The “fake Chamath” handle referred to in the episode is almost certainly @ChamathWarriors – “Chamath Palihapitiya’s burner (parody)” on X/Twitter. The episode transcript matches this: Friedberg jokes about Dave Sacks “being fake Chamath” and says, “My guess is that Twitter handle is about to get popular again.”(podscripts.co)

What we can see empirically:

• The @ChamathWarriors account has been active and widely-cited well before the May 3, 2024 episode. Its memes were quoted in media pieces and blogs in 2022–2023 (e.g., on ChatGPT and Pixelmon) and in political/tech commentary, showing it already had notable reach.(moguldom.com)
• As of a late‑2025 snapshot, @ChamathWarriors shows ~7,000 tweets and ~16,000 followers, indicating a moderately popular, consistently active parody account, not an abandoned or tiny one.(twstalker.com)
• After the May 2024 episode, the account continues to be referenced in third‑party content: for example, an investing newsletter highlights its memes in October 2024 (“Perfect last‑minute costume idea”) and again in February 2025 (“Dave said go all‑in”), suggesting it’s still part of the broader finance/tech meme ecosystem and now explicitly tied into All‑In in at least one meme.(becomeabetterinvestor.net)

However, the core of the prediction is about a “significant increase in popularity and activity” after the episode. To judge that, we’d need things like:

• follower counts or engagement metrics before May 3, 2024 vs. after;
• or reporting/commentary that clearly notes a resurgence (“this account suddenly blew up after being outed on the All‑In podcast”).

Publicly accessible sources don’t provide historical follower data for @ChamathWarriors, and no coverage explicitly documents a distinct popularity spike or revival around that time. All the evidence shows is steady, ongoing popularity from 2022 through 2025, with mentions both before and after the episode, not a clearly identifiable “re‑becoming popular” moment.

Because:

• the account was already popular enough to be quoted in mainstream and niche outlets before the prediction; and
• we lack quantitative or clear qualitative evidence of a step‑change in popularity or activity afterwards;

it’s not possible to definitively say whether Friedberg’s “about to get popular again” call was correct or incorrect. The account remained active and visible, but whether there was a significant renewed surge is not verifiable from available data.

So the fairest classification is ambiguous: enough time has passed, but the necessary metrics to confirm or refute a “significant increase” don’t appear to be publicly documented.