Tad Smith: The Fed Pivot & AI Forces Driving Bitcoin’s New Regime

Jackson Mikalic (00:01.502) Okay, we are back. The last trade. Tad Smith. It's a pleasure to have you back on the show. I see you have the orange scarf on. Was that because you joined a Bitcoin podcast today or was this unrelated? Tad Smith (00:16.612) Well, my choice today on scarves was red for Christmas or orange for Bitcoin. And the truth is I was up and down Fifth Avenue this morning with my wife doing a little Christmas shopping and I wore red. But for you guys, I put on orange. Seemed appropriate. Yeah. Jackson Mikalic (00:30.946) It sure does. Yeah, you I love it. It's a, you can say it's so festive, right? It's early December, almost mid December. Yeah. You know what? It's still autumn depending on where you are in the world. And I, and I love the... Tad Smith (00:38.133) it's totally festive. Totally festive. Brian Cubellis (00:39.408) you Tad Smith (00:44.187) Yeah, get it. loosely construed. It's kind of cold out there. Jackson Mikalic (00:50.464) Yeah, you know, it does depend. But Ted, it's nice to have you back on the show. We're joined as well by Brian Cabellus, the quant, the house view of Onramp, and Liam Nelson. Liam's joining us from early riders in place of Michael Tanguma. Liam, thanks for joining us. How are you doing? Tad Smith (00:56.987) Thank you. Liam Nelson (01:09.974) I'm doing wonderful, excited to be here today. Lots to talk about. Jackson Mikalic (01:14.166) Yeah, there is a lot to talk about. We were about to record an entire podcast, so I figured let's hit the record button and we'll start talking about what's happening in the market. So, Ted, we got to take a step back for just a moment here. We had you on the show May 2nd. You may recall we were dealing with some turbulence in the markets in April as it related to the tariffs. The Bitcoin price was 96K. Today we're sitting at 91K. Brian Cubellis (01:20.154) You Jackson Mikalic (01:42.69) I think expectations for this asset class were much higher this year than where reality set in. And I'm curious if you just take a moment to gather your thoughts. Why do you think that is? Why do you think that perhaps Bitcoin has been a little bit less exciting than the market expected it to be at the start of 2025? And why do you think it's underperformed every other major asset class this year? Tad Smith (02:10.565) Yeah. So as we record this mid December, it's been overwhelmingly a disappointment in this calendar year Bitcoin has. you know, I can point to a lot of different reasons and maybe we'll go into a few in just a minute. But in my experience with it, and there are a lot of people with more experience, but I have intense experience over the period I have. Bitcoin can surprise you and disappoint you over and over and over again. This is one of those markets that is uniquely designed to take our species and frustrate it. when we entered this, remember the boom we had after Trump was elected, everything was amazing. And we can talk about results being pulled forward. We can talk about liquidity promises. We can talk about all that stuff. But the plain fact of the matter is, It never seems exactly to perform the way we expect. And I would say the expectations coming in were very, very high. On the other hand, we have to look back and say, know, absent the performance year to date, the performance of Bitcoin overall has been relatively strong. moreover, the Fed and particularly the US liquidity hasn't been particularly great this year. It's been, you know, it's, you know, chugged along, but it hasn't done much. And that sort of held things back. And moreover, the narrative on Bitcoin has been sort of very dull, honestly. I mean, all the energy has been in AI, frankly, and AI stocks and quantum stocks and all the other stuff. So there's been a lot of things that have just been like, you know, a wet pillow or wet blanket that's been kind of hanging over Bitcoin. That said, What's exciting to me now is that Bitcoin, as I said, knows how to take our species and turn its mind inside out. And there's a lot of bearish sentiment right now. There a lot of people that are moving on to other things. There are a lot of people thinking, it's sort of a dead cat, whatever. I feel pretty good about that set up. And I feel particularly good about the Fed meeting yesterday. Tad Smith (04:36.592) and I feel particularly good about how things are setting up from a macro perspective going forward. yeah, disappointing year. Yeah, you could have taken a dart and thrown it at any of the S &P 500 and probably done a little better than Bitcoin this calendar year. But no, no, it's not the end of the world. Things look good. Jackson Mikalic (04:58.71) Well, there's a lot of different directions we can go in. You did. You made my job easy, Tad. Thank you. One thing I did want to pick your brain on because we talked about it and it ties directly into what you were describing around the narrative with Bitcoin compared to the narrative with tech, AI. We discussed the idea that... Tad Smith (05:01.662) I gave you a lot to work with, didn't I, Jackson? Brian Cubellis (05:02.723) you Tad Smith (05:17.552) and space, by the way, don't leave Rocket Lab and Palantir's obviously AI, but don't leave Rocket Lab out. Look at that stock, bang. Jackson Mikalic (05:23.798) Fair. And we were talking about narrative, particularly in the context of asset classes that do not generate cash flows. We were talking about art, gold, Bitcoin. I'm curious, you when you said the narrative has been dull in Bitcoin this year. gold, the one of the other major, actually the largest asset class. Tad Smith (05:47.769) Gold, which is inherently dull, gold, let's just say, let's call it what it is. Gold has no narrative. It's inherently dull and it's dull until it really isn't. And when it isn't, it's crazy. And by the way, even when it is, isn't dull, it's eclipsed by silver, which is even a more interesting narrative that's even crazier. So gold is like the middle child. Gold is totally a middle child. It's got. Bitcoin on one side and silver, I guess, on the other. That doesn't make any sense what I said. But it's like if your two siblings are silver and Bitcoin and your gold, you're the dull student. You're the best student in class and you're absolutely the dullest of the siblings. Jackson Mikalic (06:27.692) Well, the gold bugs are laughing at us today, us Bitcoiners. like I'm trying. Tad Smith (06:32.397) Well, I own gold, I'm laughing along with them, I guess. But I'm not laughing at my Bitcoin position, which I am fiercely attached to. Thank you very much. Jackson Mikalic (06:35.51) Good, yeah. Jackson Mikalic (06:40.318) Okay, well, so then if narratives, know, if narratives are one of the big reasons why these asset classes, particularly art, gold, Bitcoin, non cashflow, productive asset, productive assets, what do you make of the divergence between the two? Like, it, is there any, is there any damage to Bitcoin's narrative longer term based on the short term performance this year? And the second piece on the gold component is, well, you said there's really no narrative. It's kind of a dull asset class. Tad Smith (07:04.589) No. Jackson Mikalic (07:09.73) What do you make of the 50 % or so year to date return there? Tad Smith (07:13.569) Okay, so two things. One is I was being cheeky on the gold narrative point. So I'm gonna retract that, but I'll put some beat on that bone in just a minute. Let's do your really provocative question about Bitcoin first. Bitcoin, well, let me step back one point. Art is in a different category in terms of narrative versus price. We'll come back to that in just a minute. But where there are trading markets, price, I think, typically leads the narrative, meaning the price does interesting things and then the narrative follows it to try to explain it or to propel momentum or to take the foam off the top, one of those things. So that's why I think art's a little different because they don't necessarily mark to market very easily. But we can talk about that in a sec. With respect to Bitcoin, it's very hard to craft a favorable narrative when the price is giving you no love. It's just really hard. And so you look for all the narratives that explain why the price is giving you no love. And there's a lot, there's a whole lot confusion, liquidity, tariffs, AI, gold, gold is the real thing, not Bitcoin. know, Bitcoin's too tied to the QQQ, you know, or something. mean, a hundred little narratives to explain why it doesn't, it isn't working. Or, by the way, altcoins, you know, it's really time for altzies. Any of those things are good reasons why Bitcoin can be in the doldrums. But they typically follow the price action. With respect to gold, that's a different situation. The narratives typically chase the price also. But there's a structural bid for gold right now. And you can see it in the math, which is the central banks are buying, and they're buying a lot. And they... Think that the last numbers I saw and I was a week or two old it looked like they've done up to 1,100 tons or something last year and this year they even year-to-date they were in like seven or eight hundred million times some are 800 metric tons some huge number crazy. Those are approximately numbers and What that's telling me is that the central banks quietly relentlessly are Definitely increasing their buying so they've got a very large structural bid that Bitcoin Tad Smith (09:35.074) had with the treasury companies and had with some moments at time, but doesn't have at the moment. so with that, gold has a narrative, but I'm going to stick with the middle child and say it's not a sexy narrative, but it does work like that price action. Brian Cubellis (09:51.631) Yeah. Yeah, Ted, that's very well said and you're exactly right because that's basically what happened, right? Like gold started to run and then you started to see the narrative become the debasement trade, right? All the talking heads on CNBC started talking about the debasement trade, which is frankly like that is the Bitcoin thesis. If you were to ask any real Bitcoin, they're like, yeah, the dollar's being debased and you need to own hard assets. But I'm curious, like, you know, there is this divergence, but at the same time you have you know, the Harvard's of the world making allocations to iBit and doing it in tandem, interestingly, with a gold allocation. So there is some understanding that these two things are similar. Now the year to day performance doesn't show you that they're, you know, exactly in line or in tandem, but that's typically not how they work anyway. They're sort of a handoffs in performance and gold and Bitcoin running. But what do you make of the smaller? Yes, they're, toe dip allocations. for the most part, but like, what do you make of Harvard or even like Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Fund that are making these allocations to Bitcoin? And, you know, in my mind, they are viewing it as digital gold. This is the digital form of sound money. And so if they're going to be stacking gold, they might as well also be stacking some Bitcoin. Tad Smith (11:09.696) Yeah. So let me separate Harvard from Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth for a minute. Harvard's endowment is one of the, and has been true for literally decades. I remember it in the eighties and nineties. One of the most advanced hedge funds in the world. They're really amazing. The way I interpreted that when I saw it was that they're doing some sort of locked in funding rate trade on the spot versus the futures market and that that's a very sophisticated and very safe financial strategy for them and they're not taking naked spot positions. To be clear, I have not the slightest fact to support that. but it just struck me that that's the kind of thing that they're so smart and they would be interested in doing and that's because they operate as a giant. I mean, it really is. It's a hedge fund. It's a venture capital fund, a private equity fund and a growth equity fund. And they're all sort of stapled together. And that's really, so that's slightly different. Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund is equally sophisticated in some respects, but there's a slight difference, which is they will take long-term strategic bets for the literally for the country, well, certainly for the Emirate. And in that case, for them, it would be wise for them to have a large collection of Bitcoin on a spot basis, just parked. And so it's possible they're doing the same thing, but I didn't read it quite that way. So my guess is the Abu Dhabi sovereign efforts are Bitcoin spot. and that the Harvard is a slightly different looking beast. And you know, think something, I think it was Larry Fink actually did an interview in the last week or so and he was talking about, he said that on stage sovereigns are buying and it was plural and that makes sense. And I don't think he would say that if they're buying and selling at the same time. It's just kind of strange. Brian Cubellis (13:19.118) Yeah. Brian Cubellis (13:24.302) Yeah. No, that's a great point. And specifically on the Harvard thing, like I think you could totally be right. And I probably would have thought the same. Right. And neither do I. But I would have thought the same thing if it wasn't in tandem with the gold position. Like those both being disclosed at the same time was interesting to me in that it is sort of a sound money allocation now. But you could be right. They could just be doing some sort of basis. Tad Smith (13:32.383) but i have no facts Tad Smith (13:43.038) Yeah. Brian Cubellis (13:51.885) trade with Bitcoin, particularly because it's a large position. Tad Smith (13:52.895) Well, I think you, Brian, you, yeah, I wouldn't, I wouldn't give up on your point quite yet. Not that you were. That's, that's evidence that says I'm wrong. So I get it. But I'll tell you one thing. It's nice to see them doing it, frankly. Yeah. It's yeah, because by the way, they don't just take the, the basis trade lately, lightly, meaning, you know, they've got to make a Brian Cubellis (14:09.518) Yeah, even if it was just the basis trade, like that's still interesting. Yeah. Tad Smith (14:18.941) decision because they know it's going to be publicly reported. Do they really want to associate Harvard with Bitcoin? I think about that. I mean, we think that's it's such a completely uncontroversial issue that, you know, you don't even really think twice about it. It's not because it gets beamed all over the world. Think about all the Harvard grads in the whole world, all the alumni, everybody else. And they see Harvard, my alma mater, is putting money in Bitcoin. What? So it's not exactly uncontroversial, which again, adds credence to your point. Brian Cubellis (14:51.396) Yeah, totally agree. There was that great article in the Institutional Investor, I don't know if you saw it, a week or two ago. It was basically saying exactly that, that it's Harvard, Brown, Emory, a few others that have these sort toe-dip positions, but that they're not talking about it at all. Like there's no, yeah, they're being very, very quiet about it, which makes total sense because you have peers, colleagues, alumni, to your point, that just don't understand Bitcoin and they, a lot of them probably just perceive it as Tad Smith (15:07.713) Silence. Brian Cubellis (15:20.952) a Trump thing, which I think is added to the lack of narrative this year as well is that a lot of people who don't like Trump have associated Bitcoin and crypto with Trump at this point. And so it's kind of an easy out for them to not be intellectually rigorous about the asset and just say, no, it's not for me. Tad Smith (15:38.815) Well, very astute again. mean, Brian, when you think about it, buying Bitcoin and having it disclosed at Harvard in this environment just invites scrutiny, invites noise, invites the press. And it's so easy just to not do it. It's so easy, which tells you something. tells you either that that funding rate play that I'm talking about is just irresistible. Or it would have to be really irresistible. more you're the more you're talking about, the more you're convincing me it's actually more interesting than what I was suggesting initially, frankly, because it's just not worth the noise. I mean, there's so many things they can put their money into. Why would they choose Bitcoin unless they actually really wanted it? So well done. Jackson Mikalic (16:32.29) Do you have any other examples of that, Ted, in your professional experience where institutional investors would rather not participate in an asset class just for avoiding controversy, even if there's merit to owning it? Tad Smith (16:48.105) Well, you mean, shall we exclude the S &P 500? Well, mean, how many companies, publicly traded entities, just don't think it's worth even putting one half of one percent of their excess cash into Bitcoin? By the way, many of them, same point for gold. Let's put gold on there. Gold also, by the way, has Jackson Mikalic (16:53.942) Tell me more. Tad Smith (17:17.779) drama, narrative issues, know, gold, it's a, you know, all that stuff. And, and you could say that there are reasons why they do that, that one is they may authentically believe it's a scam and a pet rock or whatever it is they believe, but there's a whole weight of evidence that it isn't. And interestingly, there's a weight of evidence that they are actually not doing the best by their shareholders by not putting at least some allocation there. And you don't have to listen to little old Tad, listen to Larry Fink. I mean, let's start with him. So I would say the weight of evidence for people that are managing excess cash, when I say excess, meaning excess and above what they need to run the business, sitting in T-bills is there's a a case that one can say that that's, now this is probably too strong, but I'll make it, I'll try to soften it a bit, that if you're sitting in T-bills and you don't need the cash in the short term, you are being abundantly conservative with your shareholders' money. Maybe that's a nice way to say it. And if you're sitting on long-term cash and you're just rolling them over in T-bills, you could... You could really wonder whether that's the best for the shareholders. so back to your question, Jackson, think you could say that it's meaning the list of people who are examples is much longer than the list of people who aren't examples. How's that for an answer? Jackson Mikalic (18:49.282) Right. Yeah, no, that makes a lot of sense. And I may have just not phrased my thought correctly. I was curious that that insight was helpful. I was also curious just outside of Bitcoin. You know, we talked about how there's some politicization controversy around owning Bitcoin and that to your point extends to S &P 500 companies, to institutional investors. Tad Smith (19:07.654) No! Tad Smith (19:11.842) sure, you meant are there other asset classes that are as controversial as Bitcoin? Okay, well let's take every single altcoin, every single non, we'll do that, let's add that to the list, all cryptocurrencies. Shall we toss in large fossil-based energy companies? Shall we toss in companies that are based in, I don't know, places in the world that are politically... Jackson Mikalic (19:15.497) Exactly. Tad Smith (19:38.503) complicated or dicey or raise issues? we take, should we toss in companies that are perceived to be transparently unsustainable or have some other thing with them? All of those things are areas where people will not for financial reasons make decisions about just, you know, life's too short. Why do that? Jackson Mikalic (20:05.002) Yeah, no, that makes sense. And I hear you that certainly have seen quite a bit of that in the Wall Street days before working in the Bitcoin industry. And I can understand where people are coming from. One thing, you maybe to move in a different direction here, because I know it's something that all of us wanted to discuss was the recent decision by the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates third consecutive time. and start expanding the balance sheet. So, you know, for the listeners who are unaware, we've been in more of a tighter monetary policy, especially relative to the past 15 or so years post great financial crisis. You know, we saw the fastest rate hike by the Federal Reserve, I believe in history, following COVID early 2022 to, was it 24 at some point when that ended? That point aside, saw Bitcoin, you know, to tie Bitcoin back in here and maybe just broader asset classes. There's been this perception that Bitcoin has a four year cycle and we'll figure out if that's true or not in the coming months. I mean, you can make evidence that maybe we've already found the answer out that the four year cycle no longer applies. But one thing that's really important to call out is the distinction between where policy was Tad Smith (21:12.145) Soon enough. Brian Cubellis (21:12.912) You Jackson Mikalic (21:25.012) where monetary policy was at the end of the last Bitcoin cycle in 2021, where we're entering into tightening compared to now, where you'd think based on historical precedence, the Bitcoin price would be going down. But you have monetary policy that's becoming more supportive of risk assets. Even if we don't think Bitcoin is a risk asset, that's currently how it's categorized. So I'm curious to add Before getting into perhaps the Bitcoin side of the question, just what do you make of the Fed's decision yesterday and broadly speaking this year in terms of easing? know, there's some controversy. Is it the right thing to do because labor is softening, but inflation is still above target level. So how do you think about that as an investor? Tad Smith (22:10.022) So two things. One is the Fed has a hard job and I don't, I'm supportive of a change in direction in the Fed, meaning I think they have been too tight, too data dependent and too rigid in all, all several of those respects. And I think the situation with the balance sheet as one example, set aside the rates. was becoming more and more and more apparent and the fact they were slow walking the any sort of movement on the balance sheet was beginning to put stress on the system and I think at the end of the calendar year as you know the banks have to clean up a lot of their reserves and it wasn't obvious to me that the reserves although ample were satisfactory to do that so the level of risk in the system was just look it wasn't high but it was beginning to get into you know, a slightly higher level. So I'm, I think that the Fed has not been doing particularly well in last couple of years. I, and I think we are, I think we're suffering for it now. The people who I think are really suffering for it are, are folks who are often young people trying to buy a house, trying to own assets, doing all those things. I don't, I don't think that, I think that's where you're, you're feeling real pain. So this whole affordability meme. So as an investor, I am broadly speaking, encouraged about the future. I think we're going to have a very exciting tax framework beginning in 2026, which is good. Remember the one big, beautiful bill takes effect. I think we're going to have an improved Fed situation, which is encouraging. I think the balance sheet relief that began this week isn't going away in April. You heard it here first or? probably didn't hear it first, probably heard it on Twitter for the last 24 hours. But if you didn't see it on Twitter in last 20, you heard it here first, it isn't going away in April, and you're going to get a more accommodative Fed. And I think as long as we don't have black swans, I think things are going to look pretty good for investment. Brian Cubellis (24:20.782) Yeah, it's an interesting time just given that Powell at this point is effectively a lame duck. Like it's, it's known that he's going to be replaced in the new year. And so in my mind, it's like, kind of doesn't matter what happens over the next few months, because we kind of know the trajectory once he is replaced. and so, you know, to your point, like they've very much slow walked to this sort of transition. First, was tightening is over. Jackson Mikalic (24:21.047) Yep. Brian Cubellis (24:44.96) on December 1st or whatever it was and now we're expanding the balance sheet but it's just for stabilization. It's quote unquote temporary, it never really is. And so it's just kind of this interesting spot where everyone kind of sees the writing on the wall but it's still gonna take a few months for it to really start to kick in. And to Jackson's original point, I think that's the biggest thing that people are missing with the whole cycle theory and... predicting whether Bitcoin is going to enter a bear market. It's completely devoid of any critical thinking around what those circumstances were in past, quote unquote, bull bear cycles for Bitcoin. Yes, the having had an impact, more of an impact earlier on, but that impact deteriorates over time. It's just less of a magnitude of an impact. And what really has created these cycles over time is liquidity and the business cycle. So now that we're entering basically the exact opposite of what we saw in 21, 22, it would support that. Yeah, Bitcoin is likely to go up from here in 26 as opposed to enter some prolonged bear market. And you add on top of that, ETFs exist, the market structure exists, banks are getting into custody. They're now allowed to. All of these things matter in terms of like what the next 12 to 24 months look like because I've been harping on this for a while, but it's like the ETFs arrived, I guess, close to two years ago now. And Vanguard just two weeks ago gave access to their clients. So it's like this stuff is happening, but it's slow in terms of the plumbing and the access. so the ETFs, the market structure, the banks getting in, all of those are going to be huge tailwinds in addition to the macro and liquidity environment into 26. Tad Smith (26:29.038) So two things on that. The one thing I would add to supplement what you're saying is we forget that when you look at the manufacturing index, it's been in the doldrums for years, literally years. And we get that kicking up into the mid and upper 50s. You're going to start seeing the velocity of the money move through the system much, much faster. so reserves won't just be sitting on bank balance sheets even though liquidity goes up you're going to get more activity in the GDP which is what you really want to see as well. The other thing I would say just as a respectful nod to Jay Powell again who is a hard job if we put ourselves in his shoes he knows he's a lame duck he realizes that he did his rate thing when he got the rate thing through this week and there isn't going to be any other rate mess. He's not going to mess with the rates until you know, the new chair comes in. But he realizes that the system right now of doing nothing has an unusually a slightly more than usual, which is always low to be clear low, but slightly less low or slightly higher elevated risk because of liquidity. One could argue and remember, I just criticized the Fed, but let me say that one could argue that the elegant thing to do was to put in place a temporary liquidity provision to bridge the Fed from now until the new chair comes in. And then position it as temporary so you don't tie up the new chair's flexibility in doing what the new chair wants to do with liquidity. Because the new chair, by the way, if it's a Moran type, Stephen Moran type person may want less on the balance sheet and lower rates. It could a lot of so you could you could take the point that Jay Powell orchestrated a transition yesterday in a way that he may not, look, I'm just making this up, that he may not be getting full credit for, which is if he had done nothing on liquidity, the probability that they would have to ride to the rescue over the next four months is probably higher than they wanted. And if they had to run to the rescue, that's going to look a lot more like the Silicon Valley bank situation. Tad Smith (28:47.453) where they had to ride to the rescue with a multi-hundred billion dollar thing and then they would tie the new chairs hands with the inheritance of that part of the balance sheet. So just keep in mind the possibility is there that again I'm not a fan of the recent feds actions that this was a well thought through elegant solution. Liam Nelson (29:07.815) Yeah, I think that's a great point. And as we go closer to the next few months, we're likely going to see who the next Fed chair is and more eyes will be on him rather than Jay Powell. And he's likely going to be publicly posturing what his views are and just his background personally will be able to show where rates are going to go, their view on the Fed's balance sheet over time and can give the market a little bit of a heads up what they Tad Smith (29:20.383) yeah. Liam Nelson (29:37.859) be expecting in 2026 as well. So I think Powell's, know, as Brian mentioned, like almost further than a lame duck at this point, as all eyes will certainly be on whoever is named as the next Fed chair. Tad Smith (29:52.214) Yeah, unless there's something that comes up and then he will not be a lame duck. He'll be a very active chair, I'm sure. Liam Nelson (29:57.115) Exactly. Jackson Mikalic (30:00.918) Tad, I think you handled that nuance very well and you put it quite nice compared to the Treasury Secretary who more recently said at the All In Summit that the Fed was turning into universal basic income for PhD economists. What do you think of the relationship between the Treasury and the Fed currently? Because I think the Bitcoin review, or at least my view has been that Brian Cubellis (30:16.336) You Jackson Mikalic (30:28.0) the mirage of independence has always been kind of a mirage. At some points, the Fed acts more independent than other points, but I tend to think that the Fed and the United States government, the Treasury, move more in lockstep than maybe they want to admit. And I'm curious if you disagree with that, if you agree and... what your assessment is of the relationship between the two right now, where it seems that, you know, the Trump administration is pressuring the Federal Reserve, maybe because they have to, because of the fiscal position, but I did want to get your thoughts on that. Tad Smith (31:04.924) well, you guys correct me if I'm wrong. I don't remember, and this is just maybe my recollection. I don't remember Secretary Besant criticizing Jay Powell by name at any point. Yeah, no. I do recall he's rather and very, including the situation that you just described, rather hilariously, lampooned the policies of the fed. Jackson Mikalic (31:20.16) No. Tad Smith (31:34.408) and on multiple occasions. And then by the way, also very directly said it's off track. It's not doing the right thing, et cetera, et And the reason that's important is because that's consistent with what you were implying a minute ago, Jackson, which is to say, look, these two have to get along. It doesn't need to be personal. Besant doesn't need to parrot what his boss says. And they probably meet or have lunch or whatever, breakfast, whatever it is, once a week. And they have to work together because that's the way, that's the way it's going to be. And my guess is they, you know, have significantly overlapping interests with significantly not overlapping interests as well. And they work on the areas where they can overlap, almost like, you know, Republicans and Democrats. I don't mean to make it political, but people that are just trying to work through and find areas of common interest that will advance an interest. And I suspect they're both working toward what they conceive to be the national interest. At the same time, they come from very different perspectives and have very different views. So it's very easy for me to agree with Bassett to say, you know, it is a work program for PhDs. I don't think he quite said that, but you know what I mean. And because PhDs are sort of fossilized in a backward-looking data-dependent, relatively conservative, small-C, very conservative mindset. I mean, think about how conservative, again, small-C, not politically conservative, think about how conservative the Fed has to be. Life tenure type, PhDs, you're in there. You don't rock the boat. You were talking earlier at the top of the at the top of this podcast about how Bold a company or an endowment has to be to take on Bitcoin is a risk Think about the mindset and the institutional Taking all the sharp edges off that must go on inside the Fed to rise within that organization by the way long tenured people very steeped in traditional finance Tad Smith (33:50.482) And J Powell sits on top of that. So there you go. So I think they work for institutions that are not 100 % aligned in their act. think they work together rather well. Jackson Mikalic (34:05.792) Yeah, no, that's good perspective just because it's kind of the perspective that I've missed over the past several years, at least in my career, where I started in the larger bureaucratic type organizations and what you described about the federal reserve would be more true in those types of types. Right. Yeah. So it's even different. Tad Smith (34:21.588) But you worked in for-profit institutions. You didn't even work in the government. Now, the Fed is obviously quasi-government. We know that. And of course, they have a balance sheet and all that other stuff. But it's run like the government. is. Jackson Mikalic (34:38.69) So one of the comments you did make about just, you said the younger generations are being hurt by higher interest rates is how I perceived you said that, but I'm to give you the opportunity to kind of clarify your point. So going into 26, we just discussed the shift that's happening, pals out new Fed chair in currently have liquidity provisions in place. Interest rates likely go lower in 2026. One of the things we wanted to talk about, Ted, that you brought up, uh, head of recording was the labor market. And I think this is a particularly interesting time to be looking at what is happening in the labor market. And it's not that I have a great perspective on it or a unique perspective on it. It's the fact that we're in a position now that technology is really posing, at least many people perceive that technology is posing a threat to their career. One of the things you mentioned was specifically white collar work. younger, you know, younger people coming out of college, looking for career opportunities. I see this already. I'm like on the lower end of a millennial millennial, but I know friends that have younger siblings that are around college age. And they're already kind of coming into a labor market that's weaker than what I saw in the 2010s, late 2010s. And so what, how do you think about just the opportunity or the threat that AI actually poses? Let's say, let's stick to maybe white collar labor because there's a lot of different tangents we could go down. And how do you think about like, what advice might you have for younger generations? And we're gonna talk about your course, the art course that you're teaching at some point today. Right, right. Tad Smith (36:22.815) Well, it's actually a business school class, but we'll come to that in a minute. But you're right, I don't mean to contradict you. It is about art, but we'll come to that in a sec. So, yeah. Jackson Mikalic (36:29.354) Yeah, so twofold question, the impact on the labor market and then advice, career advice for younger generations in this new labor market. Tad Smith (36:37.661) Jackson, you mind if I lean in a little bit on your premise before we turn to the questions? So before I answer, I want to say I am the oldest Gen X that there is, born in 1965. So I am 60. And so I'm not technically a boomer. I'm one inch away from a boomer. Literally, not even an inch, half an inch. Six months from boomer. we, boomers and older Gen Xs have left you guys is absolutely disastrous. Completely disastrous. Let's be clear. I'm talking about all three of you and all of your cohorts. We, first of all, ran up the bills over decades, printed piles and piles and piles of money to try to pay for them. We did enormous programs that had no end in sight, one after another after another, no way to pay for them except printing more more more money. We then, by the way, create wild subsidies for college and we make it virtually impossible for anyone who doesn't have a college degree to get on a track toward higher income, at least in white collar work. Still some opportunities in a non-white collar work or blue collar work, but those are tougher. We then, by the way, enter into trade deals that push manufacturing jobs offshore, so taking away more more blue collar work. We then, by the way, enter into trade deals that do that accelerate that. We also, by the way, start creating some of the most productive manufacturing operations in the world here onshore. Only problem is we did it with automation, so we have fewer and fewer jobs actually producing things. And then we tell you guys you have to go bankrupt yourself even using public schools. to get your college degree, get your ticket punched. you pile up piles and piles and piles, thousands and thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of debt to get to be medical degrees, law degrees, college degrees, MBA degrees, whatever it is. And finally, finally, and then we check up the rates to correct all of this so that you can't buy a house, anyone who has assets that if you don't have assets and you're only selling your labor, you're. Tad Smith (38:59.855) in a highly elastic supply curve and you don't get any money for it. And then by the way, finally you guys have survived all of that without pitchforks. I don't know how. And then we come along and say, hey, the most powerful technology that's ever been invented has just come along and it's going to take all your jobs away. that, and by the way, we're going to fire up the money printer to make all of this work. and by the way, we have no plan. for what you're going to do without having your job, what you're going to do with your student loan, and what you're going to do to own a house, and what you're to do with your family, because you guys are at the ages where you're starting families. That is absolutely inexcusable, period. It's inexcusable. And is it surprising to me that Mam Donnie wins? No, it's not surprising to me. Is it surprising to me that the right flank of the Republican Party would be angry? No. It's absolutely not surprising. It's surprising to me that the youth would feel disaffected and feel this is completely jammed up. Is it surprising to me that they would go after Bitcoin or gamble or go, you know, no, it's all perfectly sensible when framed that way. And the truth is I haven't even really thrown a punch. I've just talked about kind of what is and what everybody looks at and says, yeah, that's kind of the way it went. There it is all out there, all plain and clear. Brian Cubellis (40:24.186) Thanks, Tad. Thanks. Tad Smith (40:24.677) So if you ask me, is there a bona fide threat to labor from AI? Regrettably, anybody who doesn't think so hasn't been paying attention. Regrettably, anybody who doesn't think they need to be tailoring their messages to their nephews, their nieces, their children, their grandchildren about what the world looks like hasn't been paying attention. Jackson Mikalic (40:52.042) If, yeah, I mean, that was a great recap. But I'm so optimistic, actually, and I'll tell you why. Yeah. Brian Cubellis (40:56.496) you Tad Smith (40:57.393) Sorry. Brian Cubellis (40:59.226) You Tad Smith (40:59.953) Well, actually, I am too. I'm tremendously optimistic, but we have to be sober and clear on the reality. And moreover, we need to be sober and clear that on whose responsibility is the reality, and it is ours, not yours. Jackson Mikalic (41:17.482) And so on that, just on the last point that you made while kind of walking us through the situation, the younger generations find themselves in. Yeah, exactly. So the final point you made was any, I forget exactly how to it, but anyone who says otherwise about AI, anyone who doesn't think AI is a threat to... Liam Nelson (41:17.703) What? Tad Smith (41:25.945) The situation analysis, exactly. Jackson Mikalic (41:39.104) their career is not paying enough attention. And I think one of the great data points that you could point to more recently was the October, 2023 layoffs. That was the biggest month of layoffs in the U.S. in 22 years. It's also conveniently a month where the government didn't publish any jobs data, but that's that's okay. But yeah, but so that 2003 compared to 2025. Tad Smith (41:58.748) Yeah, you mean 2025, but yeah. Yeah, yeah. Right, right, that's right, exactly. Jackson Mikalic (42:07.682) yeah, so that's, yeah, I think that's a great data point just for people to pay attention to. Why I'm optimistic is at the same time, everything that you said is clearly true. It's also clearly true that now is a great time to be a high agency person. think the. Tad Smith (42:25.444) In fact, it's not only a great time, it's incumbent Jackson. So let me just add one, what I said is my generation is responsible for the mess, but that does not absolve your generation from having agency to clean up your situation. 100%. So I'm 100 % with you, keep going. Jackson Mikalic (42:29.108) Right, it is, yeah. Jackson Mikalic (42:47.082) Right. So I mean, at any point in history, if you're a high agency person, then you're creating opportunities for yourself. You're probably better off than the people who are not doing that. I think it's particularly true now compared to the past few generations because of everything you just described where 40 years ago, the winning move was to join a company, be loyal to the business, have a pension, do good work. Tad Smith (42:55.098) Exactly. Exactly. Jackson Mikalic (43:16.598) work hard, climb the corporate ladder. But that status quo has been completely flipped on its head in the past 40 years. Now I think that is the losing strategy. Actually, it really, you know, it kind of bothers me how that is still perceived to be the winning strategy. I have a good friend who has a younger brother and he was talking about his younger brother is working for a city, a municipality. And the idea was Tad Smith (43:25.68) Yes. Jackson Mikalic (43:45.75) He'll work here and he'll get a pension in the future. And I didn't have the heart to say to him at the time that the pension is probably not going to be there. And even though that might have been a good career choice 40 years ago, you know, for, many people, it's probably not the best career choice now because so much of that work is just going to be replaced. The flip side is if you're high agency and you're curious and you want to learn these new technologies and you want to You know, maybe you're in business school and you're in TAD's course and you're learning about these new technologies. There is so much opportunity to use these to further skill sets and advance careers, unlike any time before, right? You don't need to, you no longer need to necessarily follow the conventional career path. You don't need to follow the conventional education system. Everything is at your disposal to create the opportunities that you want. Not to say it's going to be easy. It's not going to be, but I'm just convinced as well, like simultaneously we have a really bad situation on our hands, but at this, you know, we also have one of the best opportunities I think for entrepreneurs, for people building businesses and people who are creative. Tad Smith (44:55.707) I think that's the most important thing we will say in this entire podcast, what you just said, Jackson. And let me just take it one notch farther if I could. It's a great time to be alive. It's a great time to be a millennial. It's a great time to be Gen Z. These technologies can make you do anything, can give you the opportunity to do anything, absolutely anything. And by the way, one corollary of there being abundance and job traditional jobs being fewer is that the possibility of I mean, Elon said this actually a week ago, whatever it was, you know, he very much views work as going to be an optional exercise in a matter of a decade or 20 years or something. And what that means is, Liam, Brian Jackson, you guys can really chart a course with your own agency. requires agency, it requires financial planning, which is why it's so important, but because you're doing it on-ramp, it requires thinking about the world, but it is, to me, an inherently positive thing. And if you want to add on to that, think about what AI is doing to give you healthy lives that could be more another century. Think about what AI is doing to make it possible for you to have no entry barriers to anything because you can learn it so fast or go anywhere or do anything. And we haven't even begun to talk about things. We talked before the recording started about travel. We haven't even talked about really, really special travel, literally in low Earth orbit or other kinds of things. So from my perspective, you guys have a great century in front of you. And it's going to be fantastic and incredibly positive. It's got a little bit of change and you're inheriting some of a little bit of, you know, a little bit of noise from me and your other parents and grandparents. but I love what you said because what it means is you guys can chart a future that nobody has ever even dreamed of. And by the way, you're going to. Brian Cubellis (46:59.344) It's well said. I want to go back to one thing you said when you were characterizing the reality of the situation and you said there's... Yeah. Tad Smith (47:05.815) Both are, by the way, the first time and the second time, they're both true. Brian Cubellis (47:09.816) And you said something to the effect of there's no plan, right? Like there's no plan to help help us solve this. Right. Yes. That's what I mean. And I was going to say, like, I can guess what the eventual plan will be. It's to print money. And I think while, yes, people have the ability to be high agency in this new world, a lot of people won't. And that's just the reality. And then there will be the pitchforks in the street at some point when AI really does start to displace jobs. Tad Smith (47:15.193) There's no plan on the part of government. Brian Cubellis (47:36.388) that people will be screaming for some form of UBI and they probably won't call it that but they're gonna have to print a ton of money. Tad Smith (47:41.686) well, first of all, we kind of know what's going to happen, right? I the threshold for Medicaid will go up, way, way up. So let me say it differently. The qualifying facts will go way down. It'll be much more permissive and it'll be much more generous. Medicare will be much more generous. The threshold age for it will drop. The Social Security will become more generous and the age threshold and the restrictions on it that we've been doing will become more generous. We don't even need to get to universal basic income or universal high income, however you want to phrase it, because we have a whole host of programs already. Aid to families with children will get more generous. We can just tune all these different things up. Unemployment will get more generous. It'll become permanent, by the way. Think about that. It'll be permanent. It'll be a permanent subsidy. By the way, most people realize politically the words UBI are non-starter, so nobody will ever start with them. They're complete non-starter. Or maybe there'll be a shibboleth for the left or something. I don't know. Brian Cubellis (48:21.968) Yeah. Tad Smith (48:40.599) What's more likely to happen is we just make everything more generous. Just make it easier to qualify and then, you know, because the social safety net is already there. It's just at the moment not protecting you three. But it is there and all we have to do is tune it up. And believe me, a little pressure at the ballot box and we're gonna tune it up. Liam Nelson (49:02.982) 100 % that's very well said. And this doesn't refer to you, but one of my friends previous to this call a few hours ago sent me an article on total boomer luxury communism, which is an idea that was put out or an article that describes how the amount of capital that goes into Medicare, Medicaid, and all other social security for those who essentially have all the assets today. because it's getting more and more difficult for young people to save capital, is also being used for the average individual can get $60,000 a year from social security alone and Medicare pays for things that you wouldn't imagine like golf balls, greens fees, social club memberships, horseback riding lessons, pet food, et cetera. So I think obviously people will continue to, or the government will continue to cater to. their largest and most loyal voting blocs, even if it's at the disservice of others in the population. And so I think we're going to kind of only accelerate that in the future, unfortunately, and that may eventually drive out some of the pitchforks. Tad Smith (50:16.376) Well, you'll know that universal basic income has arrived when articles that reveal the examples you just gave no longer raise an eyebrow. That's all that, by the way, that's when you know that it's happened. That's it. And, and by the way, if let's be clear, if AI puts significant stress on jobs, and by the way, even if you think that your job is resistant to it, it doesn't mean that as more and more people become Liam Nelson (50:25.079) Exactly. Tad Smith (50:42.988) hit the labor market with no jobs, the pressure will go down on all wages. Don't think that there are certain pockets where the wages are going to be resistant. That's not going to work. So the reason I say that is all of the things that you just described, wait until they provide golf lessons as well as golf balls soon. Alright, Jackson, you want to get us back on track, don't you buddy? I can see it, it's all over your face. You're like, come on, Tad, you're talking about golf balls. Jackson Mikalic (51:08.716) Ted, what are... No, no, no, I... Brian Cubellis (51:11.214) you Brian Cubellis (51:15.632) That was Liam to be fair, the broght of the golf balls, but... Jackson Mikalic (51:16.995) no, actually I had it. Tad Smith (51:19.86) I I brought up a golf swing. We'll do golf swing. Go ahead. Everybody that live in Palm Beach, what can I say? Jackson Mikalic (51:25.59) I had a question, just given your background in serving as CEO at public and private companies, what, and on the same thread, what are some of your peers, what are those conversations look like with your peers at C-suite level as they think through artificial intelligence for their businesses, right? Like not only just about replacing workers, but strategically growing the business, adding more value to shareholders, adding more value to their customers. Let's talk about some of the good that businesses are going to do with the technology. Tad Smith (52:00.341) Well, the vast majority of businesses have labor as their single largest expense. all the CEOs that I know, and probably all the CEOs that are responsible to their shareholders, are asking questions about how do I take advantage of this moment in time. to end this incredible new technology in ways that will make us more productive, generate more revenue per person, generate more revenue per unit dollar labor expense. Because if you're not, and all your competitors are, well then you've got a real problem. And what's that line? Your labor expense is my opportunity. That's pretty sobering. That's how they're thinking about it. Jackson Mikalic (52:52.542) So I actually wanted to hear your thoughts on this ties directly into what you just said. Does because we talked about the K shaped economy a little bit. Do you think then how do you parse? There's two kind of two thoughts in my head here. How do you parse the fact that what you just described is true. Artificial intelligence replaces some labor cost at companies. Ultimately, that could be a creative to share prices and to the, know, to the stock at the same time, though. Tad Smith (53:26.992) And by the way, you're seeing it, right? You look at what happened with Eli Lilly and Corning Glassworks in the last couple of months. So you don't have to believe me. One's a great big pharma company and one's, know, Majority Vistar did a wonderful piece on it a week or so ago on Corning, which has been a dead, you know, it's been a dead manufacturing, dull business until bang AI comes along and suddenly it's next level. Jackson Mikalic (53:51.562) Right, and so I think that's fascinating because you have artificial intelligence able to help the equity prices, but the equities are owned by the demographics we just discussed. The flip side is though, if the people who are losing their jobs are unable to consume at the same level they have previously because they don't have the same reliable income that they once had. I'm trying to like, you might not even have an answer, but you've probably thought about it. Like, how do you parse out the fact that it could be great for the AI could be great for share prices, but also the United States economy is so dependent on consumption. some point, AI replacing labor hurts consumption. And so like, how do you, how do those two factors play out? If you thought about that. Tad Smith (54:36.683) Yes. Tad Smith (54:40.074) Well, know, Jackson, you've got two minds on the topic because you have me completely enchanted by your optimism. And then you bring up a relatively cloudy question like this one, which is a very astute question. So I you've got me a little whiplash, but here's what I'll say. I think that when the ballot box starts feeling pressure and I mean real labor pressure at the moment, we're not feeling it. Yes. Brian, we were talking a little bit about a couple of your friends and we're talking about the college graduate trouble and getting jobs and things like that. Yeah, there's a little bit of pressure around the edges. There's no question. But you're not seeing sharp changes yet. What you're seeing is like a frog in a pot. It's not even warm yet, but it's gone a little north of room temperature, but it's not warm. It's just a little north of room temperature. That's where we are. When it starts getting uncomfortably hot, you're going to see real fast changes in my prediction. The government will be very responsive and very quick. It's just not there yet. At the moment, we can laugh at the golf balls as part of Medicare. We can be outraged by that. It won't last long. Jackson Mikalic (55:50.848) Got it. Yeah. Jackson Mikalic (56:00.49) Right. Yeah, that's true. mean, many people, I think the four of us and your students, which I want to talk about now are probably kind of in the minority still where people, people are actively using these new technologies. think a lot of folks still haven't. Materially engaged with LLMs or, you know, artificial intelligence in any sort of significant way. and so to your point, it's like, yeah, these, trend is in the trend is clear, which clear where it's going over the longer term, but we haven't actually gotten to a point where the pain is broadly felt enough in the economy. So if I get us back on track, let's get back into the optimism. Let's talk about, the course that you, that you teach, art meets machine. Let me make sure I get this clear. Art meets machine, innovation and creativity. from the 20th century to AI. Could you tell us more about what prompted you to want to create a course? I think you created it, right? Why do you want to create it? Tad Smith (57:04.54) I did, created it entirely from scratch. By the way, you guys are not just the minority, you're the vanguard. So I just want to point that out. You keep that in mind. With respect to the class, my daughter is a junior at college. And last May, she called me up, she almost never calls me, and she says, Dad, I need to talk to you. Sure, why? And she says, AI is banned at my school. Okay? And I had to do a paper. and anyone who gets caught using AI is gonna get flunked. I said, okay, what's the question? And she says, well, I wrote my paper and I put it through the AI detector and it was only 97 % human. And I said, wait, what? First of all, I'm like, what's an AI detector? But whatever, we get to like, what, what? And she says, no, daddy, it says it's only 97 % human. I said, well, did you use AI? She says, no, I said, turn the paper in, it's gonna be fine. She said, are you sure? I said, turn the paper in, you're gonna be fine. And I knew that I was coming off hiatus. I'd been on a couple of years hiatus. I took a brick from my class, but I was already talking to NYU Stern about going back in the fall. So it's the second year MBAs that I teach, by the way, at the business school at NYU Stern. And I came away from that experience thinking, my daughter, and we talked a little bit of longevity a few minutes ago, but my daughter's got another 100 plus years of life and all of it healthy and exciting, God willing. How is it possible she's going to this fantastic school and AI is banned? The most important technology that will shape her future is simply banned. Now I understand why there are good reasons to moderate the use of AI. Yes. But I'm like, really? So I said, and here I'm about to go teach and I'm about to go teach in exactly the same way. So I went to see my department chair. and I asked him what they're thinking about AI and it's left up to the professor and he points to this stack of blue books. Now you guys are too young to know what a blue book is, but I gotta tell you what it is is what I used to do an exam on in the early 80s. That's really what it was. You, I love that. Exactly. Blue books. Blue books have made a comeback. Well, okay, that to me caused my head to explode. And look, I love this chair, so he's great guy. And so I started showing, what are we doing with AI? At that moment, I said, Brian Cubellis (59:07.182) I know Blue Bucks. I've used some Blue Bucks. Tad Smith (59:26.031) I'm gonna redo my class. I'm gonna, one, use AI to create the class. Number two, I'm gonna require, require all students to use AI for the class. Number three, I'm not going to request or require anything other than the use of AI for the class. Number four, I'm going to redesign the class, not around lectures, not around reading assignments, not around any of those things, on presentations and debates and discussions prompted by AI. And moreover, I'm going to have AI complete the entire syllabus for me and of course I'll curate it. And then so the class was three hour, six three hour seminars. The first hour was every student for every single class every week for six weeks would come in ready to a five minute presentation on a topic of their choice within a genre of things. And they would have to get up in the front of the room and present and they never knew whether they were going to get called. So they had to do presentations ready, presentations every single week, not knowing whether they're going to give a speech that week or not. Second part, we would take some of the key themes in the presentation, we'd divide them into debates, and we'd split the class into quarters. And the first one would be one issue, and the second would be another issue, and one group would be pro, one group would be con for each. And then we would break the class up, give them five to 10 minutes, 12 minutes max, to be prepared to do a debate, and they would come back in and publicly debate. Now this sounds crazy with no preparation. When you have an IQ of 160 tools sitting in your superpower, you can do this really easily. And then we would have guest speakers evaluating some of this and come back in and answer questions at the end. And do you know, everything changed. The students changed, the use of AI changed, my role as professor changed, I used to be Socratic Method. All I had to do was curate this and stay out of the way and I learned a ton. The students all learned a ton. It was superpower. And then I had the trouble of what do I do with an exam? Because if students are required to use AI, try giving them a take-home exam. that uses AI that will be able to sort the group. Well, of course, AI is much smarter than I am. I had to use AI to come up with an exam. So I then did a take-home exam of five questions. They could pick one, and then they had to answer it. And of course, the grades, I consulted AI on the grades. Now, I ultimately kept the grade, the final grade and the oral participation grade to myself because AI can't do that. But getting... Tad Smith (01:01:52.516) AI's advice on the grades of the papers was extraordinary. It accelerated the level of class that's almost hard to get your mind around. And my grading got better, my teaching got better, their learning got better, their teaching of each other got better, their teaching of me got better, everything got better. Jackson Mikalic (01:02:18.444) So actually, let's be clear here then. There's a lot of good that comes from artificial intelligence. And we've all been, I think we've all been clear, but some people think it's all doom and gloom, but you just told us it had tremendous impact for your course, which was created by AI. Tad Smith (01:02:36.454) Yeah, a human created by AI in the way that, you know, some pieces I've collect art that is also a mix of human and art, generative AI around here. And so yeah, art, creates art too. So yes, I'm, I'm an AI bull. I'm very, very, very, very strongly in favor of the new technology. I think that it has tremendous power for good and it needs to be managed well. And we could talk about, you know, it's maybe some other time how to make sure it remains safe. Jackson Mikalic (01:02:38.475) Right, right. Tad Smith (01:03:05.83) But I think people your age are living at the greatest time ever, and I think you guys have a bright future. Brian Cubellis (01:03:12.24) appreciate you sharing that, That's absolutely fascinating and just impressive that you did that. and two, it's like, I think the worry and why, what prompted them, the school banning AI. I think there was that report from MIT. Yeah. Tad Smith (01:03:27.983) My daughter's school, by the way, not my school. My school's NYU Stern where I teach is much more flexible. leaves it up to us. And by the way, also as an internal group, that's a lab that's taking best practices and sharing them around, I find them doing very innovative things. Brian Cubellis (01:03:33.828) Gotcha. Brian Cubellis (01:03:41.413) Yeah, that makes sense. But I was going to say like the MIT report from months ago that was like AI is making people dumber effectively was the takeaway. Yes. And so I think that's the fear that prompts a rule like that. But what you did and what it sounds like you did is you really flipped the entire model on its head and said, no, you have to use it. And I'm actually going to force you to do things that you can't do with AI, but you can use the AI to prep. So debate presentations like Tad Smith (01:03:50.156) hollowing them out. Brian Cubellis (01:04:10.266) I think that's absolutely brilliant because you can't just rely on it, right? Like if you just did the status quo class and said you guys have to use AI, everyone would just get a hundreds on the tests and like it wouldn't do anything. So kudos to you. That's absolutely brilliant. And I expect a lot more shifts in just the broader education space that look a lot like what you've done. Tad Smith (01:04:30.971) Well, I'm optimistic about it. I think the students received it very well and I learned a lot. I think they learned a lot. And you know what? It's real life. One of the things that's interesting though is when you have AI you can do and actually the three of you brought this up again at the top of the podcast. When you have AI, you could do things that are superhuman. We were talking about that, right? And the same is true in class. The same is true in class. You can do to be able to bring five people together on pro or con on a debate of a topic you've never heard of before, the issue you've never discovered, you've done no research whatsoever and have a really robust debate about that topic with five to seven minutes of preparation. What? What? I mean, I was in competitive extemporaneous speaking when I was a teenager. And I have to say, we would prepare. quite a long time. We'd have at least 30 to 40 minutes, as I recall, to prepare for a topic of speech. And it was just, so this is completely next level. And by the way, that was just, all I had to do was convince me. You're talking about getting five or six MBAs together to convince themselves what's gonna be the plan, how are gonna organize it, everything, and they've never heard the topic before and they only have five to 10 minutes to do it. That is hard. And by the way, they're gonna get quizzed by their other side. And graded for it. did I mention that? And we graded for it. Liam Nelson (01:06:01.8) Yeah, think those certainly are superpowers and I certainly wish I could have taken that class. am just thinking about one computer science class that I took in college and computers were actually banned, if you can believe that. So it was a computer science class that was all by hand and that just seemed so silly to me because, know, obviously in the real world that's never going to be the case. And yes, Tad Smith (01:06:02.97) Superpowers. Brian Cubellis (01:06:16.13) You Brian Cubellis (01:06:21.534) gosh. Liam Nelson (01:06:29.474) Like there is definitely an aspect where you want to have the real knowledge and wisdom and be able to understand how to interact in certain situations, but you always will have other tools and not knowing how to use the tools will put you at a significant disadvantage. And humans or AI, at least today, are not really end to end, right? You had to come up with the plan and then you use the AI to help you craft that as well as that's kind of how I see businesses likely going to interact with the and people at this time to interact with AI that will allow them to solve greater and different problems than they're looking at today. But in the end of the day, people really have to understand what the problems are and what the they're at least looking for in a solution. And then the tool can help them get from A to B similar to Bitcoin to write like Bitcoin isn't going to be the end all be all that you Tad Smith (01:07:23.727) 100 % Liam Nelson (01:07:26.314) want to die with and etc. But it's really a tool in order for everybody to be able to create the better life for themselves of what they actually want. You can't live in your Bitcoin, you can't eat your Bitcoin and so it's really just a greater thing you want in your toolbox. Tad Smith (01:07:47.396) Liam, I'm old enough to remember college without computers. Now, there was a big mainframe and we had the opportunity to buy a discounted IBM laptop or something in our first year there as I recall, but you actually didn't have to buy it. So I had a couple of years of college without it. And I'm even old enough to remember learning arithmetic before calculators were widely available. I think the first one was like a, it looks like a Casio calculator or something. It was like the early. Brian Cubellis (01:08:01.722) you Tad Smith (01:08:15.181) early 70s and it had some orange top on it. just, I don't know. So yeah, it's amazing. Jackson Mikalic (01:08:22.134) Well, Ted, we are very grateful for your time today. Tad Smith (01:08:25.187) Jackson, thank you. I've enjoyed all of your questions and also your discussion. I love the optimism. I you guys do great things for the space and it's really an honor to be here. Jackson Mikalic (01:08:35.33) Thank you. For anyone who has not followed you before, is there a place you want them to get in touch or are there any, if you have like one main takeaway that you want people to take away from the podcast, what would it be? Tad Smith (01:08:47.103) this is a great time to be alive. It's a great time to have the agency you talked about. It's a great time to fulfill all sorts of exciting dreams. But the responsibility to learn about Bitcoin, to learn about how to manage yourself through this transition is really upon each individual. And thankfully, people have the opportunity to listen to you guys, help them for it, help them do it. But they have to invest, they have to actually get involved. And what you guys are doing, you're making it possible, but this is not a time to be afraid, this is not a time to be scared, this is a time to be optimistic and lean in. Jackson Mikalic (01:09:36.352) I love it. Words of wisdom. Thank you, Tad. We really enjoyed the conversation. Brian Cubellis (01:09:36.558) Love it. Thank you, Tad. Tad Smith (01:09:40.441) Bye guys, I really enjoyed it. Thank you. Brian Cubellis (01:09:41.489) Appreciate it.