Aaron Levie
Does his own confidence mean anything?
the same scored calls, split by how hard he was pushing at the mention that set his final stance. If credit rises with strength, his table-pounding carries information and you should weight it. If it's flat or inverted, his confidence is noise — treat a ×3 like a ×1. Cells under 5 calls are provisional and get no weight in the replay.
| he was | calls | credit | right/half/wrong | avg α | read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ×3 table-pounding | 3 | 0.67 | 2/0/1 | -10% | provisional (n<5) |
| ×2 stated with reasoning | 9 | 0.5 | 2/5/2 | -41% | coin flip |
| ×1 offhand aside | 1 | 0.0 | 0/0/1 | -23% | provisional (n<5) |
Which kind of claim to trust
by the tier of the mention that set his final stance — a dated prediction is a different animal from a passing lean, and they don't have to score alike
| tier | calls | credit | right/half/wrong | avg α |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| explicit_prediction | 7 | 0.64 | 3/3/1 | -41% |
| sentiment | 6 | 0.33 | 1/2/3 | -22% |
What he's actually good at
his row of the scoreboard — these are the exact cells rescore.py uses to weight his mentions. w = clamp(2 × credit, 0.3, 1.5), applied only at n ≥ 5.
Live book — 3 positions
his latest stance on every ACTIVE idea. Expression = what he is effectively long or short: supporting a bearish idea is a SHORT, opposing one is a LONG.
| idea | his stance | expression | conviction | flag | eval in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🌍 China's automated manufacturing base outruns US reindustrialization | support ×2 | ▲ LONG ROBO | 25.4 | — | 193d |
| 🏛️ DOGE delivers real federal spending cuts under unified Republican control CONTESTED | support ×2 | ▼ SHORT BAH | 16.0 | — | 59d |
| 🤖 Independent frontier-model labs lose to hyperscaler capital CONTESTED | support ×2 | ▲ LONG MSFT | 14.0 | — | 110d |
Where his book points
net push per primary instrument across his live stances — conviction × his agreement × the idea's direction. This is his implied book, not a position he disclosed.
Best and worst calls
How he argues
Latest from him
I don't think that'll happen. I don't think that'll happen. I think we will end up in like I'm with Ryan, like we will end up in a good spot because we'll iterate through this. My only point is there's an alternative path that could have occurred.
I think that you sort of phrase that we could do the research paper and we could do Aspen Institute as a bad thing, but also it could be a bad thing if you're the small business owner right now who has 30 employees and you just literally don't know what you're going to do next month.
And so you just stimulate a manufacturing boom in the country. We incentivize automation across the manufacturing. We use that as a competitive weapon to go and compete with the sort of lower cost labor that happens internationally.
And so I think that'll probably be actually like 90% of the usage of AI in the future will be things that if we look back and we snap the line right now, we said this is what knowledge work is today, 90% of AI usage will be things that we don't do today. 10% will replace what we're doing in some areas.
And so lots of implications, like massive implications to what the software business model is in the future. I would argue strongly that it's a massive TAM increase because now software starts to go after labor spend. It completely changes the dynamics of then, you know, how do you build a moat in a world of AI agents?
I think we're seeing some early indication of what DOGE will be able to do.
there's actually this total combination of actually fewer regulations. You'll spend less money in government. You'll actually grow the economy faster, which will create more jobs.
But there's like, I don't think you could get 10 crypto people to agree on how you regulate that second category because some people believe I should be able to issue an NFT on anything and I should be able to trade that.
So the stable coin being the intermediary for that in the future makes total sense if you could get everybody to kind of coordinate against that.
I don't think you want to bet against Sam and Greg.
then it really is a compute game and then maybe a data access game. And that means that there's four or five at scale players that can fund this.
I think we've already seen this, though, and it hasn't exactly played out as you're saying. And so you already have like a Zoho is this really interesting business.
I still think you could probably have the entirety of the model providers make 10 times more revenue than they do today because we're just literally in the first percent of the total TAM.
If at any moment you know that Zuck will basically provide an open source model that is at kind of best in class benchmarks and at the frontier, then there is a limit on how much you can charge for the tokens of your hosted model
And so that then conversely expands the TAM software, where IT budgets weren't usually applied to those types of things.