The macro condition Sacks described has largely occurred, but whether the consequence (“a new, sustained golden era…not a bubble”) has come true is not objectively resolvable yet.

1. Macro preconditions were basically met
• After the initial 50 bp cut on September 18, 2024, the Fed cut another 25 bp in November and 25 bp in December, taking the funds rate from 5.25–5.50% before September down to 4.25–4.50% by year‑end—i.e., roughly another 50 bp of cuts in 2024, and about 100 bp in total. (forbes.com)
• Additional cuts in September and October 2025 lowered the target range further to 3.75–4.00%, meaning rates moved down substantially from their peak while remaining far from zero. (forbes.com)
• U.S. inflation fell sharply from 2022–23 peaks; by 2024 headline CPI was about 2.9% and core about 3.2%, with the Fed itself characterizing inflation as moving sustainably toward its 2% goal and citing “cooling” inflation when cutting in late 2024. (jpmorgan.com)
On the narrow macro terms Sacks specified (more ~50 bp of cuts in 2024, inflation contained, rates down but not to zero), the condition was broadly satisfied.

2. Evidence for an AI‑driven tech/VC boom
• The Nasdaq Composite gained roughly 30% in 2024 and the Nasdaq‑100 about 26%, with further strong gains into 2025 and fresh all‑time highs in October 2025, driven heavily by AI‑centric names like Nvidia. (investor.wedbush.com)
• U.S. VC investment rebounded in 2024 to about $209B (up nearly 30% YoY), with AI startups capturing a record ~46% of that capital. (reuters.com)
• By 2025, AI accounts for an estimated 58% of U.S. VC dollars and roughly one‑third of deals; many venture‑backed tech companies are again growing revenue, and the tech IPO window is reopening. (prnewswire.com)
This is strong evidence of a powerful AI‑driven upswing in opportunity and performance across large parts of the tech and venture ecosystem.

3. But the “golden era, not a bubble” characterization is disputed
• The venture environment is highly uneven. The number of active U.S. VC firms fell more than 25% from 2021 to 2024 as capital concentrated in a handful of mega‑funds, and multiple reports highlight continued fundraising weakness and firm closures. (ft.com)
• Asia’s startup funding fell to a 10‑year low in 2024, with AI investment there notably lagging the global AI boom—so the “ecosystem” is far from universally flourishing. (news.crunchbase.com)
• At the same time, prominent voices warn explicitly of an AI bubble: Sam Altman has called the current AI market a speculative bubble; the Nasdaq‑100 has suffered one of its worst quarters in years amid “AI bubble fears”; and fiscal authorities like the UK’s OBR have modeled serious downside risks from a potential AI‑stock crash. (theverge.com)
• Other analysts argue valuations are “stretched but not yet at levels consistent with historical bubbles,” with the Nasdaq‑100 at ~28× forward earnings versus a 10‑year average of ~23×—high, but not definitively bubble territory. (nasdaq.com)
So there is genuine disagreement among informed observers about whether today’s AI‑driven tech market represents a healthy rerating or a classic bubble.

4. Why the prediction is ambiguous rather than clearly right or wrong
• Sacks’s claim bundles several qualitative and long‑horizon ideas: a “new, sustained golden era” comparable to the early‑2000s boom, and “not…a bubble‑level of excess.” These terms are inherently subjective and would normally require many years of data to judge. By November 2025 we have only about one year of post‑prediction history.
• The observable facts cut both ways: AI has clearly powered a major boom in tech markets and VC dealflow, but fundraising stress, regional weakness, and persistent “AI bubble” warnings complicate any claim that the era is both broadly golden and clearly non‑bubble.

Because the macro precondition largely occurred, but the downstream claim about a “sustained golden era” without bubble‑level excess depends on contested, long‑term, and partly subjective judgments, the outcome cannot be assessed as definitively right or wrong at this point. Hence the result here is ambiguous.