Replay 2025: David Sacks on AI, Crypto, and America's Technology Future

**David Sacks** (0:00)
The Europeans, I mean, they have a really different mindset for all of this stuff. When they talk about AI leadership, what they mean is that they're taking the lead in defining the regulations. You know, they get together in Brussels and figure out what all the rules should be, and that's what they call leadership.

**Marc Andreessen** (0:14)
It's almost like a game show or something. They do everything they can to strangle them in their crib. And then if they make it through like a decade of abuse in small companies, then they're going to give them money to grow.

**David Sacks** (0:23)
We're already going to headline about this, which is if it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, if it stops moving, subsidize it. The Europeans are definitely at the subsidized stage.

**Erik Torenberg** (0:34)
The biggest questions surrounding AI aren't just technical anymore. They're increasingly about policy, infrastructure, regulation, and America's ability to stay ahead in a rapidly changing technology landscape. In this conversation, David Sacks joins Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and me to discuss AI, crypto, open source models, energy, regulation, and the global competition to build the next generation of technology.
They explore what it means to win the AI race, why permissionless innovation matters, and how today's policy decisions could shape the future of both AI and crypto for years to come.

**Ben Horowitz** (1:16)
David, welcome to the a16z podcast. Thanks for joining.

**David Sacks** (1:19)
Yeah, good to be here.

**Ben Horowitz** (1:20)
David, you're the AI and crypto czar. Why don't you first talk about why it makes sense to have those as a portfolio? What do they have to do with each other? And then I'll have you lay out what's the Trump plan on those two categories and how we're doing.

**David Sacks** (1:30)
Well, there are two technologies that I guess are relatively new. And so there's a lot of fear of them. And I think people don't honestly know that much about them. They don't really know what to make of them. I think that from a policy standpoint, and we can talk about the similarities and differences, the approaches are a little different. I think with crypto, the main thing that's needed is regulatory certainty.
All the entrepreneurs I've talked to over the years, they all say the same thing, which is just tell us what the rules are. We're happy to comply, but Washington won't tell us what they are. And in fact, during the Biden years, you had an SEC chairman who took an approach, which I guess has been called regulation through enforcement, which basically means you just get prosecuted. They don't tell you what the rules are. You just basically get indicted. And then everyone else is supposed to divine what the rules are as you get prosecuted and fined and imprisoned. So that was the approach for several years. And as a result of that, basically the whole crypto industry was in the process of moving offshore. And America, I think, was being deprived of this industry of the future.
And so President Trump, during his campaign last year, he gave a now famous speech in Nashville in which he declared that he would make the United States the crypto capital of the planet and that he would fire Gensler. That was like the big applause line.
I applauded.
He's talked about how surprised he was at what a big ovation he got at that. So he said it again and the crowd erupted again. But in any event, he promised basically to provide this clarity so that the industry would understand what the rules are, be able to comply in turn that should provide greater protection for consumers and businesses, everyone is part of the ecosystem, and it makes America more competitive. So I think that's the mandate on crypto is, in a way, it's pro-regulation, it's basically we want to put in place regulations. In a way, AI is kind of the opposite, where I think the Biden administration was too heavy-handed, they were starting to really regulate this area without even understanding what it was. No one had really taken the time to understand how AI was even being used, what the real dangers were, there was this intense fear-mongering, and as a result of that, the approach of the Biden administration was, they were in the process of implementing very heavy-handed regulations on both the software and hardware side, and we can drill into that. I think that with the Trump administration, the approach has been that we want the United States to win the AI race. It's a global competition. Sometimes we mention the fact that China is probably our main competitor in this area. They're the only other country that has the technological capability, the talent, the know-how, the expertise to beat us in this area, and we want to make sure the United States wins. And of course, in the US, it's not really the government that's responsible for innovation. It's the private sector, so that means that our companies have to win. And if you're imposing all sorts of crazy burdensome regulation on them, then that's going to hurt, not help. So the president gave a, I think, very important AI policy speech a couple of months ago on July 23rd, where he declared in no uncertain terms that we had to win the AI race. And he laid out several pillars on how we do that. It was pro-innovation, pro-infrastructure, which also means pro-energy and pro-export. And we can drill into all those things if you want, but that was the high line. And so I think that, again, with AI, the idea is kind of like, how do we unleash innovation? And I think with crypto, it's been more about how we create regulatory certainty. But in terms of my role, like, why am I doing both? I mean, I think the common denominator is just, again, these are new technologies. They're both obviously come from the tech industry, which has a very different culture than Washington does. And I kind of see it as my role to help be a bridge between what's happening in Silicon Valley and what's happening in Washington. And helping Washington understand not just the policy that's needed or the innovation that's happening, but also kind of culturally, what makes the tech industry different and special and how that needs to be protected from a government doing something excessively heavy-handed.