Three Counterintuitive Predictions about 2023: Musk, SFB and Kraft TechCrunch

Bradley Tusk — who spent his early career in Democratic politics and later became an advisor and lobbyist for private companies fighting regulators — spends most of his time these days as a venture capitalist. Tusk admits that he’s a generalist but insists he doesn’t want to be interested in every startup. His expertise is at the intersection of regulation and technology, and his company adds the greatest value to startups in those sectors where regulation can change the opportunities they pursue.

As a service to Tusk Ventures’ existing portfolio — and as a kind of calling card for potential founders — each year Tusk collects some insights into what changes it sees coming over the next 12 months. Because he has proven himself right many times, us hopped on a callWe had a great time talking with him last week about his many predictions of 2023. We were particularly struck by three of those predictions so we decided to share them.

1) CPG’s top brands began selling cannabis products. This killed off many of the cannabis startups that operated in the relative shadows. Here Tusk discusses why:

Major brands [sell]Many people argue that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol. There is a real disconnect between the federal government and about two-thirds states that legalize cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes. But it works. Table 1In the Drug Enforcement Administration [along with]Heroin, meth, and cocaine. . . This makes no sense, especially as states continue to legalize marijuana.

President Biden He said“Let’s remove this from Table 1!” This will cause all sorts of interstate commerce to be allowed to open up as soon as it happens. You will be able get real banking and trucks [plants] Across state lines, advertising. . . All the things that a really large, average company might engage in — Kraft or Unilever and Anheuser-Busch or Philip Morris — really can’t under the current system, but as soon as the federal restrictions ease up, all of a sudden it opens up for them.

One [question I’ve asked cannabis founders over the years is]How will they compete against Unilever? Why would Unilever buy it over burying it? Most of the times, the answer is “They can’t.” [compete]. They are really racing against the clock, hoping that the federal government will not do the right thing. I believe that cannabis will be removed from Schedule 1 and the big companies, regardless of whether it happens in six or two years, will eventually get in on this game. [because]There is money to make. There is money to be made.

2) Instead, Sam Bankman Fried and FTX’s sudden implosion play a minor role in any new regulations. DoIn the next 12 month, I believe we will see more regulation at both the federal and state levels. Here are the fangs.

My first thought when the FTX explosion began was “Well, this is going be a lot of very draconian cryptocurrency regulations that are going to cause a lot of bad for the sector because SEC Chairman Gary Gensler had been pushing for this for a while and it hasn’t happened yet because crypto has become so popular.” Among many real people… I believed that FTX would give him the cover he needed to take on the entire industry.

Strangely, as the story progresses, it becomes clearer that Sam Bankman Fried was just a criminal mastermind who was concocting people out of tens and billions of dollar. [that this debacle]Although it is not a cryptocurrency-related issue, it actually changes the argument. He. He. [shifts from]”This entire industry has gone out of control” to, “This person was outof control”. It’s so extreme it actually helps [tamp down talk of overregulation].

3) Twitter ended costing Musk far more that the $44 billion he paid with his investors. . .

Musk’s actions align with what we are seeing in the cultural zeitgeist. This is a world that has 24/7 media coverage, and people who need it all. To make it right, you have to keep doing more outrageous things. We saw it with Donald Trump. It was also true for Kanye West. Musk’s main motivation for buying Twitter is to allow people to talk about him just like we do. In that sense, I believe he has achieved his goal.

He should be concerned about Tesla’s market capitalization. It’s higher than Toyota and General Motors, which are companies that sell many cars. Tesla makes a great vehicle and it’s expanding rapidly so it’s fine to be future-oriented. But what is the difference? [Tesla]It might be worth evaluating and Elon Musk’s hyped-up pixie dust is where it is evaluated. He has created a perception of himself as being so far in the future and much more successful than anyone else who invests retail equity. SpaceX is also a good example. This is still a private company. However, a piece I saw yesterday said that it’s now worth $140 Billion. [yet]SpaceX cannot be. [worth]140 billion dollars is the estimated value of its revenues. His genius lies in his ability to make people believe that his company is unique and innovative. He also drives large amounts of investment and value towards his companies.

Twitter is a dangerous platform because it can make a big deal of its reputation by doing something public and prominent. He took over Twitter, which no one had ever managed to make a business of, and now he controls it. Yet, his ideas don’t seem to be new or interesting. They feel like variations on things people have done in different ways. It’s unclear if Twitter will accept it. And if it does, what happens to Tesla and SpaceX? Although he may have paid Twitter $44billion, it could end up costing him $100billion or more if Tesla, SpaceX, and all the other companies that he owns lose value as he is revealed as a mere mortal.

. . . Tusk says that it doesn’t provide great opportunities for startups to capitalize on Twitter’s chaos. You can read more here

There isn’t a good revenue model to support all this. To make matters worse for them I still believe there is a chance of Section 230 being repealed or changed. The current system exempts platforms of liability for user-posted material. You can sue me personally, but you cannot sue Twitter. Twitter, Facebook, and all other platforms have an economic incentive to promote negative and toxic content. This is because, as much as we love it, it drives traffic, clicks, and thus revenue and advertising rates. In effect, the platforms are ignoring responsibility and creating a world where the internet is as toxic as possible.

But what if [we repeal]Section 230 will be very similar to the situation with tobacco companies that began in the ’80s. They suddenly became litigated, and started receiving these. Billions of dollars in judgmentsThey felt severe economic pain and had to make ends meet. [marketing practices]Because it was costing them more than they would otherwise. Facebook will pay the FCC the small fines they get, as they make a lot from negative content. This would be changed if Section 230 was repealed.