Jason Cridge retweeted
People who get rich overnight vs. through cash flows.
With all these upcoming IPOs there are tons of overnight rich people. Of course, they were rich along the way, but now they have liquidity over night.
My observations of people who get rich overnight vs. those who've accumulated as they went:
- the overnight people are more likely to be weird and have issues
- cash flow is often what makes people feel wealthy, not a lump sum. People who have huge sums say when the cash flow disappears, they feel broke.
- a top overnight rich mistake: irreversible mistakes in the first 12 months. starting/investing in businesses, buying diff houses. Often best to get used to it first.
- I hope they have spouses BEFORE the money hits.
- Overnight wealth...prolly more fun and exciting!
What else?
Jason Cridge retweeted
employees number 400-640 commuting to work
Who actually gets rich if Anthropic lists at $2 trillion?
The S-1 filed on Monday lets us answer from the filing itself.
The reported target is $1.5T to $2T, listing the week of November 16. The filing implies about 16.9B fully diluted shares. So $2T works out to roughly $118 a share.
The cap table at $2T:
- $199B for the 7 controlling co-founders, about 10%
- $28B for Ben Mann, if his stake matches theirs
- $100B for the Anthropic Public Benefit Fund, 5%
- $331B in employee options and RSUs, about 17% , That pool covers about 5,300 employees, an average of $62M each.
- But when you joined matters enormously.
The S-1 shows how much equity was granted each year, and at what price. [
Headcount went from about 300 to 500 in late 2023, to 940 at end 2024, to 5,300 now.
Match the two, and here is roughly how many people made what at $2T:
- $110M to $400M each: ~300 to 500 people hired by 2023
- $200M to $300M each: ~440 to 640 hired in 2024
- $70M to $95M each: ~1,360 hired in 2025
- $10M to $20M each: ~3,000 hired in 2026
So about 940 people hired by the end of 2024 average nine figures. Everyone hired since averages eight figures.
The 2024 class is the surprise. That year Anthropic granted 1.28B options at $1.30 a share. At $118, that one year of grants is worth about $133B.
Then there is the tender. In April, holders could sell at $25.91 a share. Investors lined up $6B, but only $4.7B sold.
Weeks later, Series H priced at $58.90 a share. At $2T, the people who held would be up 4.6x. And Dario and Daniela Amodei were among the sellers.
The 7 founders have pledged 80% of their equity to charity. That is about $159B at $2T. But the S-1 says the pledges are not legally binding.
going out as a founder is exiting your company, banking millions and sailing into the sunset
going out as a politician is being voted out or pushed out or jail or banishment or execution
🤨
holy shit
"- $331B in employee options and RSUs, about 17% , That pool covers about 5,300 employees, an average of $62M each."
Who actually gets rich if Anthropic lists at $2 trillion?
The S-1 filed on Monday lets us answer from the filing itself.
The reported target is $1.5T to $2T, listing the week of November 16. The filing implies about 16.9B fully diluted shares. So $2T works out to roughly $118 a share.
The cap table at $2T:
- $199B for the 7 controlling co-founders, about 10%
- $28B for Ben Mann, if his stake matches theirs
- $100B for the Anthropic Public Benefit Fund, 5%
- $331B in employee options and RSUs, about 17% , That pool covers about 5,300 employees, an average of $62M each.
- But when you joined matters enormously.
The S-1 shows how much equity was granted each year, and at what price. [
Headcount went from about 300 to 500 in late 2023, to 940 at end 2024, to 5,300 now.
Match the two, and here is roughly how many people made what at $2T:
- $110M to $400M each: ~300 to 500 people hired by 2023
- $200M to $300M each: ~440 to 640 hired in 2024
- $70M to $95M each: ~1,360 hired in 2025
- $10M to $20M each: ~3,000 hired in 2026
So about 940 people hired by the end of 2024 average nine figures. Everyone hired since averages eight figures.
The 2024 class is the surprise. That year Anthropic granted 1.28B options at $1.30 a share. At $118, that one year of grants is worth about $133B.
Then there is the tender. In April, holders could sell at $25.91 a share. Investors lined up $6B, but only $4.7B sold.
Weeks later, Series H priced at $58.90 a share. At $2T, the people who held would be up 4.6x. And Dario and Daniela Amodei were among the sellers.
The 7 founders have pledged 80% of their equity to charity. That is about $159B at $2T. But the S-1 says the pledges are not legally binding.
Jason Cridge retweeted
For roughly the same yield as treasuries, you could have a tenant call you at 3am demanding you pay for their stuff after they drunkenly set off the sprinklers.
As someone who has personally spent $500k / mo+ on Google Ads for years, I can tell you with certainty:
This revenue growth in Search is artificial & extremely unhealthy for Google’s business long term
Search volumes are declining as legacy search is being increasingly cannibalized by non-monetized LLM queries
Google’s response?
Manufacture revenue growth via short-sighted, highly extractive, customer-hostile tactics. I.e. charge advertisers more for lower quality clicks, including clicks they do not want and explicitly did not approve Google to charge them for
A few examples to illustrate:
For all of its history until recently, Google operated on a 2nd price auction model
I.e. if you bid $5 CPC and the next highest bidder bids $1 CPC, Google charged you $1.01 for the click (one penny more than the 2nd highest bidder) rather than the $5 you bid
This was a genius move by Google early on as it incentivizes advertisers to input their true maximum willingness to pay rather than trying to play the game of bidding low and constantly adjusting to try to stay just ahead of the next highest bidder while still not paying too much
However recently, Google silently deprecated the 2nd price auction and began charging advertisers as much as their bid and budget caps allow, regardless of what anyone else is bidding
It’s a short-sighted cash grab at the expense of the long term health of the advertiser ecosystem
Making thing worse, Google also recently nerfed keyword targeting precision
Google previously had precise keyword targeting settings that allowed advertisers pick individual search phrases to bid on, defined down to the character w/ exact match or phrase match targeting
This was one of the core features that made search advertising magic, enabling advertisers to run extremely precise campaigns based on exactly what their target customer typed
But now, even if you bid on a specific term or phrase using the strictest exact
-match targeting settings, Google will show your ad across 1000’s of unrelated keywords, labeling them as as “exact match (close variant)”
The definition of “close variant” means whatever they want it to and changes constantly. The result is advertisers get billed for clicks that are totally irrelevant to their business and that their targeting settings explicitly forbid Google from targeting. Google does it anyway and there’s no ability to turn this off
So now exact match is broad match, and broad match is just meaningless spam
This is all very bad for advertisers, but for Google, it allows them to show your ad and bill you for clicks across 1000x more searches that were previously going unmonetized (mainly because they’re garbage queries no one wants)
This is how you grow revenue atop declining search volumes
Lastly, and perhaps most egregiously, Google quietly stopped respecting budget caps by a factor of 2x. For example campaigns we’ve been running for years with $1000 daily budget caps suddenly began spending $2000+ per day
And the extra spend is entirely on the garbage keywords Google arbitrarily throws in as “exact match (close variants)” which have no value to our business, but can’t be turned off
Google offers no refunds nor any recourse for overspend or spend on keywords you explicitly did not target
These are not the actions of a healthy business. These are the actions of company whose core business is in decline but desperately needs to pump quarterly earnings so Wall Street will continue to fund insane capex while hopefully looking through their rapidly deteriorating negative free cash flow
Google operated a benevolent monopoly for the better part of 25 yrs
Meaning the value Google captured from Search was but a small fraction of the value it created, and that spread produced a potential energy that justified expectations of high earnings growth far, far into the future
This is now no longer the case
At the alter of AI capex, Google is sacrificing the golden goose
Jason Cridge retweeted
Holy. Shit.
The NYT is reporting that despite their denials, Mary Peltola's staff and Democratic operatives flew all over Alaska in secret to find and recruit a man named Dan Sullivan.
They put him on the ballot to purposefully steal votes from Republican Dan Sullivan.
Jason Cridge retweeted
its somewhat remarkable that the best companies of this generation are run with almost total disregard for common equity holders, just absolute monarchies that ravage, dilute, and disrespect the common to no end and you still get rich holding them. there's something there.
Jason Cridge retweeted
Can I get an amen and yes, as someone who was a long time fan of The Economist, your product these days is junk
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon mocks The Economist during a tense exchange after being told he’s sounding like Trump: “I’m not Trumpian. I’m factual.” 🇺🇸
Interviewer: “You’re sounding Trumpy.”
Jamie Dimon: “I’m not Trumpian. I’m factual. I don’t agree with this binary shit that goes on all the time.
I think The Economist is the absolute best, most admirable thing in the world, and you should continue that.”
Dimon delivers the last line with apparent sarcasm, poking fun at the publication while pushing back against the idea that agreeing with Trump on certain issues makes him a Trump supporter.
I have and do listen to and read the economist.
More recently their political bias is so incredibly apparent it’s hard to take them seriously.
Good for Dimon calling them out.
Jason Cridge retweeted
88% of VC-backed founders who exited their companies got $0. Eduardo Azevedo and Kent Smetters analysed 157,669 startups and 248,454 founders from 1987 to 2025.
Let that sink in...
Lots of neoclouds borrowing $ in the low teens.
IREN is interesting in that the convertible notes converting at $50 and $75 share prices won’t convert and will need to be paid back (probably refinanced in the bond market) but not till 2030.
Lots of good companies are destroyed by their balance sheet
Also, Nvidia is making data centres in a sea can.
So what’s the moat?
The cost of energy is nothing against the cost of interest.
Even IF you have cheap power it literally doesn’t matter if you’re a neocloud because the interest cost on the debt is many multiples of that.
I love this time branch of the simulation
Nicki Minaj Floated As Press Secretary Replacement By White House Staffers tmz.com/2026/10/25/nicki-min…
Canada is like your friend who’s 50 pounds overweight and suddenly has a change of heart and loses all the weight and becomes an absolute dime over the span of 6 months.
Canadian investors are probably underweight CAD
B.C.’s premier-designate says supporting new pipeline is first order of business ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article…





























