Key parts of Chamath’s conditional scenario did not materialize in the way he described.

1. Did new “serious Hunter Biden corruption” evidence emerge?

   • After the podcast (Sept. 2023), Hunter Biden was indicted on tax charges in California for a years‑long scheme to avoid paying over $1.4M in federal taxes, and prosecutors alleged he spent millions on an extravagant lifestyle instead of his tax bills. (forbes.com)
   • On June 11, 2024, a jury convicted him on three federal gun felonies for lying about his drug use to buy and possess a firearm; in September 2024 he pleaded guilty to nine federal tax counts in Los Angeles. (reuters.com)
   • Special Counsel David Weiss’s final report (Jan. 2025) concluded Hunter’s income largely came from trading on his name and failing to properly report some of it (including Burisma income), but it also documented that a key informant’s claims of Ukrainian bribes to the Bidens were fabricated and that the prosecutions were the result of standard investigative work, not proof of a bribery scheme by Joe Biden. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • In other words, substantial criminal evidence against Hunter (gun and tax crimes) did emerge, but the “Biden crime family” bribery/corruption narrative never received confirming evidence in court or from investigators; formal inquiries consistently failed to show Joe Biden took bribes or used his office corruptly.

2. Did Republican megadonors then “come out of the woodwork” to fund a Hunter‑focused super‑PAC ad blitz?

   • Republican‑leaning megadonors did pour massive sums into conservative outside groups in the 2024 cycle. OpenSecrets’ 2024 outside‑spending data show figures like Elon Musk, Timothy Mellon, Miriam Adelson, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, Ken Griffin, Jeffrey Yass, and Paul Singer each giving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars almost entirely to conservative causes and super PACs. (opensecrets.org)
   • Some of that money went to Trump‑aligned super PACs. For example, MAGA Inc (the main pro‑Trump super PAC) received multiple $50M donations from Timothy Mellon in 2024, as well as eight‑figure contributions from Diane Hendricks and others. (en.wikipedia.org) Preserve America PAC, heavily funded by Miriam Adelson, also spent over $100M in 2024, mostly attacking Democrats. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • Those groups did run Hunter/Biden‑corruption–themed spots, notably MAGA Inc.’s 2023 “Hey Joe” ad, which aired on Fox News, CNN, and Newsmax and framed the Bidens as a “corrupt Biden crime family” enriched by foreign business deals. (axios.com) But that ad pre‑dated the Sept. 2023 podcast and the later indictments and conviction; it was part of an ongoing narrative, not a new reaction to fresh 2024 evidence.

3. What actually dominated GOP super‑PAC advertising in 2024?
   Systematic ad‑tracking data show that when Trump and his allied super PACs ramped up TV ads in 2024, they emphasized bread‑and‑butter issues, not Hunter Biden:

   • The Wesleyan Media Project, which codes the content of all broadcast presidential ads, reports that late‑summer 2024 pro‑Trump television ads overwhelmingly focused on the economy, inflation, gas prices and housing, while Trump’s allied super PACs like MAGA Inc and Preserve America focused primarily on immigration and public safety, not corruption scandals. (mediaproject.wesleyan.edu) Their regular “issue spotlight” summaries for July–October 2024 track abortion, energy, guns, health care, housing, immigration, inflation and public safety; Hunter Biden or “corruption” are not major coded themes. (mediaproject.wesleyan.edu)
   • A CNBC analysis of Trump’s digital fundraising during Hunter’s June 2024 gun trial found no new fundraising or digital ad push focused on Hunter at all; Trump’s operation spent hundreds of thousands on Facebook/Instagram ads in that window, but none mentioned Hunter Biden. Strategists cited both the sensitivity of addiction and the fact that the gun case didn’t match the grand corruption narrative as reasons not to campaign heavily on it. (cnbc.com)

4. Did “every single Republican mega‑donor” fund a Hunter‑corruption ad blitz?

   • While megadonors did heavily bankroll Trump and other Republicans via super PACs, those donations mostly underwrote conventional partisan messaging on immigration, the economy, inflation, crime, and attacks on Kamala Harris once she became the nominee—not a wall‑to‑wall, Hunter‑centric corruption campaign blanketing the airwaves. The best quantitative data we have on ad content show that Hunter Biden attacks were, at most, a small subset of the overall Republican paid‑media mix in 2024. (mediaproject.wesleyan.edu)
   • Moreover, some prominent Republican megadonors (e.g., elements of the Koch network, and Ken Griffin in the presidential context) were ambivalent about or hostile to Trump specifically, directing much of their money toward congressional races or non‑Trump Republicans rather than a unified Hunter‑focused presidential super PAC offensive. (cnbc.com)

Bottom line:

• New, serious criminal evidence against Hunter Biden (gun and tax crimes) did emerge, but it did not substantiate the sweeping “Biden crime family” corruption narrative about Joe Biden’s official conduct; investigators and impeachment hearings never produced proof of presidential bribery. (en.wikipedia.org)
• Republican megadonors did pour vast sums into conservative super PACs, but the content of the resulting ad campaigns in 2024 centered on immigration, the economy and other standard issues. There was no mega‑donor‑driven, Hunter‑centric advertising barrage across U.S. airwaves of the kind Chamath described.

Given those facts, the real 2024 cycle does not match the specific megadonor‑and‑media scenario he forecast. The prediction is therefore wrong as a description of what actually happened.