← pool

🏛️ Washington starts taking equity and royalties in exchange for permits and grants

Chamath's explicit prediction off the TikTok 50%-for-a-dollar proposal: the US government stops handing out pure permits, grants and federal-land concessions and starts attaching equity stakes or royalties to them, so taxpayers share the upside of what the state enables — data centres permitted on federal land for a 5-15% royalty, DOE grants that also take 10% of the company. He argues it would not change the underwriting and becomes the template for how incentives get allocated. Thomas Laffont takes the other side: the government picking winners is dangerous and taxes are the proper value-capture mechanism.

0 CONVICTION
peaked 65.6 GREEN
EMBER
band · contested
▲ LONG INTC
expression · bullish politics-market
HIT
outcome · R +122.1% · α +105.8%
2026-01-25
window closed
⚠ CONFLICTING IDEAS ON THE SAME TICKER — the board is arguing with itself; net it before trading (ticker view →)
BX · Private equity model is broken SHORT DORMANT 14.5
BX · Endowment liquidity crunch forces discounted private-equity secondaries SHORT DORMANT 11.8

⚖ Why this verdict

fully deterministic — evaluate.py replays this from daily closes; nothing below is editable or hand-set

  1. Window: 2025-01-25 → 2026-01-25 — first mention + 12-month horizon, then the window locks.
  2. The call: ▲ LONG INTC (primary play). INTC rose 122.1% over the window → direction-adjusted R = +122.1% (the call made money).
  3. Benchmark: holding SPY over the same window returned +16.3%α = +122.1 − (+16.3) = +105.8% — what this call made or lost against just owning the index. This is the number the verdict uses.
  4. Rule fired:
    ▶ HIT — R ≥ +10% AND α ≥ +5 ✓ (R 122.1, α 105.8)
    · PARTIAL — R ≥ +5% OR α ≥ 0
    · MISS — everything else
  5. Credit: supporters of a HIT earn 1.0 each, opposers the inverse — this feeds the scoreboard weights. supported: Chamath, Friedberg, Jason | opposed: Thomas Laffont | proxy-sensitive: BX→MISS (-15.0%)

Conviction timeline

bands: green ≥ 65 · watch ≥ 45 · ember ≥ 15

Plays vs SPY · % since first mention (2025-01-25)

Plays

expressionsymbolkindrelevancerationale
▲ LONG INTCstock PRIMARY largest federal-grant recipient in the market and the most obvious place an equity-for-subsidy swap lands
▲ LONG BXstock adjacent Chamath names Blackstone as the datacenter underwriter that would pay the royalty for accelerated permitting
▲ LONG MPstock adjacent critical-minerals name whose economics depend on federal support that could come with a state stake attached

Mention log

Chamath
Chamath politics-market w=1.02 · n=96 · E212 (2025-01-25) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 48:13 SUPPORT
“So my prediction is that this becomes more of a template for the future. It'll be less about permitting. It'll be more about creating incentives and allocating those incentives for a share of the upside. And I think that there is a really strong economic argument for America to do that.”
TH
Thomas Laffont (regular guest ×1.0) politics-market: 3 resolved, unproven · E212 (2025-01-25) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 51:44 OPPOSE
“my way to put back to Chamath on that would be, I just think it's a dangerous game for the government to start picking winners. You know, I wouldn't, for example, if it owns 50% of a TikTok, does it disadvantage a meta, as an example, right?”
Jason
Jason politics-market w=1.00 · n=62 · E212 (2025-01-25) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 53:07 SUPPORT
“Of course you would have. Yeah, it's a great deal. And why not give a little upside to the taxpayers? I agree with that.”
Chamath
Chamath politics-market w=1.02 · n=96 · E214 (2025-02-07) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 54:03 SUPPORT
“They should deploy that capital, so as you sell down the TikTok shares, maybe as you sell federal lands and you generate more oil revenue, take it all and invest it on behalf of America into American companies. I think that's a great, incredible idea.”
AN
Antonio Gracias (guest ×0.5) no politics-market track record · E214 (2025-02-07) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 55:13 SUPPORT
“I think it, for a different reason, is that we don't have an industrial policy in America. Many of our strategic competitors around the world, in particular China, have a long-term industrial policy, and they put enormous amounts of capital behind the industrial policy. A sovereign wealth fund, I think, would be a stealthy way to create industrial policy in America.”
Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market w=0.84 · n=74 · E214 (2025-02-07) · sentiment · strength 2 ▶ 58:51 OPPOSE
“I think one of the things the government sucks at is capitalism. So I wouldn't make capitalism the mandate of a sovereign wealth fund, certainly not when we have $40 trillion of federal debt. It doesn't make economic sense.”
Chamath
Chamath politics-market w=1.02 · n=96 · E220 (2025-03-22) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 35:28 SUPPORT
“Could you imagine if some of this 20 percent time was allocated to rebuilding the core infrastructure of America and giving back to the country that gives you the ability to have a multi-trillion dollar company?”
Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market w=0.84 · n=74 · E220 (2025-03-22) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 38:53 SUPPORT
“One of the things Lutnick said in the interview, which you didn't see in this clip, is that the government can actually accept for free contracts, these gratis contracts, and you don't need to go get approval to do it. So they can operate in the executive branch.”
Chamath
Chamath politics-market w=1.02 · n=96 · E226 (2025-05-02) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 1:00:23 SUPPORT
“The thing that the Chinese did that was so brilliant, which we still don't have an answer for, is they have these national champions. And being a national champion allows you, and we'll talk about this in AI, it allows you to blur the lines between the public and private partnership. It allows you to blur the law. It allows you to blur capital. And I'm not saying we have to do that. But what I am saying is we need to have our own answer to it.”
Chamath
Chamath politics-market w=1.02 · n=96 · E228 (2025-05-17) · explicit_prediction · strength 3 ▶ 1:17:11 SUPPORT
“there is no way to quickly raise several trillion dollars without selling land and without giving land leases and without taking royalties for drilling.”
Friedberg
Friedberg politics-market w=0.84 · n=74 · E228 (2025-05-17) · explicit_prediction · strength 2 ▶ 1:03:47 SUPPORT
“their business model, Bergam stated business model in the interview I did with him is land leases and royalties. Enter into private partnerships and then participate in the value creation.”

Who built this conviction

each voice's total force on the score — supports and opposes from every mention, weighted exactly as the replay applied them · share = % of all mention-driven movement

Chamath
Chamath w=1.02
5 scoring events · 59% of moves
+78.2 → net +78.2
Friedberg
Friedberg w=0.84
3 scoring events · 17% of moves
+12.4 / -10.1 → net +2.3
Jason
Jason w=1.00
1 scoring event · 12% of moves
+15.6 → net +15.6
TH
Thomas Laffont regular guest ×1.0
1 scoring event · 9% of moves
+0.0 / -12.0 → net -12.0
AN
Antonio Gracias guest ×0.5
1 scoring event · 4% of moves
+5.1 → net +5.1

⏳ decay drained -69.1 over the idea's life — that's time passing, attributed to no one

Score events

episodekindΔafternote
E212 2025-01-25 init +42.9 42.9 E212 born by Chamath (explicit_prediction x3) [w=1.02]
E212 2025-01-25 oppose -12.0 30.9 E212 Thomas Laffont opposes x2
E212 2025-01-25 reinforce +15.6 46.4 E212 Jason support x2 (new voice)
E213 2025-01-31 decay -1.9 44.6 E213 silent
E214 2025-02-07 reinforce +10.2 54.8 E214 Chamath support x3 [w=1.02]
E214 2025-02-07 reinforce +5.1 59.8 E214 Antonio Gracias support x2 (new voice) [w=0.50]
E214 2025-02-07 oppose -10.1 49.8 E214 Friedberg opposes x2 [w=0.84]
E215 2025-02-15 decay -2.0 47.8 E215 silent
E216 2025-02-21 decay -1.9 45.9 E216 silent
E217 2025-03-01 decay -1.8 44.1 E217 silent
E218 2025-03-08 decay -1.8 42.3 E218 silent
E219 2025-03-15 decay -1.7 40.6 E219 silent
E220 2025-03-22 reinforce +9.1 49.7 E220 Chamath support x2 [w=1.02]
E220 2025-03-22 reinforce +6.3 56.0 E220 Friedberg support x2 (flipped from oppose) [w=0.84]
E221 2025-03-29 decay -2.2 53.8 E221 silent
E222 2025-04-05 decay -2.2 51.6 E222 silent
E223 2025-04-11 decay -2.1 49.6 E223 silent
E224 2025-04-19 decay -2.0 47.6 E224 silent
E225 2025-04-26 decay -1.9 45.7 E225 silent
E226 2025-05-02 reinforce +8.3 54.0 E226 Chamath support x2 [w=1.02]
E227 2025-05-09 decay -2.2 51.8 E227 silent
E228 2025-05-17 reinforce +6.1 57.9 E228 Friedberg support x2 [w=0.84]
E228 2025-05-17 reinforce +7.7 65.6 E228 Chamath support x3 [w=1.02]
E229 2025-05-24 decay -2.6 63.0 E229 silent
E231 2025-06-13 decay -2.5 60.5 E231 silent
E232 2025-06-21 decay -2.4 58.1 E232 silent
E233 2025-06-28 decay -2.3 55.7 E233 silent
E234 2025-07-04 decay -2.2 53.5 E234 silent
E235 2025-07-11 decay -2.1 51.4 E235 silent
E236 2025-07-19 decay -2.1 49.3 E236 silent
E237 2025-08-01 decay -2.0 47.3 E237 silent
E238 2025-08-09 decay -1.9 45.4 E238 silent
E239 2025-08-15 decay -1.8 43.6 E239 silent
E240 2025-08-22 decay -1.7 41.9 E240 silent
E241 2025-08-29 decay -1.7 40.2 E241 silent
E242 2025-09-07 decay -1.6 38.6 E242 silent
E243 2025-09-19 decay -1.5 37.1 E243 silent
E244 2025-09-27 decay -1.5 35.6 E244 silent
E245 2025-10-03 decay -1.4 34.2 E245 silent
E246 2025-10-10 decay -1.4 32.8 E246 silent
E247 2025-10-17 decay -1.3 31.5 E247 silent
E248 2025-10-24 decay -1.3 30.2 E248 silent
E249 2025-10-31 decay -1.2 29.0 E249 silent
E250 2025-11-07 decay -1.2 27.8 E250 silent
E251 2025-11-14 decay -1.1 26.7 E251 silent
E252 2025-11-22 decay -1.1 25.7 E252 silent
E253 2025-12-06 decay -1.0 24.6 E253 silent
E254 2025-12-13 decay -1.0 23.7 E254 silent
E255 2025-12-19 decay -0.9 22.7 E255 silent
E256 2025-12-31 decay -0.9 21.8 E256 silent
E257 2026-01-10 decay -0.9 20.9 E257 silent
E258 2026-01-17 decay -0.8 20.1 E258 silent