announcer: from the heart of where innovation, power and money collide in silicon valley and beyond, this is bloomberg technology with emily chang. emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco. coming up, alphabet. the ads business took a hit after suspending advertising in russia and advertisers pulled back more broadly in europe.

our chat about the latest report coming up. plus, free speech and how will elon musk change twitter? does he even know? we will debate it with two guests. and, wearables tracking your waking and not waking moments. we talk with giants like apple, later this hour. we will get to all that at the moment but first, stocks sinking. we are watching microsoft and apple in the back of earnings and tesla and twitter closely. ed ludlow is here with the rundown. ed: alphabet parent company, google down 6.5% after hours. a rare miss on the top line. $56 billion excluding traffic acquisition costs. i know the ceo talked about macro headwinds, particularly in advertising that you are going to dig into. also announcing a share buyback program. the stock not going well. we are getting signs already

this is feeding through to the broader market, so we are interested in how the psychology of investors for big tech is going to feed off of these earnings. microsoft beating expectations on the top and bottom line. beating expectations. strengthen cloud. strengthen hardware. taking share with xbox. down 1%. going into their earnings week, a lot of anxiety. look where we are in the month of april, the declines we've seen in mega cap stocks. that's why we were so focused on what we are seeing in the after hours. when you think about the decline in april, where do we stand with the market this coming tuesday, wednesday, thursday? will we see a drop. now we have google and microsoft reporting, softer earnings after hours, disappointing investors. this is where we finished on the

tuesday. nasdaq 100 down 3.9%, biggest drop since february 3. the index at the lowest level since may of last year. that is as bond yields subsided and the benchmark u.s. 10 year down 10 basis points. 2.72%. that did not help tech stocks at all. twitter, another big story, surrendering some of the gains around elon musk's successful bid to take the company private. romaine: we are going to talk more about twitter later this hour. first i want to talk more about microsoft and alphabet results. let's bring in newman. you follow both. let's talk about alphabet. one person telling me on the phone that yes, the biggest impact in terms of revenue and contribution to this ms. was the suspension of the vast majority of commercial activity in russia. she said there was a bit of back on ad spend in europe.

we also saw a pullback at snap when it came to advertisers and the invasion of ukraine. what is your take on this? >> i think the advertising market is starting to bring some questions. is it going to get softer? you have these macro forces and geopolitical forces in russia, ukraine and europe. in europe, we have a lot of macroeconomic conditions looking like we may see a recession. we are definitely seeing a pullback and tech as a whole is going negative. if alphabet missed, i can only imagine what meta and twitter might be in for this week. it is concerning. having said that, i thought alphabet's numbers were pretty good. they were close. the growth was good. 23% topline growth. that is performing very well and that stock buyback is an indicator they believe their value is still there and they are going to spend money to repurchase shares of people keep selling. haslinda: i want to talk --

emily: i want to talk about the advertising business first. on the call, one person was asked whether netflix and the pullback there is a concern. she brought up youtube and how well youtube's ad business is doing. we know netflix is not an ad supported business. she said we continue to be pleased with the innovation at youtube. it is an ad-supported business. time spent there continues to grow. youtube music and premium were up substantially. we are continuing to innovate across the board. i tried to get her thoughts on elon musk buying twitter and twitter potentially getting out of the ad business but are you seeing a broader reshuffling in the ad business given what's happening at twitter? the macroeconomic environment, the apple advertising changes is proportionally impacting meta and snap? daniel: i think alphabet is going to be in pre-good shape and will be able to sustain growth. the changes and modifications to youtube have been largely

well-received by the marketplace. i think tiktok has been its biggest challenge and had to do with the near miss versus what analysts expected. overall, i think the youtube business has been growing. there is a lot of positive tailwinds for that particular business, and i think the market is largely appreciating what google and youtube are doing. so, i still positive on the am company. the numbers weren't that bad, it's just that the sentiment is just really low right now. emily: google is still trying to close this acquisition of man the end, $5.4 billion -- mandy iant, $5.4 billion. we know that doj has asked google and mandy and for more information. i asked about the likelihood of the deal closing and she talked about how she believes this will increase competition and help google cloud compete more effectively. let's talk about the cloud and microsoft. how is google cloud doing with respect to microsoft? i know it is still in third place.

daniel: yeah, google has been competing, and we've seen oracle with the uptick. they still came in over 40%. the concern is that it still not profitable. they did narrow losses in the most recent quarter. i still feel the company is willing to make those capex investments and they understand their ambitions are not to be in third place. their ambitions are to compete and to be on par or above the competition with azure and aws, so they are going to have to spend big. the market has to realize it's going to take some time to get there. some of the key partnerships, investments, market cap are all indicators, and 40% growth. azure is still growing at 40%, so that spending is not necessarily accelerating their achievement of parity with azure, and we will see what that

does later this week. emily: which brings us to microsoft earnings and it is a beat. i wonder if you think they are better insulated from macroeconomic headwinds and uncertainty that we are seeing right now with other big tech companies? daniel: i like the enterprise play. i feel it is more deflationary. companies are going to spend on data analytics and software that are going to create more scale and lower costs. you have high cost in regard to finding employees and cost going growing through inflation, and if you can add those elements, microsoft is really well-positioned there and we saw ibm do well this quarter. some of these companies with more consumer-oriented businesses are going to have to deal with some of the discretionary spending going down as the economic climate gets tighter. so, i do think microsoft is more insulated, more diversified. it has gotten large enterprise business, commercial business, and i think it puts them in a good position to not be hurt quite as much by all the things

going on outside the company's control. emily: dan newman, we will continue to follow the calls. alphabet, microsoft call, as they progress. thank you as always for joining us. coming up, what exactly does elon musk mean by free speech? he tries to clarify on twitter his intentions for twitter, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: as the deal is being sealed for elon musk to buy twitter, he tweeted that he hopes even his worst critics remain on the surface, because that is what free speech means. but what changes will he make? does he even know yet? i'm joined by that coast of the all in podcast, tim o'brien. looking forward to a spirited conversation. david, i want to start with you with this question. what does free-speech mean to you? >> what it means to me as we don't have arbitrary censorship rules on the platform that twitter will act as an open town square. it will be an honest referee of the debate but will not try to choose winners and losers in the debate. what we've seen over the past few years is a growing movement

toward censorship, where it started with individuals who are unpopular provocateurs like alex jones. they were deplatformed. then you had a sitting president of the united states being deplatform. -- deplatformed. then during covid, we saw entire categories of thought being deplatformed. you could not criticize where the virus came from or mask mandates and now we are seeing that same sort of idea of banning entire categories of thought thing applied to more and more platforms. for example, dissenting opinion on climate change. so basically, censorship has gone way too far and elon wants to roll it back. that tweet you showed on the screen really indicates pretty well where i think he wants to take it. he does not want to go far beyond what the law allows. so he is not saying anything goes. the first amendment does not protect many kinds of speech and , but he does not want to go far beyond that in terms of restricting speech and i think that's a healthy question that

is long overdue. emily: we are getting headlines from twitter hk. getting more terms of the deal. i will read these out as we get them. the first headline -- twitter required to pay a parent termination fee of $1 billion if the deal does not go through. that's the same as a reverse termination fee. i will throw it back to you. what is your definition of free speech, and do you think elon musk can and will protect free speech? tim: i think free-speech is being used as a proxy for unfettered speech and i'm not a fan of unfettered speech. i don't think propaganda should be allowed to run rampant and misinformation be allowed to run rampant on social media platform s, and it has. i don't think calling someone like alex jones a provocateur really captures the totality of how he has used media platforms. i don't think -- there are

already a lot of categories of speech that are not permitted on twitter. would david be comfortable with pornography being on twitter or snuff films or russian propaganda or chinese propaganda? i think the idea of conflating the notion of free speech with political arguments about, right left-right censorship is a straw man used to describe a problem that actually doesn't exist to the same extent misinformation does, and i don't think elon musk has much of an interest at all in solving the misinformation problem on twitter and putting things in place that would allow for responsible vetting, not censoring the left or the right, but actually monitoring the platform so it is a better form for factual exchanges. emily: david, you tweeted the

berlin wall of censorship fell, and you are worried, but are you ok with some of the examples tim outlined? david: no. i am not. i'm not ok with bots being on the platform. the platform was rife with bots and i think elon has promised he's going to crack down on bots. he has expertise at his disposal, the premier artificial intelligence engineers he can deploy to crack down on that. emily: that isn't anonymous speech free-speech? david: not if it is fake speech. hold on a second. let me finish. let me finish. first of all, the biggest mischaracterization about free speech in general is that it means anything goes. it doesn't. the supreme court has defined nine major categories of speech not protected by the first amendment because they are observed to be harmful speech. for example, the first amendment is not a defense of fraud. if you want to defraud some

person, you cannot say your speech is protected by the first amendment. when you violate the authenticity requirement, you are perpetrating a kind of fraud. it is perfectly fair game under any kind of free-speech policy to take down those kinds of bots and i fully expect elon will be far more effective at doing that than the current management of twitter. they have been unable to do that. tim: david, tell me what is the mechanism for achieving that? what is the mechanism for making sure that categories of expression that you think are problematic don't surface on twitter? david: it's not about what i think is problematic. there are tried-and-true categories? ---- tim: what's the methodology for going after any category of expression on the platform that may be problematic? david: i am trying to explain it. basically, we have 230 years of supreme court case law in which the supreme court has wrestled with these issues over the decades, not like some content

moderation employees at twitter who are just figuring this out right now. the supreme court has been wrestling with this for hundreds of years and they have defined nine categories of speech that are not permitted. for example, fighting words. any type of ethnic or racial slur -- [crosstalk] you could define -- you could define -- [crosstalk] i understand -- tim: we are talking about a private platform. >> exactly. >> so you will take categories of speech to the government monitors and graph those on to a private model? david: i would take categories of speech the supreme court has said are not protected because in their opinion those categories of speech can be dangerous, and i within apply similar rules to content moderation. i think that is what elon is hinting at when he says he will not go far beyond what the lauper habits. look, the supreme court already prohibits fighting words were or does not protect them.

if you are worried about twitter being a cesspool of ethnic or racial slurs, those can clearly be prohibited under the decision. if you are worried about harassment or stalking, that can clearly be prohibited. fraud can be prohibited. if you are worried about incitement to commit a crime, that can be prohibited. why? because the first amendment does not protect those categories of speech. this whole argument -- tim: what about chinese or russian propaganda? emily: and let's talk about, before you answer, david, jeff bezos tweeted suppose the chinese government gains leverage over the global town square given the strong relationship between tesla and china. what do you think of that? david: twitter has already been allowing the wolf warrior of beijing and the ayatollah to post on twitter. they don't seem to have a problem with various governments around the world posting what they think. the problem is when those governments pretend to be someone else. so if the fsb has created a

bunch of phony accounts, that is a form of fraud. you have to prohibit that. tim: that's not the only problem that exists with government-sponsored disinformation and propaganda. is doing it through bots. let's get back to the idea -- [crosstalk] are you comfortable with chinese or russian propaganda flourishing on social media platforms? david: twitter already allows it. >> i am asking if you are comfortable with that. >> well, look, if a foreign government wants to have a twitter account, let him have an account. [crosstalk] hold on the second. hold on the second. can i finish? >> it is relevant what the account does.

david: look, let me finish my point. it matters a lot who people purport to be on these platforms. ok? if the russian government wants to post a tweet or the chinese government or the ayatollah, if they want to publish a tweet, i probably don't agree with that, it's probably part of their government propaganda, sure. but as long as it is correctly labeled, i don't think anyone's going to be fooled by it. that is really the point. the problem is, where you actually have a problem is where you have a disinformation operation conducted by a foreign government where they are posting things under accounts from people who appear to be in iowa and they are signal boosting with a bunch of bots. elon will do a better job wiping that out. he will get rid of those bots better than the current management. tim: it's not just a button signal-boos. david: i'm sorry there are people in the world who post things disagree with. emily: hang on, guys.

let's talk, let's talk, let's talk about donald trump before we reach the end of the segment. you wrote the book on trump. he has said he's not going to come back to the platform even if he is allowed, but how significant would it be if elon musk and his management team decide to un-ban the president? tim: i think we have to say what are we doing when anyone is banned and anyone who is banned is brought back in? what are the standards around that? and i think that has to be clarified. i don't think facebook, youtube or twitter has done a very good job of that. i think historically, newspapers have tried to address that problem and have found mechanisms for doing that in a real-time basis around categories of expression that involve lying and propaganda and manipulation. it's never going to be perfect but something has to be in place. it's ridiculous to think this is a left versus right argument. this is an argument about preserving high-quality

information in the service of media platforms doing a better job of informing the public. it is no more complex than that. emily: david, do you think president trump should be un-banned even if he is spreading misinformation? david: ok, here is the basic problem. there's no such thing as a truth api. i know you would like to say that tweet in my opinion is false and therefore we should ban it. the problem is when you do that, you empower a special class of people, these mandarins and the those in the content moderation departments of these companies to decide what are the boundaries of free-speech for all of us. they should not be in a position to do that. if someone is willing to sign their name to a tweet and they are who they portray themselves to be and it's not a category of speech the supreme court has not ruled to be harmful, they should be allowed to say it. the supreme court -- the supreme court, ok. emily: guys, i want does >> the supreme court provides --

emily: i want to continue this conversation but we are running into a hard break. i'm going to let you guys continue this debate offline. david sacks, always good to have you. tim o'brien of bloomberg opinion. so much to continue to talk about. coming up, which startup is being sued for failure to deliver and overstating customer numbers? that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: a start up being sued by authentic brand group which owns forever 21, saying they failed to not allay deliver promised technology but during its integration, the company lost out on more than 150 million dollars in online sales. they say they consistently overstated the nature of an integration with the brands.

both responding, saying the claims are without merit. coming out, talking all things elon musk and twitter and how jack dorsey fits into this dramatic takeover. that's next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: welcome back to bloomberg technology. i'm emily chang in san francisco. we are getting new details on elon musk's agreement to buy twitter. ed ludlow has been pouring through the numbers. what does it say? ed: the stand is there is a termination fee in place for both parties. if elon musk walks away from this deal, he has to pay twitter $1 billion. if twitter walks away from the deal, they have to pay elon musk and the incorporated company he set up for the deal $1 billion. the other thing is the structure

of the deal, twitter becomes a subsidiary of x holdings inc., one of the businesses elon musk set up to do this deal. what it doesn't say is more interesting. it talks about the $21 billion in financing elon musk has to come up with, alongside the debt financing which we have plenty of details on. look at my board. tesla is down 12% during tuesday's session, the biggest drop since september, 2020. lots of theories out there. when risk is one risk is is elon musk distracted? how is he going to fund that? will he sell down some tesla shares or some of the assets he owned to finance it? let's look at his net wealth. he's the world's richest man, but only on paper. he's only got $3 billion in cash equivalent. most of his wealth is here, tesla stock and options that he does not have liquid access to. that is one theory.

either he will sell down tesla shares or borrow against them. but a lot of questions remain, could he bring in partners? according to sources, he was vetting potential partners as recently as this weekend. either way, you bring up the relationship between twitter and tesla shares over the last few weeks as this has played out. twitter rising optimistically toward the $54.20 a share offer price with tesla holding and dropping off with that concern. emily: let's dig into this further with roger mac me. robert mcnamee knows a thing or two about social media. i know you were listening to our conversation earlier with tim o'brien and david sacks. you don't think this is about free speech at all. why? >> i think the free-speech conversation is off target. fundamentally, when you

introduce algorithms and the amplification of content for attention, as twitter does, what happens is the algorithms are going to seek out the content that produces the biggest reaction, which is going to be the most extreme content. not just political content, but all extreme content. it's going to get that disproportionate weight. the real conversation we need to be having is in my opinion, everybody should be allowed on a platform like twitter, but no one should have the benefit of being able to have themselves amplified disproportionately to crowd out other voices. that is incredibly dangerous. emily: let's use the example of donald trump. should donald trump be kept on twitter even if he is spreading lies and misinformation? roger: to be clear, i think twitter has a responsibility, all these internet platforms have a responsibility to democracy, something they've done a truly horrific job at. and as twitter is currently structured, is not just trump, it's all kinds of extreme voices across the entire spectrum

are drowning out the thoughtful and factual things that might also be there. and, at the end of the day, by framing it in political terms, i think we really do a disservice to this conversation. emily: ok, but it is a concrete example, it is a concrete example that i think helps to understand a broader point. and so -- roger: i would not allow him back on. i would not allow on many of the incredibly powerful people that are there. the problem with twitter -- there are two core problems and they both represent opportunities for elon musk. the first is even though it started with one of the best ideas ever in the history of the internet, twitter has never successfully monetized itself. the company, i believe, still has a huge net loss acumen to since it was started and given

its influence with politicians, celebrities and journalists, twitter should have been able to find a path. it's so influential. the second part of the problem here is that they have a set of terms of service designed to announcer: from the heart of where innovation, money, and power collide, in silicon valley and beyond, this is "bloomberg technology" with emily chang. protect people on the platform and they have done a horrible job of moderation and enforcing the terms. i give them credit for trying, particulate in 2020 to do a better job of that. but i think they have not done a good job. covid this information is a great example of something that ran rampant. but there is also enormous amount of abuse of groups that are shall we say out of power. right? so particularly people of color, women, and others who use twitter in order to have a voice. it's one of the great things twitter does is it gives those who are out of power a voice. the problem is the algorithms also allowed those who would suppress those voices to do that suppression very effectively.

emily: there's a lot we don't know about elon musk's intentions for twitter. he may not know exactly what he wants to change. i would love to hear your prediction. how does twitter look different under elon musk in let's say two years? roger: i don't honestly know because here's what's really weird about this deal -- musk came to twitter's board a little more than a week ago with a proposal to buy the company. yet he had no financing, no plan , and he had not filed the proper paperwork with the securities and exchange commission. so the board reacted as one would expect -- it engaged a poison pill and said slowdown. and then a few days later, all of that gets reversed and the deal is suddenly accepted and there's financing now, but as far as i know, no plan has been shared with shareholders. and the filings issues with the

sec has not been resolved to my knowledge. so you have a situation where a serial violator of securities laws is being allowed to do one of the largest co-private -- go-private transactions in history without any scrutiny, which is disappointing but not surprising in this environment and i think of this as shareholders -- the problem of going private transactions is the people doing the buying know what they are going to do and they have a plan to create value. people doing the selling are not party to that and there is something fundamentally unfair. you know, i do believe there's a lot of opportunity at twitter to create value and i believe the public shareholders would go along with it if somebody told them what the plan was and did so in a convincing way, the same way jeff bezos has done and in the way reed hastings did repeatedly at netflix. emily: this could never have

happened at facebook this way given the dual class share structure and the power mark zuckerberg still wields there. i wonder if you think that is a good or bad thing given how much you have critiqued facebook. roger: to be clear, i think dual class equity is a terrible idea and should not be permitted. you know, i just think is totally contrary to shareholder interest. and in the case of twitter, i believe the company was very badly managed. this board allowed the company to operate with a ceo with a full-time job at another company. it's now accepting a transaction from somebody who i think is the ceo of four other companies? you know, i just look at this as a massive policy failure at every level and again, this is nothing to deprecate elon musk. he may have a great plan. in fact, i hope he makes twitter a lot better. but at the same time, the things he talks about most are the areas in which twitter is most flawed and the proposal he has

offered for fixing those things are not obviously fixes in a world where twitter monetizes through advertising using algorithms to amplify the most extreme speech. emily: interesting you mention jack dorsey in his role. he tweeted thanking elon for taking twitter out of an impossible situation, which is certainly interesting commentary given that he was the one in charge for so many years. roger mcnamee, elevation partners, always great to have you, roger. we could continue this conversation for hours. we will have to leave it here. coming up, how silver gate bank is betting on digital finance. we will talk about microstrategy and facebook, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: time now for our crypto report. microstrategy recently turned to a bank to borrow against its own bitcoin to buy more bitcoin and the bank it turned to was silver gate. sonali: i want to bring in the silver gate ceo because he's been facilitating this and a lot more in the cryptocurrency space when it comes to loans. thank you so much for joining us. why are you comfortable lending against bitcoin to this degree and how have regulators become comfortable with that? >> yeah, i appreciate the question and the opportunity to talk about silver gate and what

we do here. we have been banking bitcoin and broader cryptocurrency system since early 2014. we've been doing this for several years. when we first started, it was bitcoin only. it was before the ethereum and other tokens. as you are aware, bitcoin is a digital bearer asset and it trades 24 hours a day seven days a week around the world. and so, that really gets to the heart of your question, which is when we are lending against bitcoin, we take the private keys collateral for the loan, we have the ability if the borrower does not pay us back or if we need to satisfy a margin deficiency, we can look at bitcoin and sell it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. >> bitcoin is so volatile. how does that work when one day it's $46,000 in the next day it's $38,000 in such a short

amount of time, within weeks? does that create complications in terms of taking it as collateral? alan: it certainly could and that gets to some of the design features of our leverage products. the silver gate exchange network is the 24/7 access to fiat banking rails we provide to the digital currency industry and we bank companies such as coinbase, square, gemini and etc. and we enable them to move u.s. 24 hours a day, seven days a dollars week and that gets to the heart of our ability to sell bitcoin quickly if we need to. now so far, we've been doing this lending for a little over two years and have not had to liquidate anybody's bitcoin

because of the fact we start in the very over collateralized - position, so someone had to pledge more bitcoin to us than we were willing to lend to them. so we build in some christian upfront. emily: let's switch gears and talk about it. you bought the assets when the project started when facebook looked to sell. what does this mean when you are pushing stable coin and does it announcer: from the heart of where innovation, money, and power collide, in silicon valley and beyond, this is "bloomberg technology" with emily chang. are pushing into stable coin and does it mean you will be a much bigger player moving forward with more regulators? alan: as to how big we will be, that is to be determined. our goal is not to be a specific side but help our customers solve the problems they are trying to solve in this ecosystem. stable coin, as you know, is tokenized dollars. different from bitcoin, which we were just discussing, which can be very volatile, because its price is set by market factors.

it's really just supply and demand. whereas with a stable coin, we are trying to keep the value of that token at a stable price. and in the case of a dollar-backed stable coin, one dollar would equal one silver gate issued stable coin token. now we currently bank all the existing regulated stable coin issuers in the united states. that would be circle and the gemini dollar, the patch dollar, true usd. they all use our platform and our ati's to facilitate minting and burning of their stable coins. and what we're trying to do is -- those stable coins, by the way, are primarily used for cryptocurrency trading. what we are trying to do is bring a stable coin into the market that would primarily be used for commerce and

cross-border remittance. and the dm protocol was purpose built for payments and that is why it was attractive for us and we are excited to own that technology and bring stable coin to the market, hopefully by the end of this year. >> right. alan, we will have to have you back as regulars put more guardrails on this industry. that is the ceo of silver gate bank. emily? emily: thanks. coming up, it's not the ring that rules them all, but it can track your heart rate and even your body temperature. we will see how it will fare in the crowded field of wearables in an exclusive interview with ora, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: ora, the finish wearable start up is getting a new leader.

the former of another entity who was in charge with growing their wearables business, including the fitness ring that tracks sleep and body temperature. let's talk about it with the managing partner. tom, i want to start with you. how will it stand out against a crowded field of wearables amongst giants like apple? tom: it is a smart ring that delivers you personalize health guidance, insights, and fosters healthy habits. we started with sleep because it's the foundation of health. 99% of us will sleep every night and 10% to 15% will exercise regularly or say we will. and sleep is the universal solvent. it helps you feel better, perform better, improves your mood, appetite, improves your complexion and reduces inflammation. it's a nightly habit and most of us don't do it well. the ring is differentiated because of the location on the

body and gives you a more accurate signal. most consumer friction around wearable technology is about accuracy, relevancy, and especially battery life and wearability. it addresses this head on and is a powerful computer on your finger, 100 times stronger than one on your wrist. emily: the former ceo steps down. why do you think tom is the person for the job? >> we are grateful for the contributions he made to the company and this is indicative of where the company is in scale and stage of growth and tom is the leader we need right now. we've been looking for a nuanced combination of technical and product expertise with an authentic cultural fit with our international team. an aspirational mission. it was a tall order and tom immediately rose to the top. he brings decades of technology

leadership across complex companies. he has knowledge of the subscription business model and driving international expansion. he has situational experiences scaling teams, all of which is critical in its next stage of growth. emily: you have some interesting sports partnerships. i know chris paul, partnerships with the nba, wnba. how do you think these kinds of relationships can help drive growth? >> everybody aspires to be a superhuman, but not everybody can be chris paul. exercises only one portion. sleep is the other part. when we start to hear about the troubles some of our ambassadors are facing learning to sleep better, it is inspiring to everybody. we all want to be like lindsey lindsay vaughn, but we can relate to her.

that's one of the powers of it, it's available to everyone. the fall of this year was pretty stressful and my sleep was really hammered. i ordered a ring over the holidays to improve my sleep and it improved my health in a matter of weeks. when i saw that power and behavior, it made it clear this was an opportunity i had to jump at. emily: oura is now valued at $2.55 million. is an ipo coming soon? >> we are just getting started. we are eager to build out our membership to individual consumers and enterprise partners. when we originally invested in 2019, we believed in the big vision of changing population level health. that with each ring, each night of sleep, all of this would guide insight that can save people's lives. we are beginning to deliver on those aspirations and as we scale, we will consider the best financing path, including going public and being available for

all to take part in our success. but for now, we have our heads down and will deliver the best experience for our members. emily: how are you thinking about the macroeconomic environment? obviously markets are in turmoil and we are starting to see it bleed into the private markets. inflation is big concern for all consumers. tom: interestingly enough, stress and anxiety is really good for our business. emily: interesting. >> we might see some benefits from that. but the macro market is when we what we have to pay attention to and we are here for the long to build value for our customers. emily: women hold just 6.7% of board chairs globally. the fact you are in that seat means a lot. what more can we do to move the needle? eurie: it's a stat i recently learned myself. i didn't know it was a rarity to

be a chairperson of a board. i've been honored to serve on the board since 2019 and i took over because the team asked me to. they felt like i had a collaborative leadership and communication style that could work around the table and strong communication and listening skills are two of the most helpful skills to have leading a board. i know companies are working hard to add women to their boards. i think it is about 20% of women holding board seats globally, which is good, but not great. i think further elevating women to board chair positions not only adds diverse voices to the decision-making but fundamental changes to the way boards are run. emily: amen to that. the chair of the oura and ceo. thank you both. we will keep watching. that does it for this edition of bloomberg technology. a big day tomorrow again -- earnings from meta, paypal and pinterest.

we will also be joined by 23 and me. i'm emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> the following is a paid program. the opinions and views expressed do not reflect those of bloomberg lp, its affiliates, or its employees. announcer: the following is a paid presentation furnished by rare collectibles tv, llc. >> the $10 indian head gold eagle containing nearly half of an ounce of pure gold, is one of only two coins that the legendary sculptor augustus saint-gaudens was responsible for designing. the inception of this stunning coin began with president theodore roosevelt's famous letter to secretary of treasury shaw on december 27, 1904. thte