E55: Valuing crypto projects, Rivian worth $100B+, inflation: causes and corrections and more

Kyrie Irving did, in fact, resume playing NBA basketball in the near future after this November 13, 2021 episode.

Timeline:

• On January 5, 2022, less than two months after the episode, Irving made his season debut for the Brooklyn Nets in a road game at Indiana, scoring 22 points. He was still barred from home games by New York City’s vaccine mandate, but the Nets reversed their internal policy and allowed him to play part‑time in road games.(espn.com) This confirms the core prediction that he would be “playing basketball soon.”
• On March 24, 2022, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced an exemption to the private‑sector vaccine mandate for local professional athletes and performers, explicitly allowing unvaccinated players like Irving to play in home games.(netsdaily.com)
• Irving then played his first home game of the season on March 27, 2022 against the Charlotte Hornets; coverage of that game notes it was his home debut and that it was only possible because NYC had just changed its COVID-19 rules for athletes.(basketballnews.com)

So:

• The substance of Jason’s claim—Kyrie would soon resume playing NBA basketball—was borne out by Irving’s January 5 return.
• The normalized causal framing (that this would happen once NYC’s restrictions were lifted) is slightly off in sequence, since his road‑game return preceded the policy change. However, NYC did later alter its vaccine-related rules, and that did directly enable Irving’s return to home games.

Given that Kyrie resumed NBA play in the near term and ultimately returned to full home-and-away participation once NYC’s mandates were adjusted, the prediction is best scored as right overall, with minor nuance about the exact mechanism and timing.

Evidence shows that Mayor Eric Adams did, in fact, lift the key COVID-19 vaccine restrictions affecting attending and playing in NBA games during the 2021–2022 NBA season.

• Proof-of-vaccination for fans (attending games): New York City’s “Key to NYC” program, which required patrons to show proof of vaccination for indoor entertainment venues (including arenas like Madison Square Garden and Barclays Center), was allowed to expire at 12:01 a.m. on March 7, 2022, under Emergency Executive Order 50, meaning the city no longer required fans to show vaccine proof to attend such events, though venues could still choose their own rules. (nyc.gov)
• Restriction on players (playing in games): On March 24, 2022, Adams announced a carve‑out from the city’s private‑sector vaccine mandate for New York City–based professional athletes and performers, explicitly lifting the rule that had barred unvaccinated home players (like the Brooklyn Nets’ Kyrie Irving) from playing in city venues. News reports at the time describe this as a partial lifting of the vaccine mandate that had kept some top athletes from playing in New York City. (cnbc.com)
• Within the 2021–2022 NBA season: The 2021–22 NBA season ran from October 19, 2021, to June 16, 2022 (including the Finals), so both March 7 and March 24, 2022, fall well within that season. (en.wikipedia.org)

Since Adams lifted (and in the case of players, explicitly carved out) the relevant vaccine restrictions for both attending and playing in NBA games during the 2021–2022 season, Chamath’s prediction that “Eric Adams is going to lift the vaccine restrictions” — in the context of those basketball-related mandates — came true. The fact that other vaccine requirements for some workers remained in place does not contradict the specific, basketball-focused prediction.

Jason’s prediction was that “The Golden State Warriors will win the NBA championship in the 2021–2022 season.” The 2021–22 NBA season’s championship series was the 2022 NBA Finals, and the Golden State Warriors defeated the Boston Celtics 4–2 in that series, winning the title. (en.wikipedia.org)

Multiple reports confirm that the Warriors beat the Celtics 103–90 in Game 6 on June 16, 2022, clinching the championship. (cnbc.com)

Because the Warriors did in fact win the NBA championship for the 2021–22 season, Jason’s prediction was right.

Within roughly one year after November 2021 (i.e., by around November 2022), available cross‑chain developer reports show Ethereum still clearly leading Solana in developer activity.

Electric Capital’s 2022 Developer Report (snapshot as of December 2022) estimates about 5,819 monthly active developers for Ethereum, while Solana is grouped among ecosystems that grew from under 200 to just over 1,000 monthly active developers. (cointime.ai) A follow‑on summary from Solana itself, citing the same report, says Solana surpassed roughly 2,000 monthly active developers in 2022 and explicitly describes Solana as ‘second in raw numbers only to Ethereum,’ confirming that Ethereum still had the larger developer ecosystem at that time. (solana.com) These sources indicate Solana was the fastest‑growing major ecosystem but had not flipped Ethereum on any standard total‑developer or monthly‑active‑developer metric within that one‑year window.

Later Electric Capital data and coverage reinforce this picture: by 2024 Solana does overtake Ethereum only in new developer onboarding, while Ethereum remains number one in overall developer activity, with Solana in second place. (coindesk.com) Since no credible metric in the 2021–2022 period shows Solana surpassing Ethereum in overall developer activity, Sacks’s prediction that Solana would ‘flip’ Ethereum on developer activity within about a year of November 2021 did not come true.

Chamath argued in November 2021 that the then‑elevated U.S. inflation would persist and mark the start of a longer‑lasting cycle, rather than being a brief, “transitory” spike.

What actually happened:

1. Inflation stayed high and even accelerated after late 2021.

   • CPI inflation in 2021 rose from ~1–2% early in the year to 6.2% in October and 6.8–7.0% by November–December 2021.
   • Annual CPI inflation was 4.7% in 2021 and then jumped to 8.0% in 2022, with a peak year‑over‑year rate of about 9.1% in June 2022 – the highest in over 40 years. (in2013dollars.com)

2. The episode lasted several years, not a short spike.

   • After the 2022 peak, inflation moderated but remained above pre‑COVID norms: about 4.1% for 2023 and roughly 3% for 2024, versus the Fed’s 2% target and the ~2% typical pre‑pandemic rates. (bls.gov)
   • By 2025, monthly year‑over‑year inflation readings are around 2.3–3.0%—down from the peak but still slightly above the Fed’s target for much of the period, confirming a multi‑year inflation episode rather than a quick reversion to ~2%. (in2013dollars.com)
   • Economic analyses now explicitly describe the 2021 surge as the start of “the most significant inflationary episode since the 1980s,” running from 2021 through its moderation by late 2024. (theglobalstatistics.com)

3. Policymakers themselves abandoned the “transitory” framing.

   • Fed Chair Jerome Powell publicly retired the word transitory for inflation by late November 2021, and Fed communications later acknowledged that earlier expectations—that price increases would not be “particularly large or persistent”—had missed the mark. (washingtonpost.com)

Taken together, U.S. inflation did not behave like a brief, quickly‑fading blip. Instead, the late‑2021 surge inaugurated a multi‑year period of elevated inflation (2021–2023, with above‑normal levels persisting into 2024–2025), widely recognized as a major inflationary cycle. That matches Chamath’s core claim that the 2021 readings were the beginning of a persistent cycle rather than a short “transitory” spike.

Conclusion: The prediction that late‑2021 U.S. inflation would be persistent and mark the start of a longer‑lasting inflationary cycle is right in its main directional and qualitative sense.

Evidence from multiple major flashpoints shows that international military tensions did in fact escalate in Q4 2021 relative to earlier in the year:

• China–Taiwan: October 2021 set new records for Chinese military incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone; one analysis notes that October became the busiest month on record and that the final quarter of 2021 saw a massive spike in such incursions, with 56 Chinese warplanes entering the zone on 4 October alone. These flights were widely framed by governments and media as destabilizing and escalatory behavior compared with previous months. (thediplomat.com)

• Russia–Ukraine: A renewed and “unusual” Russian troop buildup near Ukraine began in October–November 2021, with around 90,000–100,000 troops reported near the border and in occupied areas. NATO and Western officials publicly warned in mid‑November 2021 about a deteriorating security situation and the danger of further Russian aggression, and scholarship later labeled this period (October 2021–February 2022) a phase of renewed tensions preceding the 2022 invasion—distinct from and more ominous than the earlier 2021 buildup. (euronews.com)

• Ethiopia/Tigray and regional spillover risk: The Tigray war intensified and geographically expanded in late 2021. Tigrayan forces advanced south, capturing key towns such as Dessie and Kombolcha by the end of October and threatening a march on Addis Ababa, prompting a nationwide state of emergency. International organizations and media in November 2021 explicitly described the situation as an escalating war and warned it could destabilize the broader Horn of Africa. (en.wikipedia.org)

Taken together, these developments show a clear, measurable increase in international military tensions across several regions during Q4 2021 compared with earlier in 2021. That matches Friedberg’s qualitative prediction of “escalating global conflict” for that quarter, so the prediction is best judged as right.

As of 30 November 2025, Xi Jinping is still alive and remains the top political leader of China (General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and PRC President), widely described as the country’s paramount leader. (en.wikipedia.org) He secured an unprecedented third term as CCP General Secretary in 2022 and a third term as state president in 2023 after the abolition of presidential term limits in 2018, moves that position him to stay in power indefinitely. (en.wikipedia.org) Recent reports and official Chinese sources from 2025 still refer to him in these top roles, including as chair or host of major summits and events, indicating no leadership transition has occurred. (en.wikipedia.org)

Chamath’s prediction, however, is explicitly for the rest of Xi’s life and additionally specifies that there will be no peaceful transfer of power to another leader while he is alive. Because Xi is still in office and alive, that lifetime condition has not yet been resolved. The evidence so far is consistent with the prediction, but it cannot be definitively judged true or false until either Xi dies or there is a peaceful handover of power. Therefore the correct status today is inconclusive (too early to tell).

As of 30 November 2025, China has not carried out a forcible annexation or invasion of Taiwan. Coverage of the Taiwan Strait describes rising tension, larger PLA exercises (e.g., 2023 and 2025 drills encircling or near Taiwan), and preparations on both sides for a potential future conflict, but no actual Chinese attempt to conquer or politically absorb Taiwan by force has occurred. (theweek.com)

At the same time, Xi Jinping’s tenure as China’s top leader is open‑ended. Term limits on the state presidency were removed in 2018, and Xi subsequently secured an unprecedented third term as China’s leader in 2022–2023, with no designated successor and the possibility to remain in power indefinitely. (npr.org)

Because the prediction was conditional on what Xi would do before the end of his tenure—a point that has clearly not yet been reached—there has not been enough time to know whether he will eventually attempt annexation by force. The prediction therefore cannot be judged right or wrong at this stage and is best classified as inconclusive (too early to tell).

On balance, Friedberg’s prediction matches what has actually happened between late 2021 and 2025, even though the exact return figure (20–30%) is an approximation and outcomes vary widely.

1. Conglomerate breakups did continue in the following years

Since the podcast (Nov 2021), there has been a clear ongoing wave of large conglomerates breaking themselves up:

• General Electric completed the separation of GE HealthCare in January 2023 and later split into GE Aerospace and GE Vernova, fully dismantling the classic GE conglomerate structure. GE HealthCare’s spin was announced as part of a 3‑way split in 2021 and executed in 2023.(en.wikipedia.org)
• 3M announced in 2022 that it would spin off its health‑care division; the Solventum spin was approved and completed on April 1, 2024, explicitly to “build two world‑class companies” and unlock value.(news.3m.com)
• Kellogg separated into Kellanova (snacks) and WK Kellogg Co (North American cereal) in 2023, again framed as value‑unlocking portfolio simplification.(investor.kellanova.com)
• Johnson & Johnson separated its consumer‑health arm into Kenvue via an IPO and exchange offer in 2023, sharpening J&J’s focus on pharma and med‑tech.(investor.jnj.com)
• Honeywell announced in early 2025 that it will split into three businesses (aerospace, automation, advanced materials), explicitly citing GE’s breakup as a model.(barrons.com)

Strategist and bank reports note that US spinoff activity has been elevated and expected to keep accelerating: announced US spinoffs rose 33% in 2022, and Goldman/Trivariate and Bloomberg highlight that spinoffs remain a popular tool to boost shareholder value as cost of capital has risen.(news.bloomberglaw.com) This is exactly the “continuation of the breakup trend” Friedberg described.

2. Activist shareholders are targeting large conglomerates and pushing breakups

Friedberg also said activists would buy into big conglomerates and agitate for separation. That pattern is clearly visible:

• Honeywell: Elliott Management built a >$5B stake and publicly pushed Honeywell to break itself into separate aerospace and automation businesses, arguing the conglomerate structure depresses valuation and that a split could deliver up to 75% upside. Honeywell’s 2025 three‑way breakup plan directly follows that pressure.(cnbc.com)
• 3M/Solventum: After 3M spun off Solventum, Nelson Peltz’s Trian took about a 5% stake and began pushing for further portfolio simplification and divestitures to raise margins and focus the business.(wsj.com)
• Kenvue (J&J consumer spin‑off): Activists Starboard Value, TOMS Capital, and later Third Point all took stakes and pressed for strategic changes, including a sale or further break‑up.(fiercepharma.com)

More broadly, activism itself has remained strong or risen:

• A Lazard/Barclays‑cited review shows record or near‑record activist activity, with over 240 campaigns in 2024, and a growing share of those focused on strategic/portfolio restructuring at large cap companies.(reuters.com)

This is very much in line with Friedberg’s claim that activists would keep going after big, complex conglomerates and push for structural breakups.

3. Do breakups “typically” create ~20–30% more value?

Friedberg’s more specific claim is that these breakup campaigns will usually lead to the combined equity of the separated pieces trading about 20–30% higher than the pre‑breakup conglomerate.

While not every case works out this well, the central tendency in the data for corporate spin‑offs and breakups is broadly in that range, sometimes higher:

• A large study of ~1,100 US and European spinoffs from 2000–2022 by The Edge Group finds that, on average, spinoffs returned 17% one year and 25% two years after separation, versus 5–9% for the parents and less for the benchmarks—i.e., roughly high‑teens to mid‑20s excess returns.(forbes.com)
• Earlier Edge/Deloitte data summarized by multiple sources show US spinoffs returning about 27% in the first year vs roughly 3% for the S&P 500 and ~21% for the parents—again in the 20–30% ballpark for the spun entity and solid double‑digit gains combined.(therobusttrader.com)
• S&P Global finds that, over longer horizons, U.S. spun‑off entities outperformed their industry peers by ~8% in year one and ~22% over three years, supporting the idea that breakups usually generate sizable value uplift over a few years.(spglobal.com)
• Trivariate Research, as summarized by Bloomberg and others, reports that spinoff stocks have recently outperformed the S&P 500 by about 10 percentage points over 18–24 months, and the Bloomberg U.S. Spinoff Index rose 62% in one year—well ahead of the broader market.(bloomberg.com)
• In the marquee GE case, a full‑cycle analysis credits the breakup with roughly a 400% total shareholder return from trough to post‑split, far above Friedberg’s 20–30% heuristic.(forbes.com)

At the same time, Friedberg’s “typically 20–30%” is not universally true on a deal‑by‑deal basis:

• Lazard’s 2025 activism review finds that the typical immediate stock pop from an activist campaign is closer to 2–7 percentage points over a few days, not 20–30%.(reuters.com)
• Edge/Deloitte’s work and CNBC’s summary show that about 40% of spinoffs fail to create any positive one‑year return, meaning the strong averages are driven by a subset of big winners.(cnbc.com)
• Some high‑profile recent breakups, like WK Kellogg Co after the Kellogg split and Kenvue after the J&J separation, have struggled operationally and in share price and only later attracted buyers paying premiums, suggesting value creation was uneven and not cleanly in the 20–30% range in all cases.(ft.com)

So the precise per‑deal claim (“the share price will go up by 20–30%” after activists push a breakup) is somewhat overstated and hides a very skewed distribution: many modest or negative outcomes, some extremely strong ones. But if you interpret his 20–30% as a typical medium‑term uplift for successful breakups on average, the large‑sample empirical work and headline cases support that order of magnitude.

Bottom line

• The structural trend Friedberg described—ongoing dismantling of conglomerates and use of breakups as a value‑unlocking tool—clearly continued after 2021.(en.wikipedia.org)
• Activist investors have indeed targeted large conglomerates and pushed explicitly for breakups or radical portfolio simplifications (Honeywell, Solventum, Kenvue, among others).(cnbc.com)
• Empirical data on spinoffs and breakups show average value creation in roughly the high‑teens to mid‑20s percent range (and sometimes higher) over 1–3 years, which is broadly consistent with his “20–30%” shorthand, though outcomes are very uneven and far from guaranteed.(forbes.com)

Given that all three core elements of his prediction have largely materialized, the fairest overall judgment is that Friedberg’s call was directionally and substantively right, albeit overly neat about how uniformly that 20–30% uplift would show up across individual breakups.

Apple did launch a head‑worn AR device as a new computing platform with full third‑party developer support before Tim Cook retired as CEO.

• New AR computing platform opened to developers: In June 2023 Apple announced Apple Vision Pro, describing it as its first “spatial computer,” running a new operating system, visionOS, with its own App Store and support for more than a million compatible iOS/iPadOS apps plus new spatial apps. (apple.com) Apple released the visionOS SDK in Xcode so third‑party developers can build native visionOS apps, and updated Xcode/TestFlight to accept and distribute these apps, explicitly positioning this as a new app platform. (macrumors.com) This matches the prediction of “a new computing platform that they open up to developers.”

• Timing relative to Tim Cook’s retirement: Vision Pro became available to U.S. customers on February 2, 2024, with Tim Cook still serving as Apple’s CEO. (apple.com) As of November 30, 2025, Cook remains CEO; reports only say Apple is preparing for a possible transition “as soon as next year,” and note that he has not yet announced plans to step down. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) Therefore the AR headset platform launched before his retirement, satisfying the timing condition.

One possible quibble is that Vision Pro is marketed as a mixed‑reality headset rather than lightweight everyday “glasses,” but in context Sacks was clearly forecasting a head‑worn AR device that becomes Apple’s next major platform and that Cook would get out the door before leaving. On those substantive points, the prediction has been borne out.