825 - Marc Lore: The Rise of Telosa

Yes, it really is. I've been waiting a long time for the new model to come out. The Defender 110, I'm telling you, it's my favorite car of all times. It's my third one. You know, I have stories of going off-road. The guy managing the group was like, 'What are you doing in this beautiful car?' I'm like, 'I'm going off-road.' He's like, 'Are you sure? Because you can use one of ours and they look like Mad Max cars.' I'm like, 'No, no, no, we're going to do this.' And he was shocked.

That's my favorite part.

Yeah, sure. So it wasn't one day that I just woke up and said, 'You know, I think it would be cool to build a city.' It was never from the beginning any sort of real estate project or 'it'd be cool to build a city.' It really started with this problem that I think everyone's pretty familiar with in America, which is the divide between equality is getting worse than it ever has been. And just felt like, do we have capitalism right? And started thinking about it. And I read this book, Progress and Poverty by Henry George, a late 19th-century economist, and I was just fascinated. I was struck by it. It really hit a chord with me. If you think about capitalism, I think it's a great economic model, but it needs to have some guardrails. You know, you saw what happened before we had antitrust laws against monopolies. Capitalism and monopolies don't work well together. Workers suffered big time.

Yeah, I mean, listen, you only need one other company to compete and be a formidable competitor for it not to be a monopoly. I think you've got that in Walmart. So I don't think workers have only one option. If they're working in the fulfillment centers there at Amazon and they're not happy or not feeling like they're getting paid fair wages, they can go work at Walmart. Like that wasn't the case back in the 1800s before we had antitrust and there were true monopolies where you really only had one place to work. The world wasn't as mobile as it is today, and you lived where you worked, and there was one company that dominated and basically you had no choice.

The danger is still there, absolutely. But we have antitrust laws now that will break companies up and prevent monopolies from forming. So my point really was that without that sort of guardrail, capitalism wouldn't be a great economic model. It is because the guardrails that we put in place around it to encourage competition. One of the things that struck me reading that book was this idea of land ownership and how there's a finite amount of land, and landowners essentially have sort of this silent monopoly over the property that they own. And really, without putting any work in, without taking any risk, putting any capital at risk or anything like that, land appreciates when communities are formed on the land, when tax dollars are invested in infrastructure to increase the value of the land. And I just fundamentally thought, well, what if it were different? I'm not saying that people shouldn't own land, people should definitely own land, but what if it were different in that if we started when the land was worthless, with a community foundation basically representing the people owning the land, and when the land increased in value because communities formed and people started their lives there, then that land appreciation would be captured by the foundation. It would create an endowment and then use that money sort of like a sovereign wealth fund to basically provide incredible social services for the people that live there, because it's the people that live there that formed these communities that gave value to the land. And then once the land appreciation was captured and it was a normal sort of thriving city, the community foundation would sell off the land so people would be able to own land, but the community would capture that rapid appreciation that goes from land being worthless to being worth something, being a thriving city.

Absolutely, great analogy. In fact, so the land in the desert, you know, like in Nevada for example, is like two, three thousand dollars an acre. And if you were able to build a city of five million people, and like a legit city, just the day that five million people were living there, it was actually a real city, the land's going to be worth, you know, call it, I don't know, a million dollars an acre. So, you know what I mean? Like in the city itself, that land appreciation which could amount to as much as a trillion dollars worth of value created for the community foundation that basically bought this worthless land. Imagine having a trillion-dollar endowment earning $50 billion a year to basically give back to the citizens in the form of incredible education, medical care, affordable housing, basically getting the social services of a socialist democratic country without having to increase taxes. So have the same sort of tax structure you have today in America that people love relative to social democratic countries, but the same if not better social services. So that's what got me really excited. There is a way and a path forward to have both, to have a more equitable city population where people have a great foundation without having to charge people 70, 80% marginal tax rates to pay for it. Like, this is a great solve. And so that's really inspired me to want to build the city. And then as we started thinking about, wow, if we're going to build a city from scratch, five million people, let's make it the most sustainable city in the world because we know we can from scratch, and make it run on 100% renewable energy and zero waste and really kind of take a leap forward on a sustainability front. How do we use 90% less water than we use today? And there's lots of technologies that exist today that are just not being implemented in cities because the cities already have infrastructure, it's too expensive to rip it out and put new infrastructure in. But if you start it from scratch, you can do some really cool things.

Yeah, that's exactly right. It's the same exact analogy. That's perfect.

Yeah, so we started a community foundation. It's called the Telosa Community Foundation. The foundation is going to get donations and purchase and acquire 200,000 acres of land for, call it, $500 million in round numbers. And the foundation would encourage real estate investors, builders, people to move there and sort of encourage and help form the foundation of the city. And if five million people move there, like I said, the foundation would have all this land that it would be selling off at a huge premium and create a sovereign city endowment.

Yes, so there would be jobs. That would be a reason why people would want to move there. They'd move there for the incredible social services, the education, the healthcare, which would be like nowhere else in the US. And also the city will be sustainable. It'll have amazing parks and restaurants. I mean, we're starting with people at the center. So this is not like one of these sort of cities of the future you see where it's all tech-driven and seems cold. The city has to have a soul and it has to be a place that people want to live, want to raise a family. That's what we're focused on.

Yeah, no, it's a really big challenge and there's a chicken and egg. But cities grow organically because there's no incentive, there's no sort of big grand opening of a city where people all decide to move there at a single point in time. The way we're going to sort of put this together is we've got a, because we're able to create what could be a trillion-dollar endowment for the city, we're going to take some of that money and invest in what any company would do in sort of a B2C marketing campaign, which is to drum up interest from people that want to live here before it's even open and basically have an opening day of the city. And it'll be the first center of the city will be for 50,000 people, and the goal is to have 50,000 people move in on a single, I say a single day, but maybe over the course of a month, you know, where doctors and teachers show up and then people start layering in. But basically 50,000 people in a very short period of time all move to the city to sort of solve that chicken and egg problem. There needs to be jobs there, so the jobs of restaurants and hotels and all the services, obviously doctors and lawyers and teachers and things. But one of the big driving factors early on is going to be entrepreneurs. So as part of this Telosa Community Foundation, there's going to be a venture arm that's basically going to invest in entrepreneurs that have really cool business ideas that want to basically build their idea in the city of Telosa. So it could be a global business, it could be a tech company, it doesn't have to be specific to the city of Telosa, but simply moving there, getting office space, and starting to incubate your startup and hire people is going to be one of the foundational pieces of how we get to 50,000 quickly.

Just like any other city, it would have a government. We're going to do our best to try and make the government more transparent, but we're not, I mean, we're a community foundation whose sole mission is to increase the value of the fund and give it back to the citizens in the form of great services. So there'll be elected officials in a government and it would run like any other city, but you would have this other piece called the foundation that would work closely with the government because the foundation would have so much money that it wants to invest back into the citizens. And it would be a little bit like it is today with a charity sitting with the government and trying to figure out where best to put the funds.

If there's a lot of them, I mean, I could see that happening somewhere else. And I basically encourage people to test new models. I think we haven't done enough testing around cities in this country. Like it's been pretty stagnant, there hasn't been a lot of innovation. So I encourage people to try other models. But in this particular case in Telosa, our values are to be open, fair, and inclusive. So by definition, it's not a closed city. It's not going to be an application. Anybody can move there. It's meant to be fair, equitable, inclusive, and open. You know, that's really, and the only thing I'd say, which is a caveat to this a little bit, is the first 50,000 people, in order for the city to be truly inclusive and open, it's important to have a diverse group of people that are this first 50,000 to basically get the snowball rolling. And so we are thinking through how we ensure that the first 50,000 are diverse and not a certain homogenous group of people that gravitate toward it. So there might be some sort of application process for the first 50,000 just to kick things off, like you would at any university building a diverse class of students. But that's very complicated, comes with its own set of issues and things, but it seems better than letting it just go and having it be not diverse and not inclusive from the outset.

Well, I think that's a really good point. It's something we're thinking through right now. Like since the community foundation of Telosa is kicking off the building of the city, there are opportunities early on for Telosa, the community foundation, to make investments in some startups that could help the city blossom and create incredible equity value too that accrues back to the citizens. So it doesn't have to be just land. We are looking for other ways to create value. The mission, though, of course, is to try and create value on behalf of the people that live there so that we can create this incredible virtuous cycle where people trust the foundation who live in the city and they see all the good that the foundation is doing in terms of education and healthcare and all these amazing things that people decide in the community to donate to the foundation. So right now you don't really donate to your city, that's called taxes, people hate that. People donate to schools, they donate to hospitals, but we'd love a world in which they donate to the community in which they live through the foundation, knowing that the foundation is going to make it a higher quality life for their kids and their grandkids and future generations. That there's that trust there, that's when things really start to look interesting from a new model for society perspective.

Yeah, that's an interesting concept. We'll definitely think about that. We're getting ideas like this from smart people like yourself, and we're sort of just putting them into a holding pen right now to just sort of start going through them and start thinking about whether it makes sense. We're still a long way off from making a decision like that, but that's a great idea and something that we need to consider for sure.

That makes a lot of sense. I get it.

Yeah, the foundation would be a 501(c)(3) charity. And so yeah, the initial dollars would be people that, like myself, that are going to make big donations to this to see it happen, to really truly test is there a better way. And that's really the incentive.

NEOM, yeah.

They're starting to build it already, but it's a little different in that they're taking a very sort of high-tech angle. It's a little bit different than what we're thinking here, which is testing a new model for society and really starting with people at the center and values about being fair, open, inclusive, and sustainability. It's a little bit different. It is a new city, but I would say more technology-focused.

Yeah, I mean, we're saying 2030 is sort of, that gives us what, about eight years to sort of get the land, get all the permitting, start putting shovels in the ground and start building and get it up and running where people could start moving in.

There's lots of different places, but I think it has to be somewhere where the land is very cheap and the government is open to us building a city of five million people. So when you start put it through that lens, it starts to narrow the options. So we're going through a process now.

Yeah, I mean, again, it's got to be cheap land, 200,000 acres at a minimum, and we have to have government support to build a city of five million people. So it's, yeah, there's not too many places where that is the case.

You mean to build the city for 50,000 people and the land? Yeah, about $10 billion.

Well, to build the entire city would be hundreds of billions, but sort of to get started, we think you have somewhere $10, $12 billion to get started. But again, it wouldn't be at this point the Telosa Community Foundation, it would be having real estate developers and builders and things that would come in and build office space and restaurants and residential and things. And there has to be incentive for them to do it. They have to believe that there's going to be the people there. And so the foundation is going to really be focused on how do we ensure that we've got 50,000 people to move there to basically incentivize developers to want to build residences for the 50,000 people.

No, we're not, it's not down to the individual like that. It's the collective. It's the community itself that will benefit. It's the people and citizens that live there that will benefit. With that said, I do think you raised a good point. Should there be, and that's a great question, should there be some responsibility or accountability of the citizens that live there? That's a whole talk about that for days.

Yeah, well, again, it's no different than any city in America now. Like the land is owned by real estate developers, families, people own land and they basically lease the land or build something on the land or sell it. It's not going to be any different. Like the landowner will be the foundation, but you can lease the land from the foundation and build something. You could lease it for the land for 50 years or something. It's not going to constrain any sort of capitalistic sort of investment in any sort of real estate project.

Yeah, I mean, it raises a great question. These are great debates to have. Our view right now, but it could change, is it's just simply like, just like it would be in New York City, you sort of pay the real estate, you pay the rent, you pay the real estate taxes, you can live there. Like there's no, you don't get kicked out or something. You know, that's how we're thinking about it right now. But it is true that if you're paying real estate and you're paying your taxes but you're not pulling your weight, that you're going to, it's not going to be good for you. You know what I mean? Right. Eventually things will get bad for you.

I think that's what it is. We went through this and down this path that it is, if it's small like that and you are paying sort of fair market value, it's very hard to drive up the price of the land in any meaningful way because there's a reason why people aren't, like the land is worth what it's worth and people haven't moved there and people already know of the place. It's a little bit, it's different than having a complete, it's like a startup going into a startup that's already like four years old and they're not doing well and you want to sort of come in and make it the next trillion-dollar company. It's a lot harder than just saying clean slate. Because there's a story to tell, it's new, it's in the middle of nowhere, it doesn't exist, there's no way to get to it except flying into the airport or driving hours. Like it's literally in the middle of nowhere. It's the marketing story of this being a new way of life, different, like you got to come see it. And being able to have iconic buildings and restaurants and nightlife and parks and things that really, like, you can show people and be a reason to come there. If you had some sort of like little edge city that's been floundering for 100 years and to go in there and buy the land and try and rip out the infrastructure and what do you do about all the stuff that's there already that doesn't make sense or it's not sustainable or how do you build a city with all autonomous vehicles? Because one of the things in Telosa is we're really considering is fully autonomous vehicles, which make the roads more narrow, which allows you to have more walkability, more bikeability. You'd have virtually no accidents, especially not car-to-car. You wouldn't need streetlights, you wouldn't need street signs. It'd be cheaper, be more efficient, and safer. And like, how do you do that in an edge city? You know, there's things like that too.

No, people don't fully, I think, appreciate unless you really know what autonomous vehicles...

It's actually today, it's simple, it's easy. It's one of the easiest problems out there. It's only because having autonomous vehicles with cars on the road and having the roads not built for autonomous vehicles is why there's all this complexity. And even now we're making it work, but starting from scratch is actually a really simple problem.

Yeah, so my company that I invested in is called Archer. It's a public company. And yeah, I mean, we just recently hovered it. It's basically like, think about it, it's like a passenger drone. So take a drone and make it big enough for people to sit in, that's sort of what it is. So it can obviously go vertical just like a drone and fly and come back down. It's safer than a helicopter, it's less noisy, and it's much cheaper. There's a lot less moving parts. And I do think that's the future of urban mobility, these what we call eVTOLs, electric vertical takeoff and landing. And you said about being, you know, the FAA and stuff like that. You know, if it's piloted, then once the aircraft itself is certified, just the way the FAA certifies airplanes today, if you have a pilot in there, you can fly it. You know, as soon as the aircraft is certified, get a pilot and fly it under FAA guidelines today. If you want it to be autonomous, which is certainly the future, that's going to be a lot longer. But they're going to be piloted very soon, within inside of five years. We're going to be able to go out and fly on one of these things.

Inside of five years, you will not be able to do that. What you will be able to do is be in New York City and you leave from a vertiport, maybe a vertidepot, you know, that's not where helicopters leave from, that's something separate, and be able to go to Kennedy Airport in 15 minutes instead of taking two hours by car. So yes, you will be able to do that within five years for sure. You will be able to, if you want to fly in one of these eVTOLs, you'll be able to do it inside of five years for sure.

Yeah, I mean, the batteries now, I mean, they're able to go pretty good distance, but it's more just the size of it. If you saw the size of it, it's, you know, they've got, you know, wings.

Basically, yeah. I mean, I could see how it appears that way. We don't really like to think of it in terms of like a food truck. It's a fully integrated end-to-end system where we've basically created a platform to create next-generation restaurant chains. So we're vertically integrated and we basically source and prep the food in a central commissary in such a way that allows somebody with low skill or low amount of training on a truck to basically be able to cook the food in just a few minutes in a high-speed impingement oven right outside somebody's door. But it's sort of an end-to-end system. It's not a food truck, there's no open flame, everything happens very fast. And a lot of years of R&D has gone into creating the food in such a way combined with the programming of the oven to be able to cook, let's say, a Bobby Flay steak in under five minutes, you know, piping hot, charred on the outside, a beautiful cut of filet, or being able to cook a pizza perfectly in like three minutes that's like as good as you'd find in the best pizza place you've ever been to. So we've created 17 of these restaurant chains. So if you think about like creating a brick-and-mortar chain, how challenging it is, you have to find the real estate, you have to build it, you have to hope that you get enough revenue to cover your break-even to make a margin. And if you guess wrong or the wrong location doesn't make money, then you're sort of sunk. Because the platform we created across these 17 chains is fungible. This truck is fungible across the 17 restaurants. We could basically go into an area, find out what the demand is for every one of these 17 restaurant chains, and then put the right amount of mobile restaurants to satisfy the demand perfectly. And if demand's down, you put a little less, demand more, you add a little more. So it's completely fungible. It allows you to scale really fast, but more importantly, match supply and demand perfectly. So you don't have this problem that restaurants have, which is, is this the right location? So there are a lot of places we can go into now and give access to food that people can't currently get because it doesn't make sense for a brick-and-mortar. The hurdle rate is too high. You need three million in revenue to make this restaurant work. There's not three million of demand, that's okay, there's only 500,000 worth of demand. Great, we'll put two mobile restaurants in there and now we satisfied the $500,000 worth of latent demand. So it really allows us to give people access to this incredible food that they can't get access to via restaurants because it doesn't make economic sense. We're also able to cut across many different chains, everything from steak to pizza to burgers to Chinese to Indian, Thai, Mexican, we can cut across all of them because we have one single fungible tech platform. And that'll also enable us to scale really fast as well.

Yeah, exactly. Aspiring chefs, rather than spending, you know, a million dollars to open a restaurant, if you have a restaurant idea, you basically come up with a menu, get one mobile restaurant, go out on the road. We'll tell you exactly how many orders you'll do in a night based on, we just sort of know based on the algorithms. If that goes well, then you lease another truck, and then a third truck, and a fourth truck, and you have four mobile, five mobile restaurants, six, and you can build your restaurant that way, one piece at a time.

Yeah, well, first of all, because you're in sort of a fixed location, right? But the biggest reason is the quality of the food. If you're an aspiring chef, do you really want your food sitting cold in a bag in a car to deliver 15 or 20 minutes to somebody? Like that's the main thing. The quality of the food degrades pretty quickly when it's delivered, and only certain types of food deliver. But let's say you wanted to do something like, I don't know, you wanted to do an oyster bar. Are you really going to do an oyster bar from a ghost kitchen and put them in a bag and send it? Like that doesn't make sense. Same thing with steak, same thing with french fries. You know, there's some things that travel decently, but most stuff doesn't. Let's say you want to do a Bonefish Grill type concept and have grilled fish. Are you going to do that in a ghost kitchen and put it in the back of a car and drive it? You know, so the other thing is, and people don't realize this, is that the actual delivery cost from a ghost kitchen is a lot more expensive because you're going point to point. So let's say the ghost kitchen is in a fixed location, you have to drive to the ghost kitchen, pick up the stuff, and then drive, let's say it could be 10 minutes, 15 minutes, or 20 minutes away. When you're mobile, you just go point to point. Like the average drive time right now is only about eight minutes, and it's coming down. The more density, the more the drive time comes down. And it's very, very different from delivering from a fixed location.

Yeah, it's going incredible. I mean, we're seeing unprecedented results. The net promoter score is something we've never seen before, like mid to high 70s. People absolutely love it. People ordering, you know, the repeat rates are off the charts. People ordering like crazy. It's like a phenomenon, the areas that we're in. So yeah, I mean, I couldn't have imagined that it would be going this well. I thought people would be interested in it, but not to this extent.

I do, I do. And you know what, it's funny, I've never really been involved in a business where any single person I talk to says, why wouldn't I do that? I want that. You know, then you know you've got a big TAM, and that's what's exciting about this idea, is you got a big TAM, everyone wants it. But more importantly, it's very profitable. And so I've been involved in Jet, diapers, and Walmart, and Amazon, things where you're dealing with these razor-thin, you know, two, three, four percent operating margin is really good, you know what I mean? This has the opportunity for double-digit operating margins or more. Like it's very profitable when you vertically integrate and the food only costs, you know, 20 to 25% of the revenue. So it's exciting on TAM and it's exciting on the profit side as well.

Absolutely. And like there's no downside at all. Like a restaurant, again, the biggest risk is you make the real estate investment, you build a restaurant, your break-even is three million dollars of revenue, and you're doing two, and you're like, oh, if I can just get another million, I make some money. But you can't, and it closes down. This is much simpler. Each truck can do $200,000 a year. So you do one truck, 200,000. Oh, it's 400,000, put a second truck. Oh, it's 600,000, put a third truck. Like you literally just match the capex with the demand. So by definition, you're going to be profitable. Like the math will work. You just need to be smart, have a good menu, and obviously the demand for your restaurant will depend on order density and drive times. But we've seen some restaurants even with low order density that have high ticket size work really well and still be very profitable. So yeah, I do think this is the future of restaurants and restaurant chains. In the same way that, you know, the future of retail was the actual goods coming to your door, this is the same. The future of restaurants is they come to you. I do think people socially though will still go out to restaurants. We're not taking away from people that want to just have a social evening out. But when it comes to like on a day-to-day basis eating food, yeah, why would you not just want to have the restaurant come to you?

Yeah, exactly. And it's high quality. The restaurants love it because the food quality stays. There's nothing worse than being like a proud chef and having a great restaurant and having people say, oh yeah, that didn't taste great, because it sat in the back of a courier car for 30 minutes. And that's very frustrating. This offers an alternative where, you know, the food's going to be super high quality because it's literally cooked right outside the customer's door.

Yeah, I mean, sort of A-Rod and I, who I bought it with, we are approaching it the same way we would sort of a typical startup, which is apply the VCP framework I've created: Vision, Capital, People. And really going in and building the foundation day one. What is the vision? What do we want to be in 10 to 15 years? What is the strategy to get there? What's the right organizational structure to support that strategy? What's the culture we want to create? What is the mission of the organization? What are its values? What are the behaviors and traits we look for in people we hire? What's the capital plan? What do the projections look like? What's the pitch deck to basically pull all this together to get everyone fired up inside the organization and outside that we've got a plan forward? Like it's building that foundation. And we've been since July doing just that and going through the whole sort of foundational process. I believe most of the mistakes made, if not all the mistakes made, whether it be any organization, a team, a company, is to start making moves before you've done the hard foundational work. Like how do you let somebody go and hire somebody if you don't know the culture and the type of people and the traits that you value and what's important to you? How do you build and hire someone when you don't know what the right organizational structure is? And you don't know what the right organizational structure is until you know what the strategy is. So it's like it's these building blocks that you need to get in place first, and then everything just starts to roll so smoothly from there.

Yeah, I think there's a really big opportunity. I think, like you said, it's a little more nuanced than it is in baseball, for example. But there's a really big opportunity, especially since you've got salary cap. And in basketball, it gets a lot harder, you know, where you have only a certain amount of money you can, you have to make sure each dollar you're getting the right amount of wins per dollar. Otherwise the math doesn't add up and you're not going to win the number of games you hope for. So I actually think that analytics and this Moneyball concept could even be more valuable in basketball than some other sports.

I mean, nothing like specific, I think it's sort of still early days. But you know, everything, like it's not looking past just the box score. There's lots of things that are happening that don't get accounted for in the box score that need to get accounted for. Whether it be on defense, where you are positioned, how you box people out, how you set a pick and roll. You know, was it a contested shot? Was it an open shot that you made or missed? Like there's all these details. Even, you know, the accuracy of shooting. You know, people don't take enough shots for it to be statistically significant. And so you have to look at the arc and trajectory of the ball. You know, how did it hit the rim? Did it go? Was it a swish? Like what is the accuracy to try to make a determination of like how good of a shooter somebody is? Because like even if you flip a coin, we know it's 50/50 over the long term, but you can flip a coin thousands of times, 10,000 times, and you can land on, you know, 49% and 51% when you know it's 50/50, but you haven't had enough reps. Think about it, basketball, you don't take that many shots to really figure out whether somebody, like how good of a three-point shooter are they? And to really be able to figure that out when somebody only has, you know, let's say 200 shots, think about that. It's like a very hard problem because if you're looking at straight percentage, you're going to get it wrong. Because 200 shots could be off by three, four, five, six, seven points. Somebody could be shooting 33% from three when really they're a 40% shooter, or somebody could shoot 45% and really they're at 38%. Like there's a big variation. And so you have to figure out how do you correct for that with analytics by looking at, like, shots, the type of shots they take, the, like I said, the trajectory of the ball, the arc, where it lands into the basket, things like that to try and suss out what their true shooting percentage is.

No, that's all part of it too. It's figuring out, at the end of the day, you're trying to figure out what some player's contribution to wins is. At the end of the day, it's wins above replacement concept that you have that everyone has been tracked pretty well in baseball for a long time now. It's pretty new in basketball, but I think it could be a lot better. I think there's a lot upside to really getting, but it's more than just figuring out, like in baseball you have so many discreet at-bats that you can, you know, in one year you could have 600 at-bats. You start statistically to be able to know like how good a player is because they've got so many discreet at-bats and the at-bats look the same for every player. In basketball, it's very different. I mean, you don't really have that same level of discreet shooting, right? It's like players could be double-teamed, they could be contested more sometimes, not. It's like there's, and they're not taking nearly as many shots, not taking them from the same location. It's just much more complicated.

Yeah, that's another factor. Yeah, that's another factor.

Yeah, well, we just, Alex and I just started a company called Jump, and it's basically a next-gen sort of ticketing platform that we're going to test with the Timberwolves. And yeah, I don't want to give too much away, but it's something we're definitely thinking about. I think there's definitely a future, like a next-gen ticketing platform that just, I don't want to give too much away, there's an opportunity there.

Yeah, absolutely.

No, I'm really involved in those things. But I, you know, I love sleep because I think that gives you energy. So I get a good eight hours every day, you know, work out, eat healthy. And if you've got 16 non-sleeping hours in the day, if you're really efficient with your time and you outsource anything that's not pertaining to things that are really like these sort of big concepts, you have actually a lot of time in the day to do stuff. Most time, if you kind of like just mapped out your time, you're doing a lot of things that, you know, could be outsourced or aren't that relevant. Or, you know, I don't spend any time dwelling on the past, I don't spend time worrying about things. I just, I'm just laser-focused on the things that really matter. And I outsource anything that sort of, you know, like chores and anything that could get in the way. You know, I wish I could outsource all my television watching, that would save me a lot of time.

Thank you so much. Yeah, it was great talking to you. Great questions, James. Thank you.