>> from the heart of where innovation, money and power collide, in silicon valley and beyond, this is bloomberg technology with emily chang. emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco and this is bloomberg technology. coming up in the next hour, a big poster earnings pop for meda in sharp contest to its plunge -- contrast to its plunge last quarter. we discuss how facebook is

holding onto its users. plus we talk to jason, part of the early founding team and twitter. what does he think about elon musk swooping in and his version of free speech? and we will talk to a co-founder and ceo of 23 and me about telehealth and her vision for building a health care company unlike anything we have seen before. we will get to all of that in a moment, but first let's get a look at the moments. big tech earnings continue. meta-and qualcomm out. emily joins us to break it down. emily: dip buyers in the market today. the tech heavy nasdaq ventured into negative territory in the final minutes of trading, but it did jump as much as on .8% at one point today. that was after a big loss yesterday. almost 4% yesterday. really seeing a rebound. yields were higher, but it did

not seem to scare off equity investors for buying stocks. it is a big day for big tech earnings. we will talk about facebook's meta in just a second. i want to look at qualcomm too. the stock is popping after the earnings. they reported a strong sales forecast, saying revenue will be between $10.5 billion and $11.3 billion, that beat all analyst estimates. let's look at meta-platforms. up 16%. it's all about the projected users that they had in the first quarter. this is a sea change after last quarter's earnings where the stock plunged after earnings. now we are seeing concerns backing off, that may be they are not losing users to social media competitors like tiktok has much as we got. -- as much as we thought. i want to look at the year to date gains and losses for meta and a lot of other megacap tech

stocks. meta platforms and netflix, two of the worst performing stocks in the s&p 500 year to date. you can see the diversions between those -- divergence between those two names and microsoft and apple. these used to be grouped together, but now your to date micro soft and apple -- year to date, microsoft and apple still in the red, but outperforming meta and net flicks. -- and netflix. emily: i want to bring in a cfra. this after facebook daily users declining for the first time in a decade last quarter. number -- that number growing this quarter. is this a blip or a long-term thing? >> meta, it seems like three months ago setting the bar

extremely low here. they were able to come through with flying colors in many respects. despite the fact that you have the russia-ukraine war ongoing, this is a company that grew 6% on the daily active user side year-over-year. overall pretty good numbers i would say on that front. growing across every region outside of europe. i don't necessarily think this is a blip. i think this is a company that will continue to see growth on the use side. it will become modest in nature. whether we continue to see 6%, who knows. maybe it will be closer to low single-digit growth. nonetheless i think it alleviates the big fear that we could have seen potentially negative numbers in the coming quarters. emily: mark zuckerberg in the earnings release saying we made progress this quarter across a number of key come any priorities and remain confident

in the long-term -- company priorities and remain confident in the long-term opportunities. they reduced their expenses forecast. a lot of investors were skeptical about the amount of money meta and facebook were pouring into their virtual reality dream. how big a deal is this? angelo: the capx number is unchanged, but the fx number cut big here. that is a positive sign. one of our biggest fears was the fact that they were spending way too much on that initiative and would squeeze the margins for the foreseeable future because of the slowing growth on the ad side of things. ultimately i think it's a good thing that they are tempering some of those expense growth numbers. nonetheless it will continue to weigh. they are spending significantly. they will need to continue to spend significantly. they do have a problem in the

sense that they are catering, in our view, to the wrong ecosystem. they have to get younger quick. that is the point of the whole metaverse. as a result, you need to spend aggressively on that side. they have an opportunity here. companies like apple and sony are pushing their initiatives in the metaverse into 2023. i would not necessarily -- [indiscernible] nonetheless they are spending aggressively. emily: i wonder why investors are focusing so much on the good news and not the bad. revenue did miss estimates. their guidance on revenue is a little light, this in the contest of -- context of not great ad numbers from snap, from youtube. what will we be seeing over the longer-term? angelo: this is a company that was trading less than 13 times out of 2023 estimates.

the bar was extremely low. we are talking about a depressed valuation, essentially trading at a valuation where many have left the company for dead. the reason you have seen this change in sentiment after hours is because it looks like, at least for the time being, that type of scenario has been left off the table despite the fact that the revenue guidance from q2 specifically is below what was expected. i think there was a lot more hate going on into this quarter. emily: that is a strong word for a company with 3 billion users, even if ad growth misses estimates. angelo zino of cfra, thank you so much. qualcomm also surging in late trading after giving a strong sales forecast revenue, predicted to be $10.5 billion to $11.3 billion in q3. investors pleased with the

chipmaker's expansion into new markets under the new ceo. he will be joining me right here on "bloomberg technology", that's thursday 5:30 p.m. eastern on bloomberg television. coming, we are going to talk to one of the founding members of twitter. what he thinks of elon musk's deal and what it means for twitter employees. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: as we dig deeper into elon musk's $44 billion twitter takeover, we are learning more about what musk can and can't do. he can't do anything that disparages the company or any of

its representatives. but he seems to have already violated it. there is a $1 billion breakup fee if the deal does not go through. we are joined by bloomberg's max chafkin. musk tweeted disparaging remarks about twitter's chief legal counsel in a response to an article about her crying over the deal. how likely is it that this behavior will get musk into regulatory trouble? max: i think it is pretty unlikely. that will come down to your definition of disparaging. first of all, whether twitter will argue that it is disparaging. musk can say i'm commenting on this public debate and there are a bunch of trolls coming in after this twitter exec and harassing in uncomfortable ways, but musk did not do that. that would be his argument. i have a feeling that is going

to hold, if not water in the public arena, it will hold regulatory and legal water. i don't think there is going to be any consequences in terms of the legal risk. i do think this does raise questions about what kind of company is elon musk going to run? when you are going after your own executives, these people are going to work for you, they will be responsible to you, it just doesn't seem like the smartest thing to do. emily: there are people that are not excited --

with this agreement, try to create carveouts we would not immediately violate the agreement. they said elon can tweet about the deal. we won't, but he can. he will be himself and find ways to push the boundaries. emily: we will be following it all tweet by tweet. i want to continue this conversation with a man who knows a lot about twitter and its history. he was a board member from 2007 to 2010, jason goldman joining me now in an exclusive interview. jason, good to have you here. this arouses a lot of emotion. now that you have a couple days to digest this, how are you feeling about elon musk buying twitter? jason: it's just a disappointment because i think the company could use great stewardship at this point. what he is revealing is how an

unserious person he is about both his ideas for the product and philosophy that underpins it. emily: some would say it is a disappointment that twitter has not racked up more users, grown faster, become more influential. how do you respond to that? jason: 100%. the business performance of the company has always dragged behind the cultural importance of the company. we have always known it has a much bigger footprint with journalists and media, celebrities, musicians. i think that is what made it an attractive opportunity for elon. emily: what do you think is missing from the conversation? we have seen pundits talking about this now for three weeks. we have heard from elon himself. a lot of debate. what do you think is missing given your vantage point and history with this company going back 15 years? jason: the biggest problem is the free speech framing that he continues to use to talk about

what he wants to do with the product. it just reveals a very naive, unserious approach to the content moderation issues he will face. i say it is unserious because his own standard of "we should just allow anything that is not disallowed by law" is self-defeating. he talked about wanting to remove anonymous content. he talked about wanting to remove bots. both of those things are examples of content that are not -- there is no first amendment carve out for anonymity. you can definitely express yourself anonymously. it just shows that he has not put the dots together on what needs to happen in this space. emily: we have a very lively debate here on the show yesterday. i want you to take a quick listen to that exchange. >> the platform is absolutely rife with bots. elon already promised he will crackdown on bots.

he has expertise at his disposal, engineers who he can deploy to solve the problems. emily: but isn't anonymous speech free speech too? >> not if it is fake speech. hold on, let me finish. when you put bots on twitter and pretend to be someone you are not, when you violate the authenticity requirement, you are perpetrating a kind of fraud. that is not free speech. that is fair game under any kind of free-speech policy to take down those kinds of bots. i fully expect elon will be far more effective at doing that than the current management of twitter. emily: what is your reaction to that? jason: that is a standard that is in no way supported by free-speech legislation. that is in no way supported by a constitutional standard. it is just a notion he is exposing that anonymous speech somehow doesn't get free-speech protections. there is no case law that establishes that is true, he is just purporting that to be true. moreover, if that is the

standard, what else are we going to remove? for example, are we going to allow back on the platform people who harass parents of children who are murdered at sandy hook? even if they use their real name? this is not a serious standard being articulated. he and david have not through all the implications that would come through adopting it. emily: by free-speech elon says that which matches the law, i am against censorship which goes beyond the law. what are your biggest fears about elon musk taking over twitter? jason: the type of content that twitter has cleaned up in the last six, seven years include things that were in response to real-world occurrences. you go back to 2015 and look at the rife of content used by ultra extremists, including isis, to recruit people off of twitter. there were beheading videos and content in general meant to appeal to an audience.

those acts may be illegal, but the content about it is not a legal. there is no first amendment rule that says you cannot use speech in that way. there is no case law that would support elon's contention that that content has to be removed because of legal reasons. i don't think that standard holds water when you look at the type of things he is going to want to still not be on the platform. emily: jack dorsey, and i know you worked closely with jack, he thanked elon for getting twitter out of "an impossible situation," to which he responded with a meme of a guy in a hot dog suit saying "it was an impossible situation, says the controller." jason: he's had the most direct role in shaping the course of

the company for the past 12 years. when he wrote his resignation letter in november last year, he said i worked hard to ensure the company can break away from its founding and founders. to now be only less than five months from that and say solving from the problem of it being the company, elon is the simpler solution i trust, what happened in the last five months? i thought it was able to break away from the founding and its founders. now elon musk, someone who has never been involved except being a troll on the platform is the singular solution to the trajectory of the company? that seems curious. emily: do you blame jack for anything here? is there something you think he should be answering to? jason: the biggest thing greatly today is that elon is using the platform to troll the employees of the company that jack led for the past 12 years.

that is other people in the trust and safety organization. you can good take decisions, content moderation decisions made by the company, but you absolutely should not allow the prospective owner of the company to troll your employees for the decisions that they made. that is what is going on here. elon is not interested in debating this question of what content should be allowed or not, he is similar turning his army of fans on these employees and allowing them to be targets of racist abuse and threats. that is not the lincoln-douglas debates, that is not the market place of ideas, that is using the product as an active troll. jack and the board should have the backs of their employees in that case. that is a concrete example of something happening right now. emily: twitter was often overshadowed by this game of thrones drama, i think even you would agree with that.

there has been speculation that jack perhaps had something to do with this, even before elon musk started buying shares. jason: the problem with most conspiracies is that they are too clever for anyone to keep secret. in the case of jack or anyone else on the board working with elon to originate this deal, that would trip a number of legal redlines that would increase the chances that it would leak. i think it is possible/likely, and i take jack at his word when he says this elon solution looks like the only solution available, that he was supportive of elon owning the company, probably because he felt like he was no longer going to be involved, so this was another way out. that is in direct distinction and in contradiction to what he said five months ago when he said the company was in great hands and had no concerns about stepping away.

emily: what have you heard from current twitter employees? jason: i don't want to speak for current employees. i will savor former employees, and those of us -- say for former employees, and those of us who were there in the early times, it is depressing. it is sad to see this thing that was built be looked after by someone who has not thought through the issues, who has not taken care to do the research on what product they need to build. in addition to the free-speech question, he is not articulating a coherent product vision of what he wants to do with the product or why he was interested in buying it. it is a disappointing and point to this part of the twitter journey. -- end point to this part of the twitter journey. emily: we will see if that comes with time. jason goldman, thank you for bringing your voice this conversation. appreciate it. coming, robinhood -- coming up,

robinhood cutting costs. why the brokerage firm is struggling less than a year after its ipo. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: robinhood is in need of its own robinhood style rescue. the online brokerage has racked up more than $2 billion of losses and it is now dismissing 9% of its workforce, 3800 people work there now. robinhood said after a period of hypergrowth, it ended up hiring too many people, leading to duplicate roles and "more layers and complexity than optimal." spacex has launched four astronauts to the international space station. this is the first nasa crew makeup of equal number of men and women, including the first

black woman to work and live in space for a long-term mission. they will arrive at the space station 16 hours after launch. coming up, we are joined by the cofounder and ceo of 23 and me and their big bet on telehealth. plus the latest on meta's results, the stock spiking after plunging last time around. that is next. this is bloomberg. ♪

emily: welcome back to "bloomberg technology." the pandemic continues to change how we view certain businesses in the world of health care -- businesses and the world of health care definitely one of them. 23 and me trying to help customers better understand their reports. joining me is anne wojcicki, ceo and cofounder of 23 and me. you are taking your first steps toward giving 23 and me customers access to telehealth. help me understand what all of

this data you are giving back to them actually means. how does it work? anne: one of the most interesting things i learned over the last years is everyone sees a world where you will get your genetic information and it will be part of your primary care experience. the reality is most physicians are not trained, it is not accessible, it's not part of the medical system. we have over 12 million customers. we learned over time that our customers are getting this information and take it to their primary care physician and they largely don't know what to do with that information. there is this opportunity for 23 and me to solve that problem and actually become that consult to other primary care physicians or specialists by providing and delivering genomic medicine and how our customers and everyone else can learn about their dna and say i will take proactive

steps, whether that changes the guidelines like getting a colonoscopy or whether that will influence how they are wearing sunglasses, or how they are eating and exercising. emily: house like a vacant -- how significant will telehealth be to 23andme's future business? do you see this being a significant driver of the vision and revenue? anne: i think preventative care is some thing people do everyday. your health is the sum of your actions every day. people get any kind of health information and you have to spread it out throughout your life. you have to continuously implement it. what i find, and part of the 23andme plus product that we launched roughly over a year ago, was about additional content. we always said the next step was saying there are additional services part of that. is that going to be telemedicine, an ability to chat with a physician, access to a pharmacy, integration with your genetic data with pharmacy, or

is it going to be access to blood tests that are relevant because of your genetic information? i think this infrastructure is a really core part of the future experience where customers are going to have 23andme part of their entire lifetime of health care. emily: you have some eye-opening research about covid-19. you found that the loss of the taste of sense and smell was tied to genes, that if you had type o blood you were less likely to test positive. are we going to see 23andme make more covid related discoveries? anne: we are. it is something i have been pushing more and more. personally i hear all kinds of stories on long covid. a lot of references right now has been on -- of our emphasis right now has been on long covid. over 16,000 who took our survey have been hospitalized and had serious cases.

large numbers of people who had long covid. we will continue to look at that data and published on it. -- publish on it. understanding the genetics behind why we have such variable responses will be important for us in managing it going forward. emily: what is the progress on your direct discovery business and the likelihood that 23andme will help us get closer to a cure for cancer? anne: people don't always realize drug discovery is incredibly hard. most programs fail. there is almost 90% failure in drug discovery. one of the only things that has ever been shown to increase the likelihood of success is starting with a human genetic foundation. if you have a human genetic foundation to your drug discovery program, you are more than twice as likely to be successful in getting onto the market. what is in you as usual -- is unusual about 23andme is we have this incredible community, this data set, where we can make

discoveries on different disease areas. the therapeutic steam go through this data -- therapeutics team go through this data, whittle down where they will be successful, where there is an unmet need. we work in partnership with gsk in getting these programs out everybody. emily: is the hope that 23andme will be a big pharma company one day? anne: i love this. one of the biggest challenges is people have a hard time putting us in a box. we are not just telemedicine and not just diagnostics and pharma. we have this ballistics system where -- this holistic system where 23andme is engaging individuals on their health. those individuals have the ability to opt into research. with that we are making discoveries. those discoveries can either go back to our customers, the

ability to engage customers, they will benefit in that way. or some of those insights will go to our therapeutics side and we will continue to make discoveries that hopefully one day are going to go back to our customers and we have a new way of approaching how we get those therapeutics out to customers. emily: 23andme recently went public via spac. i'm curious what the transition from being a private to public company has been like for you. we have seen tech stocks in general and equities take a leg down in this macroenvironment. 23andme has as well. what is a reaction to that? what has been your experience dealing with public market investors? anne: i'm really happy we went through the process. we are public now. we have the ability to do more acquisitions, the ability to access markets. all of this was the right time and place for us to go public. what i've been focused on now is

the long-term mission of the company. the long-term vision of this company is every single person in the world will have genetics as part of their care. , every researcher every health care professional talks about it. it is inevitable and obvious. genetics will become a critical part of health care in the future. 23andme is that leaving platform that will make that happen. -- leading platform that will make that happen. i have not been focused on the day to day of the stock market. markets are dynamic right now, but i'm focused on that long-term future where every person will have genetics as a critical part of their care. emily: anne wojcicki, ceo of 23andme. thank you as always. anne: good to see you. emily: coming up, coinbase and crack in the where, there is a new -- kraken beware, there is a new peer-to-peer crypto exchange in town. we will tell you who, next.

♪

emily: it is time for our crypto report. a conference is underway in the bahamas. our crypto and remitter sonali basak here for more. sonali: defi here is supposed to be the big bank killer, the big wafer appeared to pure transactions to happen outside of the normal financial system. it was also the big trade that mike novick read said would be the big trade for this year. but it has been down quite a bit. if you look at the defi index we have between bloomberg galaxy,

it is down almost 72% on the year. it tracks bitcoin to some degree, although the moves are much more volatile. bitcoin is up 2%. you also have a rise in other defi assets. so it's time now to dive deeper into how defi is changing among the asset classes. emily: stay with us. we will move into a defi exchange infrastructure provider that just raised $70 million. here to join us, a greylock partner joining us from the crypto conference in the bahamas. what is the mood in the bahamas in the crypto community? >> it's great to be here. there is a lot of innovation happening. what has been interesting is seeing the confluence of crypto entrepreneurs, investors,

regulators, traditional finance. you see the industry maturing. emily: talk to us about 0x. how do you see this company challenging coinbase? sarah: defi is growing and innovation is happening on decentralized changes that are peer-to-peer. the volume grew much faster in these last -- faster on these decentralized changes than centralized extensions. 0x is that open, most trusted protocol for the exchange of tokenized value. it is a public good. sonali: we use today talking about regulation and finance because it was boring. at the same time now it is central to the emergence of this ecosystem. big exchanges are struggling with this. how do defi exchanges think

about the emerging regulation ahead? sarah: i can't speak to all of them, but my personal opinion is we are going to get to a point where these rails that support innovation and more liquid 24 hour a day exchange for lower cost for end users and more accessibility, they will be combined with appropriate consumer protections. what i would love to see is the u.s. federal government take a stance, as we have historically, a leadership stance around financial innovation, something that has made our economy a major player in the past with, for example, the rise of electronic trading. sarah: what about self- moderated? -- self-moderating? there are a lot of worries about

what could go wrong for consumers. we have seen that over the lot -- that a lot over the last years. for defi, how do you look for the right places to go? sarah: i think you are right. there are two sides of this coin, or three. you have regulation, then you have platforms, even decentralized products that are safer and abuse aware for consumers. there is a huge component of consumer education around this new realm of finance. emily: one man from ftx had a take on crypto, he said it is fomo. is that what is driving this competition for deals? sarah: i think we at graylock

believe -- we are trying to make first principle decisions independently about the most important technology platforms of the future. we operate in a competitive market and believe many of our competitors are smart people. we pay attention to what they are doing, but we would never invest simply because somebody else thought it would be something to do. emily: it seems like the metaverse is the next buzz word and could be the next driver of fomo. i'm curious, given greylock's early investments in facebook, how you are thinking about that, especially the crossover of the metaverse into the world of crypto, defi, and all of these big themes we are talking about here. sarah: we think about it from a slightly broader perspective. we made two investments recently in the fastest growing nft marketplace around this idea that digital assets on any chain will become much more important

and a part of people's lives. they will have digital environments. we made an announcement in a company called portal, one of the leading metaverse projects. in both these cases we are focused on understanding what the user demanded, and if that is community creation or a virtual place for a social interaction, we are oriented around that versus speculation. we think there will be more and more digital interpersonal interaction. sarah: you have been a goldman sachs before greylock, you know how this works. what will happen in terms of the convergence of traditional finance and defi? there has to be some space where the two combine. sarah: yeah, i think this will be a massive boon to the ecosystem as more traditional finance players move into the crypto ecosystem. the greatest promise of crypto is accessible, trustless markets

that are more efficient. the big institutional players, be they hedge funds or thanks or market makers -- banks or market makers, they provide efficiency and liquidity in markets. i think a lot of traditional finance organizations have been waiting for increasing regulatory clarity, but i'm really encouraged that you see firms like goldman sachs or citadel say explicitly we are making moves into crypto and feel more comfortable about the risks. i think that will make the entire ecosystem more liquid and mature. sarah: you are in the bahamas. about 2000 people are there. what is your biggest take away? sarah: we are at a point of maturity in the ecosystem where the most important thing is figuring out how to enable institutions and the next wave of consumers to enter the

ecosystem and use the rails of crypto in ways that are safe and legal. i am really encouraged there is so much discussion of that at this conference. emily: thank you both. coming up, more on meta's earnings results. did the social media giant just turn things around or is it not going to be so easy? more on that next. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> i think the cycle here between investment and meaningful enough revenue growth to be near or very profitable will be long.

i think it will be longer for reality labs than for a lot of the traditional software that we have built. emily: facebook's mark zuckerberg, or i should say meta . i want to get back to meta's results with the company adding more users than projected in the first quarter. i want to see if the company is really turning itself around for the long-term and bring in jasmine enberg. this quarter they grow. what is your take away? jasmine: it is certainly a good sign, even what happened last quarter, but the reality is there are very real challenges ahead for meta, particularly when it comes to its ad business. there are the changes in ios. combine that with brand safety concerns surrounding the war in ukraine as well as broader brand safety concerns in general on facebook and insta and the rise of tiktok, it is creating this perfect storm heading for

meta's ad revenue. emily: in terms of the user growth, is this a blip? jasmine: i was just listening in on the earnings call. what is clear is there is a huge focus right now for meta on video. a lot of that has to do with the fact that social activity is shifting towards video, and that is being accelerated by tiktok. facebook and instagram have a tiktok competitor. that was zuckerberg's focus and top of the call. they are finding ways to use videos to continue to draw engagement and users. emily: facebook has tried video before. this is not the first time they experimented with video products. do you think they can get this right? jasmine: it is a great question and something we can only tell over time. reel has taken off much better on instagram than facebook.

a lot of that has to do with the user base. instagram's user base is aging, but still tends to be younger than facebook's is. that is why video seems to be more successful there. emily: let's talk about what you think this signifies about long-term ad revenue growth. obviously we see facebook struggling. we saw snap struggle. and youtube revenue came in yesterday, ad revenue came in light. what is your take away as to how that is going to evolve through the rest of the year, given there is no sign the macro environment is changing? there is still a war in ukraine. we are still facing inflation. jasmine: there is always going to be different types of macro headwinds. one of the biggest things a lot of these companies focus on is innovation. tiktok has enter the scene and taken it by storm. we are seeing new users and and revenues. the biggest threat to long-term

growth for any of these platforms is a decline or slowdown in its user growth. by focusing on ways that they can bring in new users and continue to keep that engagement on these platforms, that is the way they will be able to continue attracting advertisers. at the end of the day, advertisers go where their customers are. emily: what are you watching for when it comes to meta this quarter? jasmine: i will be watching to see a couple things. one is to see how reel develops. it was a huge point zuckerberg was making at the beginning of the earnings call. there was a focus on the metaverse, but i really truly believe that the immediate competition again for social media right now is in video. whoever is able to rise to the top in video is going to be the leader in this space. emily: jasmine enberg, thank you

so much for joining us. meantime, some of the biggest stars on twitch might start to see revenue cut. people familiar with the matter saying the livestreaming website is making changes to how it pays top talent by offering incentives for streamers to run more ads, or reduce the proportion of subscription fees doled out to the biggest stars. this move intended to boost profits could alienate some of the biggest names. that is the risk. and that does it for this edition of "bloomberg technology ." tomorrow the ceo of qualcomm will be joining me, talking about their earnings report. we are also watching results from apple, twitter, and amazon. big day. don't forget to check out our podcast. you can find it anywhere you get your podcasts. i am emily chang in san francisco. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ quick spin good morning. welcome to "daybreak australia." shery: the top stories this hour -- metta surging after the bell. i jumped in facebook users easing investor concerns -- a jump in facebook users easing investor concerns the social network is losing