E156: Ivy League antisemitism, macro, SaaS recovery, Gemini, Figma deal delay + big Friedberg update

David Friedberg is becoming CEO of his stealth agriculture company after a four-year, tens-of-millions gene-editing bet finally worked. The team used multiplex edits across several genes to raise plant yields, and Friedberg said the breakthrough occurred only weeks ago, making the project worth his full-time return to operating.

Friedberg’s broader hard-tech thesis is that capital is plentiful, but proven operators willing to accept 2–5% odds on difficult, long projects are scarce. He argued that people who already succeeded in software often have enough money and easier opportunities, leaving ambitious science projects short of experienced leaders rather than ideas.

SaaS appears to be recovering operationally, but the old valuation regime may not return. Sacks cited Q3 net-new ARR turning positive after four negative quarters, while Chamath said private-equity buyers are paying roughly 1–3× ARR for many businesses and 3–5× at the high end.

The panel blamed zero-rate-era funding for scattering strong talent across too many weak startups. Chamath described two- and three-person AI teams raising $5–7 million in SAFEs without boards, while Calacanis said startup funding had fallen about 75% and big-tech layoffs were concentrating experienced builders into stronger new teams.

Gemini’s significance was less a single benchmark win than evidence Google can finally coordinate its AI organization around a serious product. Google claimed Gemini beat GPT-4 on 30 of 32 benchmarks; the panel emphasized Jeff Dean, DeepMind–Google Research collaboration, and Google’s willingness to cannibalize search despite unresolved monetization.

The Adobe–Figma fight highlighted a regulatory theory that can block deals based on possible future competition, not just current market overlap. The panel focused on the CMA’s 15-month review, 400-page report and “more than 50%” expectation test, arguing that such uncertainty can chill M&A and therefore startup exits.

On the university-hearing controversy, the panel’s practical conclusion was that donor pressure would matter more than congressional outrage. They repeatedly pointed to major donors calling boards, while Sacks separately drew a line between broad criticism of Israel—which he said should remain protected—and chasing or confronting students, which he classified as harassment.