After 2 years though, they're usually spending about $170,000 per year. So the average GeoNet customer is growing their, their revenue with GeoNet about 3x in that second year. Um, obviously then we look at their— just their customers they've signed up in the last 2 years. You can see they 5x their customer base last year. Those are net new customers. So applying some pretty simple math here, you can see they have a very clear path to more than 3x this year as this thing ramps up. Just wrap things up, summary. Um, GeoNet is the world's largest RTK network, uh, growing the fastest. It has really obvious network effects and it's is likely to be a very natural monopoly. Growing 3x year over year with a bunch of flagship customers and brands that you all know. Obviously, we have this huge physical AI tailwind behind us now, robotics and all of the other amazing stuff happening. And they're returning capital to shareholders. The token does trade on the Solana blockchain. If you wanna buy, it trades 24/7. The ticker is GEOD, G-E-O-D.

So if you want to actually get some GEO tokens, I encourage you to sign up for a crypto wallet, a Solana wallet,, and you can go ahead and buy GEO tokens from there. And with that, I think we are ready for some Q&A.

Awesome.

What's the market cap?

Oh, sorry. It's trading about $150 million on a fully diluted basis. If you were to go look at any of the crypto price websites like CoinGecko or CoinMarketCap, they're going to show you something like $60 or $70 million. That's because not all of the tokens are floating yet, but the fully diluted number is about $150 million.

Is there a corporation behind it? Or is this just like a project in the Cayman Islands, in Panama, with a board that nobody knows who's on it? Tell us about governance.

So the GeoNet team is a US-based corporation. There are 4 teams in San Francisco. The CEO's name is Mike Horton. Really, really good guy. He's been building in this kind of IoT smart device space for a while.

Explain the relationship between the corporate entity and the token, and which one should we own?

You should own the token. I own a lot of token, as you might imagine. I don't own any of the equity. The relationship is GeoNet, the company is facing John Deere, DJI, all these companies, and they have a contractual relationship with the GeoNet Foundation to use 80% of their revenues to buy tokens off the open market.

And that corporation raised venture capital or anything?

Yes. My prior company, Multicoin, actually led a round in GeoNet.

Previously. Okay, Kyle, I have, I have many questions from the audience, so bear with me. Question 1: Do you like Helium as much, which is GeoNet for 5G signal?

Uh, yes, I actually led Multicoin's investment in Helium 6 or 7 years ago, uh, and it continued to be a very big long-term believer. They actually had big news go out this morning, uh, but yeah, I'm a big Helium fan.

Question 2: There's a long list of DePIN projects that have failed because people just don't value the token rewards Why is this any different?

I mean, they're returning capital to shareholders. This thing is returning $8.8 million to shareholders, is trading at $150 million valuation, and it's going to grow 3x this year. It's an unbelievably cheap asset. It's just people aren't paying attention because it's crypto bear market right now.

Okay.

From Sam, it's a securitized interest in the cash flows from the customers.

Effectively, yes, it is a revenue—

it is a revenue share token. Correct. Correct. 80%.

Okay, so the more John Deere pays Geodnet the company, the more you basically deprecate the tokens, which should cause the token—

they're buying tokens in the open market, correct?

Yes. Okay, from Sam: what accrues value, the equity or the token?

Similar to what we just covered.

How does the value accrual mechanisms square or not with current securities laws or what's contemplated in the Clarity Act?

Uh, yeah, I'm— so the one answer to your question is the The tokens are the ones accruing value because they're taking 80% and buying. The other 20% is obviously funding operations. They have engineers, salespeople, all that stuff. So that's all there and being funded. In terms of securities laws, the Clarity Act passing is certainly very good for GeoNet. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to tell you that it passes the bar set in the Clarity Act, but I can tell you I'm an optimist and I've been very involved in the Clarity Act and I'm not too worried about it.

Okay.

Can I ask about the business? Just real quick? So John Deere, I know the space somewhat well. I used to manage a company called Precision Planting in agriculture, and, um, there was— John Deere makes their own RTK systems. So when you like run a, a piece of equipment that relies on RTK, you're buying in the construction industry Topcon or Leica or Trimble or John Deere, and you install the RTK base stations and you run your equipment. Why would John Deere and others want to rely on this system as a different— like, why is it better than like the systems that they're already using? It wasn't quite clear to me.

I mean, CapEx versus OpEx, right? Like, right, these networks are all over the world now. They're running at very low cost. GeoNet is probably a third to half— sorry, a third to a quarter of the price than buying up your own CapEx and doing it. And it's just available everywhere. So now it just reduces the sales cycle time for John Deere when they just say, buy the tractor, it's good.

There's another big push right now for microsats to be an alternative to GPS in a way that they can actually provide sub-centimeter resolution, effectively replacing both GPS and RTK using a, a mesh network from SpaceX launched, or actually SpaceX— I don't know if SpaceX looked at doing this, but, um, I know that there is a very well-funded company that is trying to put up microsats to basically replace GPS and RTK, doesn't that ultimately kind of wash out the need to have all these Earth-based base stations?

There's no chance they can compete on cost because just sending things to space, satellites, that's so— I mean, these GeoNet base stations are a few hundred bucks. Like, you're just not going to compete on cost with GeoNet.

You don't need to replace this. Do you think that this is a viable replacement at scale and saturation for GPS itself?

No. GPS is definitely very different.

And because the SLA is different, you've got to have ubiquity for— yeah, for GPS, for GPS alternative, which is why you have to have the satellites everywhere. You got to have enough. But if you get enough satellites, you can actually get to RTK precision and you don't need to have the big expensive GPS.

You'd have a hybrid situation where you have a bunch of GEO and LEO plus a bunch of base stations all over the place. That hybrid situation, probably you could actually get the LEO alone.

Can replace all of the Geo stuff. That's the goal. And then if you get enough of them, which SpaceX unlocks.

Yeah. And Kyle, what about other tokens when you think about other compute tasks, like work to be done, for example? There's a bunch of tokens that have emerged in distributed training. How did you hone in on this and exclude the others? I mean, not meaning prefer this over that.

I mean, I met the GeoNut founder years ago. He pitched to us, and I've gotten to know him and followed it. The distributed training stuff, there's a whole bunch of people trying it. I'm pretty skeptical. I don't think any of it's going to work. Distributed inference stuff is possible, although it has not worked as well as we would have hoped. I did put some money behind that a few years ago. It's working, but not A+. One last thing, actually, David, on your prior question I want to highlight is also energy use. Going to space just consumes way more energy than going to a base station that's on the ground. And so, yeah, for a tractor, maybe that doesn't matter, but for a drone, or for any other battery-sensitive application, ground is always gonna be the preferred solution.

Super interesting.

Well done.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

That's super interesting. All right, guys.

Before we vote, Chamath, give your feedback.

Here's what I like. I apply the Stan Druckenmiller school of invest and investigate. I really believe in it. Yes. If you don't have any skin in the game, you don't care. And this is the kind of stuff that I love. I love hearing ideas like this. I love all 4. My, my difference is in sizing. So, you know, there's, there's certain asymmetric alpha that each one of these exhibits, and then there's very different downside risk for each of them. And then there's also liquidity issues. So, for example, like, I love Kyle's idea. The problem is I could not get enough working for me where—

so you—

I don't even think I could get $1 million in today. It would— to scale in, it would move the market. So I would have to— I'd have to probably— I'd be like $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 and then maybe start to buy into it. Talon, I think they could absorb tens of millions and people wouldn't bat an eyelash. The biotech company, the issue there is that I think that there is, as you said, Friedberg, this discontinuous illiquidity, zero risk, but then there's the 10x upside.

So there's just like huge Lilly will bid for it.

And then MGM, I think, is just— so I think MGM and Talon are the ones you could have huge sizing in.

Right.

And then the other ones, I think you have a piece because they're like lottery tickets.

I think your point on MGM—

okay, wait, hold on. Let me just review. So company number 1 was MGM, and that was M Resorts. Okay. Company number 2, Talon. Talon Energy. Company number 3, Actis. AK Therapeutics. Yeah.

And then Geodnet.

Geodnet, not company, but I guess token. Yeah, company number 4, Geodnet.

And you're buying the token, not the company.

Do you think the, um, maybe for you too, Gavin, like the—

Gavin, you rank them.

Yeah, well, no, even before you rank, just tell us what you think of the format and then assess the companies. We'll do ranking at the end. We're gonna do 4, 3, 2. We're gonna do 4, 3, 2, 1 on stage. But give me your general ideas about the pitches, what you liked, what you didn't.

I thought the pitches were great. I thought the format was amazing. I would for sure expand it next year. There are platforms that you guys could have an all-in basket or ETF that people could trade in. So like maybe that's something you do it next year. Will I pitch next year? Yeah. I'm Jake. I'll do anything.

I'm locked.

He's locked.

Actually, here's what I would ask Gavin to put you on the spot. Next year, I think we would all learn and benefit if you would do Silicon and Memory Supercycle. Sure. Would you be willing to do that for us?

The talk?

I'll do it.

Sign me up.

Perfect.

Lock it.

Sign me up.

Thank you.

So keep going.

Well, no, as far as the pitches, I do think it's important to disaggregate what was a really great entertaining pitch first, what I think is a really good risk-reward. I thought Oleg and Kyle did a great job with the pitches, but I'm not a healthcare investor, nor am I a crypto investor. I thoroughly enjoyed the presentations. I actually thought Jeanette was very interesting. I'm happy to learn from Oleg that I might live well into my 100s. That was good news for me and everybody in the room. I enjoyed all the military terminology and analogies.

Yeah, that was really great, huh?

That was great.

Really great.

I do think, um, from a pure risk-reward perspective, I thought MGM was the best. Your downside is really capped because of the Barry Diller bid. And then you have Japan and Dubai as, I think, very valuable future sources of value. And I do think Talon is also a very compelling risk-reward. I just think everything in AI is going to need to grapple with increasing regulatory risk, which we talked about last time that I was on the pod with you guys. And I don't know how to dimensionalize that. And, you know, I've been—

Like the big negative externality for talent is nothing to do with talent.

Nothing to do with talent.

It's like something over the top from the US government caps prices, something, something.

Yeah, you have—

Nationalizes the lab.

You have a change in administration, you have a change in Congress. There's laws that are passed that I think make it hard for terrestrial compute, which changes the utility supply demand. But I actually think outside of that, Talon was super compelling.

So you got MGM, you got Talon, now give the other two.

I thought they were both great pitches. Can I tie them for third?

Well, no, don't even give the score, just any feedback on those two ideas, or those are just a little bit lottery ticket for you, or?

No, I thought Actis was, was very compelling. They're trying to, trying to do something different. As Oleg said, if you ever get a biotech company that can become a platform and they have a mechanism, whether it's of drugging, whether it's targeting, or if you have something that is broadly applicable, that is when you can get these really, really big $100 billion plus outcomes in biotech, which are rare. So I thought that part of— right, Actis was super compelling. And you don't play crypto? I don't play crypto, but I thought the entire GeoNet discussion was fascinating.

And is there anything that would get you off the bench and make you jump into the crypto game? Or it's just— you're— why are you not playing the crypto game?

I feel about crypto exactly the way I do about snowboarding. Okay. I'm, I'm not a very good athlete. I've spent a lifetime learning how to ski and I'm okay. And just the idea of getting on a snowboard, having, you know, thousands of hours of ski instruction.

You don't want the pain for the gain.

Yes. And I have 25 years of lessons, learnings, pain, scars from, from investing in equities and public securities. And just crypto, it's a little bit like snowboarding for me. But like, you know, yeah, everybody wants to snowboard, that's great. Yeah, everybody wants to do crypto, that's great.

Just please don't go sideways down the mountain and ruin the powder, David. I think your assessment of MGM Talon—

okay, so I think MGM, uh, I look at the kind of return upside, the downside, and the timeline. MGM's like probably a 3x. I think it's also missing this point that I've heard a lot about on— you can actually upgrade the monetization on these Vegas properties. We were talking to a friend of ours in Vegas. They're, they're making a million bucks a day in incremental EBITDA every day that they have a show at the Sphere, um, at the, uh, at the Venetian Hotel, which is an unbelievable statistic, which tells you that when you have the entertainment draw, the gambling revenue just flies. Flies. And so Barry Diller, I have heard separately, has been spending a lot of time on trying to reinvent the entertainment at these properties and thinks he has an idea on how to do it, which will cause the gambling revenue to fly. So I think even if you discount the upside on these new locations, there's probably a lot of work to be done. And I do like MGM, the floor on the bid. And then you've got, call it 3x in 2 years. Even if this bid goes nowhere and they keep the thing running and they're like, we're going to reject the bid and keep running independently.

Tallinn is maybe 3x upside, 5x upside, but it's 8 years out. And I think one of the other challenges with Talon that I would kind of use as a valuation metric is I think it's more interest rate sensitive than MGM is because the power purchase agreements really are where a lot of the revenue comes from. So you're going to get a discount rate that's a multiple, that's a function of where interest rates are sitting. So I think if interest rates shoot up, which some might argue there's, there's risk there, you actually get margin compression from that 15x outlook that he has for Talon. So that would be my kind of downside scenario on Talon in the, in the time ahead. And Actis, I do worry because I'm an investor in a company that's got a deep protein conjugate that shows really strong efficacy into getting solid tumors. I think that there are new modalities for therapeutics for solid tumors that are being discussed that, that may kind of put this at risk. I think the China risk is legit because I've seen it across the board in biotech. Everything gets ripped off and people go to China, but they could have a hit and Lilly could bid on it in 6 months if they actually get a good readout.

So there's certainly upside, but the downside is probably 50-75% if they get a bad readout or China or some new modality comes out. So I think the ranking is probably MGM, Talon, Actis, and then the— for me, the Geodnet piece. I just think the space thing is likely the path that's going to replace all RTK and all GPS in the next decade. It's an inevitable piggyback on systems that are already going up.

All right, great.

So I think I've got everybody. For me, I put them into two buckets. I think AKTS and GOD, those are like lottery tickets, could be crazy returns. But, you know, there's a, there's a big probability of a zero there if they don't, you know, actually work. And then MGM and Talon, obviously got the downside protection. And those feel like people will always gamble and leave the lights on. So I kind of like both of those. I put $200K into each in real time.

I can't believe the life.

Uh, so that's just like my— I don't have a public—

did you actually buy?

I'm just day trading.

I, I bought half of his action. I don't have a Robinhood account. I have to call my office. So I was like, just, I'll take—

Stew, you lose, buddy.

I'll take half.

I didn't see you with your thumbs.

I'm up 7% across the portfolio, so I don't think I can include you here.

Steps to buy— I did. I weighted the 3 in the order I said. On my—

no, uh, anyway, I, I'll just give mine really quick. I, I will go MGM, Talon, uh, GOD, AK, TS.

Gavin's only going to make $80 trillion.

Let's bring the— let's bring our 4 pitchers out.

We have a $1,000 bonus.

Please get the 2-men-hugging statue. Wait, wait, no, before you announce it, I need the extremely alpha male heterosexual trophy, the all-in Heterosexual alpha male trophy, please. And I need our 4 pitchers to come on stage. It makes it more exciting. It's like, makes it uncomfortable when like they show the 5 people for best actor.

Yeah, yes. You put those on the table.

But wait, where's my award?

You guys have the award?

Please bring me the extremely heterosexual Alpha Male Award. You'll see why when I show you the word peskiness.

Slide over a little more.

All right, bring me that award. Let me show you how we 3D modeled it.

No one wants to see this.

Look at this.

This is two men uncomfortably hugging, and the way we did this— it's the best award.

Come here, Freeberg.

I'm not doing it with you. Come on, Freeberg, you do it tomorrow.

Okay, fine.

He's extremely comfortable. That's David and I. It's David, you.

But let's show them how we modeled this. We just did a long—

This is uncomfortable.

And we hold it for 5 extra seconds.

At 2 minutes, you get the release of oxytocin.

There it is.

OK?

So gentlemen, this is it.

Do you guys have the results? Go ahead. Audience award.

OK, ready?

Audience award.

So based on 150 votes from the audience, do I just go 4 to 1?

4 to 1.

4 to 1 is more exciting.

OK. 4th place with 5% of the vote was Kyle Samani.

OK, well done.

On the board, a very close second place— no, third, third place with 21% of the vote, Oleg Rokhleb.

Oh boy, we're closing in here, guys.

Very dramatic. And with 50, 50, 5-0, who's number 2? I'm gonna go— you know, you say number 1 now. Okay, okay. No, okay, well, okay, sorry. Yeah, you're right. With 24% of the vote, in second place, Aaron Cowan for MGM. Number 1 with 50% of the vote, Dan Dreyfus.

Hey!

Wow!

Unbelievable!

Give it up.

Nicely done.

Now the bestie vote. Wait, hold on.

Before we do the bestie, how do you feel right now having won this? Pass him the award.

You guys look so uncomfortable.

Yeah, exactly.

You guys are smiling.

There's no space.

But pass him his award for a second and let him hold it.

Give it Academy Awards. Thank everybody. How you got to this place. Say a few words.

I got my award. I got my tequila. Yeah, thank you.

There you go.

All right, well done. Okay, now, okay, that's the award.

4, 3, 2, 1. It's, uh, relatively similar here. Uh, 4th place was Kyle Simani. Okay, 3rd place was Oleg. 2nd place Dan Draper's first place. Aaron Cowan, big upset, flipped the audience vote.

There you go.

All right, so MGM wins. All right, thanks guys, this was amazing.

All right, thank you all for participating.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for coming, and we'll see you.