He Went From $20K to $70M Using a Strategy Anyone Can Learn

Chris Camillo

**You really only need one great trade to be a top 1% investor.** The most inherently ground-truth thing of investing—the most important thing, the thing that matters more than anything else—is this: I don't look at valuation. I don't look at P/E. All I look for is whether there is new information. I've been reading TikTok comments—that's where I get most of my *alpha* from.

Shaan Puri

You have **Buffett** or **Munger**, who are—like—reading the *Moody's Manual* cover to cover, just company financials. And you're like, "I scroll the TikTok comments."

Chris Camillo

That year I made about **30 million**, and it was a wild ride.

Shaan Puri

You will try to beat the market. You'll trade with leverage. You're moving in and out of positions. You're not a "buy-and-hold-forever" kind of guy. </FormattedResponse>

Chris Camillo

Just before the pandemic, I had made the *worst trade of my life*. I lost one-third of my portfolio on a single trade.

Shaan Puri

Okay, so let's break it down.

Chris Camillo

And this is where the biggest mistake I ever made was.</FormattedResponse>

Shaan Puri

"You **break all the rules of investing**, you know. All what I normally hear is..." </FormattedResponse>

Chris Camillo

You.

Shaan Puri

"You should just index — don't try to beat the markets, don't take any leverage," you know. But you do the *exact opposite*, right? You try to beat the market, you trade with leverage, and you move in and out of positions. You're not a buy-and-hold-forever kind of guy. According to the internet, you've done pretty well. I've seen different numbers floating around — can you **set the record straight**? What is the actual story? </FormattedResponse>

Chris Camillo

I started with $20,000 in 2007 to try this new methodology, which is the way I was investing when I was much younger. I call it *social arb investing* today, but what it essentially is is *observational investing*. You're looking for any change happening in the world — whether it's a change in consumer behavior, culture, technology, the weather, or politics — anything that has the potential to be meaningfully impactful to one or more publicly traded companies, either positively or negatively. If you can surface that change early and connect the dots back to a company that would benefit or be harmed by it, that's essentially the entire methodology. It doesn't really incorporate much fundamental analysis, and it definitely doesn't incorporate technical analysis. In its purest form, you really don't even need to know what the stock is trading at when you open a position or when you exit. Ideally, you'd be completely blind to the stock price — blind to everything other than the extent to which other investors were aware of that one thing you surfaced that you feel would ultimately be impactful to that company. And you enter your position at the...

Chris Camillo

Think in terms of **information asymmetry** — when you know something and very few others do — and you exit the position at the point of **information parity**, when other investors start to learn about that thing you uncovered first. It sounds simple, and it really is, but there are nuances. Like everything else, to be great at this takes time, effort, and some regimented processes that you have to go through. You have to ask: Is the information I found actually meaningful? Is it a *needle-mover* for that sector or for that company? Is the information really off-radar, or are institutional and retail investors already accounting for it? And are there any other things happening at that time — or within the window of that trade — that are as important or more important than the piece of information you're trading?

Shaan Puri

Right.

Chris Camillo

Right, so there is a process there.

Shaan Puri

Of course. Yes — I want to go through a bunch of examples. So you take this idea of *observational investing* — of arbitraging information — without being, you know, a guy who grew up on Wall Street. You weren't working on Wall Street, you didn't have an MBA, you didn't have, what would be like, twenty years of experience doing this. The story is: you take $20,000, you start doing this type of investing, and you run it up. It works pretty well for you; it's successful. I don't know the exact numbers, but I've seen something like $60,000,000, $70,000,000, $80,000,000 as how you've grown that portfolio starting at $20,000. Is that right, by the way? Because, I mean, that sounds in some sense too good to be true.

Chris Camillo

"Yeah, it certainly is. It does sound too good to be true. It is accurate. I don't know the exact number—$70 million or $80 million in returns from the $20,000—but I've been audited over the past 17 years. I'll be re-audited at the end of this year, and I'll fall somewhere around **75% annualized returns** for the total portfolio over the 17—or I think it might be 18—years. Now, since 2007..."

Shaan Puri

Hey, let's take a quick break because the team at **HubSpot** has put together something pretty cool. In this episode, Chris is talking about the way he knows how to make money: identifying trends, scouting TikTok comments, and making big, leveraged bets. That's great for him — it is amazing and some people will like that. I personally don't know how to make money that way; I wouldn't do it. I've talked before about the way that I know how to make money, about how to build a money-making skill, and about how to leverage your time and energy. The team at **HubSpot** actually went through the video where I explained all that and turned it into a free, downloadable cheat sheet on my four rules of how to make money. This is not "get rich quick" advice. It's core, foundational principles about building wealth — things I wish I knew when I was just getting started. If you want to download it, it's in the description below. It's totally free. You can get it thanks to the folks at **HubSpot** for doing the research, making this document, and making it available to all of you. Alright, back to this episode. Okay, so let's break it down. You said, "I started doing this as a kid" and described the type of investing you were doing then. I had read your book *Laughing at Wall Street*, and you talked about basically starting with garage selling and very simple stuff as a kid: noticing things, talking to your brother, talking to your dad — "Hey, could this mean this?" — and learning lessons with a very small bankroll, like a $100-type deal. Could you take us back to the early days? Where did you have this sort of moment that this style of investing can work?

Chris Camillo

Yeah, you know, I was an *entrepreneurial kid*. I was really interested in making money before that was a cool thing to do. Now the new generation—*all these kids are traders*. They're trading crypto. I mean, it's like every kid now is like I was back in the, you know, eighties and... [trails off]

Shaan Puri

The way that makes sense now: if you're a kid, you're on **YouTube**, you're on **TikTok**—you'll see things. But why did you have that itch? What made you want to get on that hustle? Who did you see?

Chris Camillo

I don't know what made me so **laser-focused** on grinding at age 12 or 13. But the way I was going about it was not investing — it was **arbitrage** in garage-sale and estate-sale merchandise. I would take buses around the city on Thursday and Friday mornings, and Saturday mornings before I could drive. Sometimes I'd take three or four buses before school to the one estate sale I had seen in the paper the night before, which, based on my analysis, I thought was most likely to have mispriced merchandise. The thesis there was that most of these estate sales at the time were run by older women who really had a great knack for pricing silver and other types of things they knew about and cared about. They were, however, really bad at identifying value in male-oriented items — whether it was old trains, old watches, anything that... and this is... </FormattedResponse>

Shaan Puri

*Pre-eBay*, right? You couldn't just look up every item quickly and know the current "live market price" for it.

Chris Camillo

Yeah, it's *pre-eBay*, exactly. I would show up at 5:30 or six in the morning. The goal is: if you pick the right sale, you're first in line, and you know exactly what you're looking for, you have a good shot at buying something that is **mispriced**. I did that for years. I happened to go to the same 7-Eleven every morning and get a bottle of Snapple lemon-flavored iced tea, which was the hot drink at the time.

Shaan Puri

"Yes, **Snapple** used to be *huge*."

Chris Camillo

Yeah. One morning I went to the 7‑Eleven and they had, like, one quarter of the door space dedicated to Snapple. They had brought in a couple other brands of iced tea — I don't even recall what they were; maybe it was Arizona Iced Tea and a couple of others. The clerk told me that that's the way it was going to be from that point forward due to this new competition coming in. Sure enough, I talked to my older brother and shared the observation with him. He was a stockbroker. I asked, "Can I make money off of this? This has gotta be bad for Snapple, right? I mean, it's such a hot company." A few weeks later they announced earnings. He taught me how to short Snapple with put options. I did it through his account — I was too young to have a brokerage account. I think I gave him $300, which was most of the money I had at the time from garage selling. He tripled the money in the course of about a month, because Snapple, for the first time in its history, had reported bad earnings due to inventory building up and retailers like 7‑Eleven giving them less door space. It was something I had noticed as a kid, and you have to ask yourself — that's crazy, because professionals on Wall Street could have easily seen the same thing that I saw. But they were so distracted by so many other things: macroeconomics, noise, government, their jobs, herd mentality, that they didn't see something very simple that was right in front of their face. So now, if I did that as a young teenager, that really means something. Of course, I didn't realize what I did at the time — how special it was — because you would never believe that you as a kid are better than all of Wall Street. I got really into stocks and investing after that, but I did it in the conventional sense. I read all the books — technical, trading, fundamental — and I tried every type of investing method. Of course, basically nothing worked, so I was just like everybody else. Later on, in my twenties, when I had a job and I wasn't making as much money as I wanted to make (or felt I needed to make to have the life I wanted), I got back into investing. That was really most aggressively in 2007, and I said, "Why don't I try this kind of **observational approach** that I did a little bit of as a kid?" I recall that one approach I used as a kid was reflective of what Peter Lynch was doing. Peter Lynch utilized observational investing as part of his methodology, though he also did a lot of fundamental analysis.

Shaan Puri

So, let's break it down. There are major schools of thought around investing. One is **passive investing**: don't try to beat the market. Just be in the index—or even worse, a mutual fund—and you go as the American economy goes. Then there are people who think they can do better than indexing. Among them is **technical analysis**, which to me is a cross between horoscopes and fantasy football. A lot of people believe they can see patterns, signs, and math in the charts, and that the charts will tell you where the price is going. Many people try to do that. I've never met anyone smart who's good at that, but it's possible that that is a... [transcript cuts off]

Chris Camillo

It *hurts* to be able to do that.

Shaan Puri

Really well. So, okay—there's technical trading and there's fundamental analysis: the sort of **Buffett-style** investing where you're trying to understand the intrinsic value of the business, the durability and the quantity of the cash flows. You're trying to use that to understand what the business is worth relative to what the market's pricing. A lot of people try to do that; that's sort of seen as the gold standard. What you do is this other school of thought. So, now here comes **door number three**. Door number three you kind of described a second ago, but my short summary is: you're looking for *significant behavioral change*—the way that either consumers or businesses are changing in some way. Whether that's COVID making it so people are not traveling, or it's teenagers doing some new thing. You gave the example of women who were changing their bra preference from wired push-up bras, with Victoria's Secret on top, to...you started noticing a lot of people talking about the word "bralettes" and now they're wearing bralettes. There are even two guys talking about bras. Then, now, women are wearing bras without a wire or participating in a "no-bra" movement. Hey, that's probably going to affect the number one bra player, Victoria's Secret, who wasn't even carrying bralettes at the time. So you're looking for some behavioral change somewhere.

Chris Camillo

Let's not restrict it to *behavioral change*. Let's say *any change*. It could be a hailstorm — okay — that possibly impacts a publicly traded roofing company. It could be anything happening in the world that is change-oriented and that is not well discovered or known by the investing [community]. </FormattedResponse>

Shaan Puri

"Correct — so, not, sort of, consensus; not **'priced in'**. Let's go through a couple of examples. What are your favorite examples of these that you've found in your life? Take me through a couple of your greatest hits."

Chris Camillo

Yeah. I mean, there's maybe north of 80—80 to 90 now. Over the past 18 years, there have been a handful that didn't work out. We could talk about those too, but for the most part almost every one of them has worked out. I know that's really hard to believe. I know it's like exceptionally difficult to believe. The one I just mentioned that popped in my head is actually one of my favorites. I would track every spring. I would simply go and track the number of people that were searching for the words "roof damage" or "roof repair." It's a free data source—anyone could leverage **Google Trends**. What's fascinating about this is when there is a hailstorm, people will immediately start Googling "roof repair" the day after that hailstorm hits. Now, at the time there was a publicly traded company called **Beacon Roofing**, and they're one of the largest roofing companies in **North America**. If the hail season was particularly damaging, that would meaningfully impact their bottom line as a roofing company. So what's fascinating about that is that Wall Street generally would utilize insurance-sector reports that would report on the damage from the hail season as data?

Chris Camillo

To analyze **Beacon Roofing** prior to earnings, the usual reports take a very long time. They're delayed by, I don't know, five or six weeks after the actual hailstorms happen. I discovered a **real-time** data source that would tell me, in real time, the volume of people searching for roof repair. Even if you knew there was a terrible storm and you saw it on the news, if that hailstorm happened to be over a super-populated area as opposed to two miles down the road where it isn't populated, that's what makes the difference. Nobody really knows how many people are impacted by hail or how many roofs are affected until they get reflected in the insurance reports. A great measure of that—maybe slightly less precise, but way more real time—is the volume of people searching for roof repair. What's so great about a platform like **Google Trends** is you have fifteen years of historical data, so you can look at every single spring and see where the peaks are in search volumes. There was one hail season in particular where the peaks were nearly triple anything I had seen in years past. So I went into a very large, very leveraged long-call position on Beacon Roofing. Yeah, I mean, that would be considered, like, a *greatest hit*.

Shaan Puri

My understanding is you did the same thing you did with the garage sales, where you said, "Look: most of these garage and estate sales were run by older women. They knew the price of jewelry really well. You're not going to get too much of a deal there, but they may not know what their husband or their son's baseball card collection is worth—specifically this one 1996 Topps rookie card, Kobe Bryant," you know? So you find the value there. My understanding is you applied the same principle to Wall Street. You said, "Well, most of the guys who are on Wall Street—people who work in finance—are white guys who live in New York and are of a certain age." And then you started saying, "Instead—I'll use the garage sale principle again—if they know a lot about certain types of things, where are their blind spots?" Is that right? Is that how you thought about it?

Chris Camillo

So that's how you identify the lowest-hanging fruit, or the highest-probability opportunities—especially early on. I would say the vast majority of my big wins were around changes in consumer behavior and culture that were primarily female-oriented, youth-oriented, or targeted to some demographic that wasn't older, white, Northeastern, geographically located investors. So it could be something like—I talk a lot about the moment that **Jeffree Star**, who was a beauty influencer, made a single video about this drugstore cosmetics product made by **e.l.f. Cosmetics** that was just as good as a $60 product. It was called the **e.l.f. Putty Primer**. That was an old trade now, but that was back when e.l.f. was trading at about $7 a share before it blew up to $170 a share. Just seeing a single YouTube video and then realizing, wow, it had 10 million views, and this is a company that nobody cares about—and all of a sudden the most influential content creator in the world for beauty is saying that it's just as good as one of the best products in the world. I went down to—I think it was CVS, or actually I think it was Walgreens—by my apartment and just stood there all day and watched moms coming in with their kids and buying out all the e.l.f. products, because all of a sudden, instantaneously, this drugstore brand that was just at a price... [sentence trails off]

Chris Camillo

Of like $8 for any piece of makeup, it became a cool brand because this one individual said it was. That was a game-changing moment I witnessed via watching a YouTube video. I actually called one of the analysts on Wall Street who was covering e.l.f. Cosmetics because part of my methodology is not just to discover things early, but to assess the degree to which other investors might already be aware of that information. You need that to gain conviction that you truly found some information asymmetry in the market. So I called this analyst and I said, "What do you think about the Jeffree Star video on e.l.f.? Has that impacted the way you're analyzing e.l.f. this quarter?" The analyst said, "Who's Jeffree Star?" At that moment, I knew everything I needed to know about that trade. And listen — it makes sense. These guys are not watching YouTube videos of beauty influencers. That's all that I do. People don't believe me, but I spend, on average, *three to four hours a night*, late night, basically reading through — these last six or seven years — TikTok comments. That's where I get most of my *alpha* recently, because that's the place where people express themselves most freely across the largest number of topics.

Shaan Puri

And that'll get you laughed out of the room with, you know, *"quote-unquote serious investors,"* right? Like... you have Buffett or Munger — these guys are reading the Moody's Manual cover to cover, just company financials. That's where they're looking for an opportunity. And you're like, "I scrolled the TikTok comments, and that's why I'm compounding 75% a year for 2020."

Chris Camillo

Okay, so here's what you have to determine as an investor: we can't all be warm up, right? So—who do you want to compete with? I always say it's not so important for you to be smart, but it is important for you to figure out how to be smart in a totally different way than others. Do you want to compete with the top mathematicians in the world as a technical trader? Do you want to compete with droves of Wharton and Harvard grads who are doing financial analysis? Can you do that analysis a little bit better than them? Maybe — maybe you can. Maybe you're that type of person. But let's be honest: most of us — I'd even say 99% of us — probably don't fit into one of those two camps. So how could the rest of us get an edge on Wall Street? How could the 99% figure out a way to outperform others in the market? What could we do that others aren't doing? You have to think differently. You have to look for edge in a place where your competition — institutional and retail investors — are not willing to go. One thing about institutional Wall Street is they like correlated data. They like certainty. They like proof in historic correlations. The data that I am trading is **conversational data**, because Wall Street primarily uses **transactional data**. They'll use credit card receipts — they spend millions to tens of millions of dollars — and then they synthesize all this transaction data so they can figure out what's happening at a company before earnings. A lot of times we see stocks move a week or two before earnings, and we're like, "Who's doing that? How do they know?" It's data. Wall Street has been utilizing it for 15 years — more so today than they ever have. So how do we gain an edge on a hedge fund that's spending millions to tens of millions of dollars and has fleets of people analyzing credit card receipts? Well, what do you do before you buy something? You talk about buying it. There are a billion people out there talking about their interests — what they want, what they did, and what they plan to do tomorrow — every single day. If they see a video about a particular piece of apparel, you'll have 30,000 women commenting on whether they plan to also buy that piece of apparel. You can actually measure the depth of interest in an infinite number of things even before that's provable through sales. In my opinion, it's a superior way to discover alpha — a way to detect change in the world — although it's imperfect. You have to do a lot of your own interpretation of what you're reading and what it actually means, because it's speech and a lot of times the speech is nuanced. The way we speak about things is constantly evolving. So if you're just a regular person who spends a lot of time in the real world on social media, believe it or not, you're probably well qualified to make that assessment.

Shaan Puri

Yeah — there's a great story. I don't know if you know the story of the trending tab on Twitter, but it's actually kind of interesting. The guy who built it was someone I met. His name is **Abder**. At the time, he was running a company with a group of data nerds — machine learning and data people — and they were trying to do something meaningful for the world. They wanted to build sentiment analysis: to figure out how people feel about things, whether positive or negative. Abder thought, "Twitter is this huge source of text traffic; let me use Twitter to understand sentiment about things." But it wasn't working very well. One day he was on a train working on the project and noticed his program wasn't outputting sentiment scores. Instead, it was spitting out city names — actually, country names. He wondered, why are these country names popping up as signals? What he realized was the Olympics were going on. The opening parade was happening, and each country being shown was getting mentioned a lot. He understood that if nobody normally talks about, say, Zimbabwe, and suddenly far more people than usual are talking about it, that delta — the change — means something. So he created a standalone product that would tell you: "What are people talking about in an abnormal way on Twitter?" Twitter ended up buying that product and making it the Trending feature. That feature was really important for Twitter's success because it let them differentiate from Facebook and others by being about real-time, what's happening in the world — what's interesting, new, and fresh. To do that, you needed something reading all the social signals. It sounds like you were kind of manually doing a similar thing when you noticed trends — for example, the slime trend getting really big. If everyone's making slime, how do you actually make slime? You need Elmer's glue. Then you realize people haven't priced in demand for Elmer's glue — Elmer's might be about to have a huge quarter or a very strong earnings call.

Chris Camillo

My business partner and I actually created a platform called **Ticker Tags** in the mid-2010s with Twitter. We had access to the Twitter *Decahose* — a 10% randomized sample of every tweet in real time — and we hand-curated about 1.5 million word combinations that represented how people were speaking about every product, brand, and basically anything that was connected to, or meaningful to, any publicly traded company in any way. We organized it into a taxonomy, so every company had like 300 to a thousand combinations of words. What would be

Shaan Puri

An example: what do you mean by that? So, if I'm **Nike**, what do I care about?</FormattedResponse>

Chris Camillo

So, okay — you just mentioned slime, which is one of my big trades. **Newell Brands** makes **Elmer's Glue**. So Elmer's Glue would be a tag for **Newell Brands' DIY slime**, which is a product that utilizes white Elmer's Glue. When kids are playing with slime, that would be a tag. To the extent that DIY slime gets more popular, that's something that someone who's invested in Newell Brands might want to know. We were actually monitoring, in real time, the frequency of mentions of those 1,500,000 words and benchmarking them against historical norms, including seasonality. Since it was organized in a taxonomy, when there was any type of anomaly in speech patterns happening across **Twitter** that were impacting a subject matter we had curated to be potentially impactful to a publicly traded company, our system would flag that. That's a platform we developed and sold to **hedge funds** and **sell-side banks**. What that was, basically, was me taking my methodology of what I had done manually and institutionalizing it for **Wall Street**. At the time, people expressed their opinions on Twitter about everything they were doing in life — the way that people currently no longer do on Twitter but do in places like **TikTok** now. Twitter is mostly news-oriented or finance- or tech-oriented, or political; people are not generally talking about the movie they watched last night on Twitter — they're doing that on other platforms. We sold that company to **Jefferies Bank** years later.

Shaan Puri

Was that, like, a *successful company*? No—obviously no. It's not that it was unsuccessful, but I guess it's all relative. For example, you're selling the data: are hedge funds really receptive to this? Do they believe what you believe? Were they willing to pay...?

Chris Camillo

*That's the coolest part of the story.* I spent years flying to New York nearly weekly, training the top sell-side banks and—I would say—probably five or six of the top 10 hedge funds in the world on how to interpret this *observational conversational data* and how to attempt to correlate it. They had very little interest in building teams around it. They were interested in the results, but couldn't figure out how to operationalize the work. Hedge funds generally hire mathematicians from the West Coast to develop trading algorithms—quant traders—and they have traditional fundamental analysts, basically finance heads who crunch numbers and do fundamental analysis. They didn't really have 20-year-old females on staff who were savvy at interpreting conversational data and saying, “yes, this is a trend” or “this is not a trend,” “this is meaningful” or “it's not meaningful.” Wall Street tends to do things the way they've always done them, and it's really difficult for them to stick their neck out and say, “we believe this thing matters,” when there's no historical correlation between the speech pattern around that subject matter and the stock price or the company's earnings. Patterns evolve, and the topic people are talking about could be a new thing that was never meaningful before for that company. That is unfortunate for Wall Street but fortunate for retail investors. I guess I'm telling you right now that this is still a dataset they're scared of; it's a methodology they have a hard time wrapping their heads around because they can't document the degree to which it's meaningful for an investment thesis. > "If you were to have someone come out and say, 'I've been reading TikTok comments and I believe that this new show at the Spear in Vegas—Wizard of Oz—people are super hyped on it, and I read 180 comments of people flying in from Europe next month to see it, and I think this might be the one thing that Spear has done right and it's going to be a game-changing moment for the company finding product-market fit.'"

Shaan Puri

"Sounds oddly specific. Is that actually a trade you're in right now, or no?"

Chris Camillo

Yeah, so that Sphere—the *Wizard of Oz* sphere—was actually **one of my largest wins of 2025**. It came from reading comments on *Wizard of Oz* during the first 48 hours after it was out, and essentially making it a monstrously big "wow."

Shaan Puri

Levered up **114%** this year.

Chris Camillo

Well, it was a **leveraged options trade**, so it was a lot more than that. A lot of what I do when I have high conviction around a particular thesis — especially when there is a very defined window of time in which I believe others will start to acknowledge that ground truth — is take larger, levered positions. In the case of **Sphere**, it was people counting sales of seats. You could actually go in and see how many seats were available for a show a week and a half or two weeks out. That's exactly what happened over the course of a few weeks. It was cool because it was like retail analysts — it wasn't even Wall Street. Other people trading Sphere were saying, "Hey, we're seeing a lot of seats. We've never seen seats sell out like this before for a show." What I had interpreted from early user reviews ultimately showed up in seat sales, which other retail investors started trading on. Wall Street eventually picked up on it when the company announced they were adding new shows because they were selling out all their shows and increasing their profit guidance. Yeah, the stock has more than doubled over the last few months — almost exclusively because of **The Wizard of Oz**.

Shaan Puri

Do you remember—so the show's called **"My First Million"**—do you remember when you made your first million? What got you there, and how did it feel?

Chris Camillo

Yeah, 100%. I was working at a company called *Eve Rewards* in *Dallas, Texas* with one of my best friends, Patrick. It was not long after I started this in 2007 with $20,000 that I had grown to a few hundred thousand dollars, and I said, "This is just absolutely crazy." I thought, "I think I'm gonna hit a million dollars here within the next, I don't know, year or so." A few months later, I hit $1 million. I'll never forget walking into his cubicle and saying, "I did it. I cannot believe my account just hit $1 million." It absolutely blew my mind. You know, I wrote my book — I don't know, two, three years later — laughing at Wall Street because there was this tracking service called *Covestor* at the time. Covestor was like the first portfolio-tracking service; I think they had 40,000 accounts in it, including mine. It monitored how well you were doing month to month — total portfolio — and it would rank you publicly. For a while, I was the number one ranked investor on Covestor, which is just absolutely wild... and it was during that three-year...

Chris Camillo

And that's when I — I think I was on a few different business shows, like **Fox Business**, talking about it. Then I got a book deal to write *Laughing at Wall Street*. When I wrote *Laughing at Wall Street*, it was $20,000 to $2,000,000. It was 100 times your money in three years. At the time, there was a small piece of me that thought, "Am I just part of the long‑tail statistical anomaly?"

Shaan Puri

Right. You *flip a coin 100 times*. If you get enough people to do it, somebody will land on heads 90 times... and you'll think they're a genius.

Chris Camillo

No — 100%. I doubted myself more, and then I had a really defined methodology. I knew the narrative behind every one of my trades. It was very sensible. It wasn't some mystery where I came up with a random formula and it was just trading stocks on its own, and maybe the formula just happened to get lucky. I felt strongly that the nature of *observational investing* — about simply uncovering some piece of meaningful information that others weren't aware of — intuitively just makes sense. It's not this mystical thing; of course it makes sense. You're just uncovering important information a little bit quicker than other people, and you're connecting dots a little bit quicker than other people. So in my head I knew the methodology at its core was really valuable, but I still didn't believe that 3 years was enough. In my head I was like, if I can get to 5 years and keep this track record up, that would be insane. I got to 5, and I was like, okay, let's see if I can push it to 10. Then I got to 10 years. Now here I am — I'm at 8. Like I said, I think I'm going on 18 years of average, mid-70s total portfolio returns... and I truly believe I can hit 20. So 20 is now the new number in my head. I want to go for 20, and all I have to do at this—

Chris Camillo

"It's not 'mess it up,' right? But, at the same time, it's very hard generating returns that are *that high*."

Shaan Puri

So let me ask you a couple of mechanical questions. Do you take profits every year? Do you reinvest everything? What are you actually doing with that sort of annual [return]? Because, you know, if you compounded that rate for a long enough time, the number's actually much bigger than 70 million. </FormattedResponse>

Chris Camillo

**That you would get, yeah — it's almost a billion dollars.** So what's in this is where the biggest mistake I ever made was, and I'm now resolving it for the most part. Just about half of my life I've been trading public equities through observational investing, social or conversational data — everything we're talking about. The other half of my life has been as an entrepreneur. I've had some success as an entrepreneur, and like a lot of entrepreneurs who have success, you start investing in other entrepreneurs. So I've been an early-stage venture investor for 20 years. I'm actually invested in 160 early-stage companies, and my performance investing in early-stage companies is pretty much average. I'm on sync with just about any other average VC — I'd say maybe **10–12% annualized returns**. I have pulled out almost all of my gains every single year for the past 18 years and have taken that money and invested it in the private market. That has been really unfortunate for obvious reasons. It's unfortunate because the opportunity cost of my capital is so high, but I never even believed in myself that much on the public side — that I could continue to do that. I was never like, "Oh, I'm just gonna keep doing 70-some percent average returns." That never really seemed feasible. I felt like I needed to make my home runs in the early-stage VC world. I finally came to terms a few years ago with the fact that that was a really bad decision, and it's taken me about four years to pull myself out of early stage. When you're an early-stage investor and that big of an early-stage investor, I mean, you're taking hundreds of meetings with founders annually, and it takes a long time to unwind yourself from that ecosystem. </FormattedResponse>

Shaan Puri

Yeah. So, I don't know who said it — maybe Peter Lynch. He had a line: "Don't cut your flowers to water your weeds." He was basically talking about individual stocks: *don't sell your winners to diversify back into losers.* Either way, what you were doing at an overall level was this: if you were performing at 70% in one asset or strategy and 10 or 11% in the other, but you were taking the profits out, that's a "water your weeds" sort of scenario.

Chris Camillo

Yeah. And by the way, nothing — I love **Peter Lynch** maybe more than any other investor. But I don't believe in any preset rule of investing like that. My methodology is very clean: *you invest when you discover something that other people haven't discovered yet that will be meaningful to a trade, and you exit as soon as other people have figured that out.* That's it. That's literally the only thing. And if that stock goes up 100x or 200x, you don't sell it because it's up 100x or 200x. You sell it when other people find out the information that you're trading. One of my most controversial trades over a year ago was **Palantir**. I went all in — unbelievably leveraged — in Palantir at $30 a share, and I was very public about it. I have a YouTube channel, **Dumb Money Live**, and we did a multitude of episodes on Palantir and this really strong thesis. We felt there was this kind of twelve-month window where the whole world was going to discover these things about Palantir that were really misunderstood. I had never gotten so much heat — a lot of it from Palantir investors — who were like, "You're an idiot. We've been in this thing since $6. You're going to do this at $30 a share? What are you talking about?" I'm like, "Well, I'm not trading the information you are trading at $6..."

Shaan Puri

"Trading — what was the short, two-line reason you were so bullish on Palantir at that stage?"

Chris Camillo

Well, people didn't even understand what they did. They didn't understand where they would actually sit in the stratosphere of the AI wave that was coming, as a beneficiary of it. Palantir was just starting to scrape the surface of this new product they had with clients, and it was unstoppable. It was just going — we knew there would be this twelve-month window when everything Palantir had been working on for years finally had the case studies done with their first set of clients. Now they were just going to start to steamroll and add to clients. So they were just scratching the surface of their TAM [total addressable market], and the market didn't realize that. What was interesting about Palantir is that they were so overvalued at the time based on fundamentals that people were like, "There's no way you could be going in levered on Palantir at $30 a share with its valuation already so out of whack." My response to that was, "**The valuation is irrelevant to me.**" I don't look at valuation. I don't look at P/E or anything like that. All I look at is that there is new information that's about to come online for Palantir that will bring in a whole new group of investors. Once people see this information, they're valuing Palantir today based on the information that exists. This is new information that will be settled into the stock price. And that's exactly what happened. Palantir went from $30 to $160, or whatever it went to.

Shaan Puri

So. </FormattedResponse>

Chris Camillo

"180 100 question."

Shaan Puri

You say, "I went really big into this, so I made a huge bet on this." What is that? And you're taking **leverage**, which could cut both ways, right? So obviously leverage will increase your gains, but it'll quickly sink your portfolio if done incorrectly. How much are you actually betting? Let's say you have— I think you said— a **$70,000,000** portfolio. If you have $70 million and you get a lot of conviction about something, what are you actually betting on a high-conviction bet at this stage? Are you putting 1%? 10%? 30%? Like, what are you putting out there, and then you're levering up? How do you manage the risk of that going south?

Chris Camillo

Yeah, and by the way, just to be transparent: it's about **$70,000,000-ish** in returns — gains over that time. Those gains were taken and put into other things, like private companies. Right, so, okay, I'm not managing — that's not my public.

Shaan Puri

Let's say that's gains. You have to pay taxes. A lot of your stuff sounds like it might be *short-term*. </FormattedResponse>

Chris Camillo

Because it's exclusively *short-term*, then you're...

Shaan Puri

Reinvesting that into your *addiction to startups*. So there's a lot — it's going that way. </FormattedResponse>

Chris Camillo

But, percentage-wise, when you have what I call a **high-conviction idea**, I'm usually investing between 5–10% of my entire liquid portfolio into that idea via options. So if you're wrong, you just lose 5 to 10% of the portfolio. A good example of where I did that—and was, you know, wrong—was during COVID. I think two or three, maybe three weeks in a row, maybe four weeks in a row, I lost like 30–40% of my portfolio. I was tracking the virus coming out of China and was using Google Translate on a lot of medical reports coming out of China to assess how big of a deal the virus was. It became very clear to me that it was going to be a global pandemic, and global pandemics only do one thing to financial markets. So I was essentially taking, I think, 10% of my portfolio and putting it into puts in the S&P, casino stocks, Vegas casino stocks, and airlines every week. The market wasn't moving down—the market just wasn't accepting COVID for what it was—and I got to a...

Chris Camillo

There was a period where 30–40% of my portfolio was gone. I did it again the week after, and that week was the first week the market cracked — it went down 2%. The next week is where it really hit, and that was one of the biggest trades of my life. Over the year, my total portfolio returned about a 370% annualized return. That was partially because I had shorted the pandemic early on — even though it was a little too early, it paid off. Two days after it bottomed, I had a selection of, I think, 14 or 15 companies that should never have gone down at all. They should have only gone up as soon as we realized there would be a global pandemic and everyone would be stuck working and living at home for a year. These companies ranged from Hewlett‑Packard, where everybody would want to buy printers for their home, to Peloton because you couldn't go to the gym and had to work out at home; Shopify because people were shopping online; Amazon, obviously; Camping World because one of the things you can still do is go camping; and various boat stocks. I even bought a company out of Canada that nobody had ever traded before that owned Schwinn bicycles. Schwinn had one of the biggest runs in bicycle sales in the company's history. I think that company went up 8x–9x over the course of nine months. So I had these 14–15 companies that should have been doubling, but instead they were all down 30–50% simply because the whole market traded down. I always knew I was going to go levered long in these companies, but I didn't want to do it until the market became less erratic and irrational. Once the markets finally started to normalize and come back up, I took all the gains from shorting the travel stocks and the market at large and put them into leveraged positions in these 15 companies. It was, obviously, **the trade of a lifetime** — a huge dollar year. </FormattedResponse>

Shaan Puri

"Is that the biggest dollar gains you've ever had?" "I... I don't know. By the way, I don't watch enough of your content to know how much you talk. Like, do you disclose how much you make on these things? Do you say, 'I got a $10 million active portfolio'? What do you actually say?" "I don't know. I don't know—are we very transparent?"

Chris Camillo

I think that year I made $30,000,000 in the market — $30 million in one year. It was a wild ride. The most interesting part of that narrative was that just before the pandemic I had made **the worst trade of my life**, and it was actually a trade that was psychologically damaging to me. I lost a third of my portfolio on a single trade just months before the pandemic started. The thing I'm probably most proud of is that, even though I was so down and out about that trade, I still found a way — when I came out with all that conviction on COVID — to go all in on my thesis. My account was so brutally damaged that if I had gotten another one wrong it could have really wiped me out. Not literally wiped me out, but it would have been an unbelievably damaging implosion to have two monster trades in a row go wrong. The trade that went wrong months earlier was a company in the QSR [quick-service restaurant] space. They own Burger King, Popeyes, and Tim Hortons. I was so convicted that the company would have the best earnings quarter in its entire history because two of the three chains had positive anomalies. Burger King had the "Impossible Whopper," which was unlike anything the company had ever done before in terms of sales traction, and Popeyes had the "crispy chicken sandwich." This was during the "chicken wars," if you remember.

Shaan Puri

"Chick-fil-A, yeah."

Chris Camillo

Yeah. At the time, that crispy chicken sandwich that Popeyes had would literally sell out in like two hours every day. No one had ever talked about Popeyes in the history of the company until this crispy chicken sandwich. I was monitoring both of those trends and thought they were both going to report the best quarter in the history of their quarters — Burger King and Popeyes. Then you have this third piece, which unfortunately was the biggest piece of the company: Tim Hortons. Tim Hortons is just a Canadian coffee-and-donut shop. The company had basically been around forever, but it had not been doing well — it was kind of flatlining. They would have had to have a really bad quarter to screw up my trade, and it was just a really difficult company for me to extract information on through the methods I use because it was Canadian and people just didn't talk about it that much. There was nothing happening there, so I saw zero reason why they should have an anomalous bad quarter. But that’s exactly what happened. They happened to have one of the worst quarters ever — statistically, the chance of that happening was so low — and it crushed my trade. I lost all of my money on that trade; it was a full third of my portfolio. This is where a lot of self-reflection comes in, because I take a lot of pride in doing deep, intensive, comprehensive due diligence. Sometimes, if I have a high-conviction trade, I will put 60+ hours of due diligence into it. I like to joke that I'll uncover every piece of contextualized information on the company globally: scan every social media mention, visit stores, talk to store owners and clerks, and sometimes even travel if they're a retailer. But because there were three things I was juggling — Burger King, Popeyes, and Tim Hortons — I just assumed, “Tim Hortons, how bad is it going to be?” Well, they had the Tim Hortons annual meeting a few weeks before earnings in Florida, which I didn't realize they had. If I had realized that and done my homework, I would have been in Orlando for that annual meeting. Not necessarily to get in to the formal sessions, but I would have hung out at the bar and talked to the franchisee owners. From what I understand, there was a revolt by franchisees at that meeting. The company was doing many things wrong; sales were getting slaughtered due to recent corporate decisions pushed onto the franchisees. It was very public and harsh at that meeting. If I had been in the building, right at the bar, I would have been well aware of it. Going back, I learned that you really have to be comprehensive in your research if you're going to take a levered bet on a thesis. You can't be lazy.

Shaan Puri

"What are the **bets** you're looking at **now**? A lot of these examples are from the past **17 years**. Where are you now?"

Chris Camillo

On the **AI** side, two of my favorite AI picks right now — one is **Bloom Energy**. The energy trade is a big one, and it's really, really misunderstood by most investors. Bloom Energy has a very different approach to powering data centers. They aren't using big gas turbines. Instead, they’ve developed a technology over the last 20 years that is actual DC technology: rather than combusting gas, it's a chemical change that creates the energy. That allows for a much quicker timeline to power a data center. If you can get energy through Bloom and get your data center up and running 6–12 months faster than waiting for gas turbines and approvals, that's a really big deal. That's why Bloom Energy has been up roughly 5x–6x over the past 8–9 months as people start to realize this. There is still a lot of controversy around the company, though. It's somewhat unproven — they only have a couple of big hyperscaler deals (one with Oracle). I think there will be others announced in the near future, but because it’s a new technology people remain skeptical. Then you have news events that shift the narrative. For example, this last week there was talk about building data centers in space, and SpaceX preparing to IPO. Suddenly the market buzz becomes, “Aren't we just going to do compute/data centers in space in a couple of years?” That noise leads to questions like: if those space data centers are powered by solar, why would we value an energy company here on Earth? The market is so addled; it changes week to week or month to month based on whatever the hype story is. Those narratives will either positively or negatively impact companies in the space. For me, Bloom Energy is definitely one of my favorite AI plays right now because they could enable data centers to get up and running meaningfully quicker over the next 3–5 years. I think that's a company whose earnings could basically double year over year for the next 3–4 years. They remain very much misunderstood. They'll actually be the topic of my next *Dumb Money Live* episode. I'm going to go in deep on Bloom Energy — we spent a couple months doing deep analysis on...

Shaan Puri

Do you all, like, publish your portfolio somewhere? Do you publish your trade somewhere?

Chris Camillo

**We don't—I won't ever publish trades.** I sometimes speak about trades on a really high level. The last thing we ever want is other investors trying to mirror our trades, because that's not what we do. We don't think it's a healthy behavior. I always tell investors to "steal my ideas and run with them." Take the idea, then poke holes in it. Do all of your own research, and then come back to me and tell me where I was wrong. But ultimately, go off and make your own trade based on your own *risk–reward*, because we all have different degrees of risk tolerance and we should all have a different take on an idea. So, I love sharing ideas. I don't really share trades.

Shaan Puri

I mean, I'll be honest with you: this is not my world of expertise. I'm a founder first, and my investing is very kind of simple. I basically own a couple of—well, I own some indexes and stocks that I understand. I've owned them for a long time: tech companies, basically, because I grew up in the tech industry since college. My investing outside of that is private angel investing—again, tech—and, lastly, my own private equity, where I buy individual businesses that I can own and affect with things I know how to do operationally or promotionally with this podcast. You're interesting to me because, on one hand, the story is great: I turned $20,000 into, you know, I've made $70,000,000 in gains or something like that. That's an incredible story. I also find your approach—what you call *"observational investing"*—interesting because it lines up a bit with what great investors do and say. They don't just rely on spreadsheets; they try to surface the signal from the noise. What is the actual important thing I need to know about this company that I can believe before it is obviously true and proven? The market responds to certainty, and if you can handle uncertainty you can do quite well. At the same time, you sometimes say things like, "99% of the other 99% of us can go do this," and we have this idea—I've heard you say—"the game is rigged, Wall Street is rigged, but it's rigged in our favor." That part, I think, seems untrue. If what you've done is true, it's in many ways because you have a very unique skill set, upbringing, and background, no?

Chris Camillo

No, that's it. I...

Shaan Puri

Let me just sort of explain that — I think it's important. The last thing I would want is people to listen to this and be like, "Oh, okay, cool, I can just go and trade levered up off of observations and I, too, will turn $20,000 to $70,000,000." There's a reason that's **not a common result**. There's a reason you get a book deal. There's a reason people will follow you — because it's not common. I think one of the reasons it's uncommon is *interpretability* — interpreting the signals and trying to figure out what is actually important. Is it already priced in? What does this mean? Who benefits from that? What are the second-order effects of that? That's not something incredibly simple that everybody is going to do. There's a big difference between "anybody can" and "everybody will." I view it very similarly to startups: an entrepreneur can come on and say, "It's not rocket science. I'm not any smarter than you; I just did this, this, this." And it's true that it was within the capacity for anybody to do. But definitely not everybody will, and definitely not everybody should try — because they might not have the disposition or the risk tolerance to do it. So I'm interested because you're this sort of puzzle. Normally, when I hear a story like this, it's too good to be true — it violates a lot of the fundamental wisdom people have about investing, where you want to buy a share in a great company and hold it for a long time. There are things I've accepted from a certain school of thought around this, so I think you're very interesting because you violate some of those. It works for you, and I think that's very cool. But I hesitate, because this is not something that a lot of people could or should do.

Chris Camillo

So I couldn't disagree more. I agree with some of what you're saying — yes, over a long period of time, generating almost $100,000,000 from $20,000 is not easy to do, obviously. But I will say this: I think the biggest issue is simply **bucketing money** and having **risk capital**. The number one issue preventing someone from doing this is thinking they have one bucket of capital for their life savings, for their future kids' college, for their retirement — and they think about that money all as one. This makes the concept of being a regular person and observing something, connecting the dots, and saying, "You know what? I'm going to put a levered bet on that because I just discovered this," feel foreign. You're not going to do that unless your money is properly bucketed. The one thing I teach people is: you have to have **risk capital**. I don't care if it's $50 or $50,000,000 — you shouldn't wait until you're part of the ultra-wealthy class to think you have risk capital to take risks with. You need to have risk capital starting on day one. So everybody should have a *big money account*. I talk about this in *Laughing at Wall Street*. Everyone should have a big money account. The big money account is the account you can get wealthy quickly with by taking big swings on things you really believe in. The only way you're going to psychologically do that is if you fund that big account with money that is not being taken from other areas of your life. I call this the concept of frugality or trade-offs: maybe you mow your own lawn, maybe you make your own coffee, maybe you clip coupons. People don't want to clip coupons to save a dollar, but if you think about every dollar in your life as potentially being a $100 — a 100x — which is feasible over a long period...

Chris Camillo

Over time, if you invest aggressively with leverage and get a few wins, then you'll **clip a dollar coupon**, because that dollar coupon is clipping a $100 coupon. Okay? You're going to make your own coffee, because instead of saving $5 you're saving $500 a day. Right? So, all of a sudden you discover all of this *newfound money* in your life by making little trade‑offs in things all over your life. The difference is, every time you make one of those trade‑offs and you save $5 by making your own coffee, you take that $5 and you put it into your... [audio trails off]

Shaan Puri

Your risk bucket.</FormattedResponse>

Chris Camillo

Yeah — "account bucket," right? *By the way, this is not financial advice.* It's just how I did it. I'm just saying I hope I'm inspiring people because I understand something: I graduated in the bottom 25% of my high school class. With the way college admissions are today, that's the bottom 20%. I could not — I would not have gotten into any university in the United States, pretty much today in 2025, with my grades. </FormattedResponse>

Shaan Puri

**This is why I love doing the podcast:** you can get people who make their money in all different ways. We just had **John Morgan** — the guy on the billboards for personal injury law. He's the biggest personal injury lawyer in the world, about $2 billion a year. He started his career working at Disney World as Pluto; he would be in the costume. Because of that formative experience, he took money from the law firm and started building little attractions — fairs and ticketed places like the Museum of Crime and History. He’s made a killing doing that. So if that guy comes on and tells you how you make money that way, another guy will say you do it this other way. What I love about the podcast is I get to hear people who come on with completely different blueprints and playbooks that they 100% believe in. I get to listen and decide for myself: does that sound like something that's interesting or would suit me? I hope the listener does the same. I don't agree with a lot of what you said, but I found it all very interesting. There are some things you said that — I'll be totally honest — would make me hesitant. If you had a paid course somewhere, I would be like, **I can't run this episode**, because I feel like this guy is selling a dream to people. Like, "yeah, you just gotta go get in the TikTok comments, find an observation, lever up, baby, make a trade — one trade will change your life." That is a scary principle. I think that is a heretical idea to a lot of people. But it's very interesting to me to hear and to talk about. Why is it important to you that the average person listening believes this and goes to take action on it? Because, like I said, you're not running a fund — you're not soliciting investors, you're not selling a course saying, "I'll teach you how to do this, trust me, it works." You're not doing those things, which is usually why people pound the table and say, "You could do this — just believe, just go for it."

Chris Camillo

My overriding purpose is to inspire every human on Earth to enter the investing class. I think it's the only way we'll ever solve the wealth gap. There's no way to solve the income gap—it's an exceptionally difficult problem to solve. The wealth gap, however, is solvable by bridging more people into the investor class. Everything I do on X [formerly Twitter], everything I do on YouTube, every podcast I record has a single mission: **to inspire other people to start investing on their own**. By all means, if that means just throwing money in the S&P 500 in an ETF, awesome. But there's no reason to stop there. People love the concept of hope and the opportunity to do something truly great in their lives, because so many are stuck when it comes to income—their job is not going anywhere. By the way, I am not a proponent of people quitting their jobs to become entrepreneurs and taking massive personal risk to start businesses. I think very few people are capable of doing that. This roadmap is way more achievable: *start making trade-offs, come up with a big money account, do it through frugality, learn how to use leverage, and learn how to take big risks with other people's money.* I call it "other people's money" because it often comes through trade-offs in things that you believe in. There's nothing cooler than when you're just a regular person and you make a grand slam in the market—when you 30x your money and suddenly have financial independence. I don't know many things more important, because it helps solve so many other issues. So many people are depressed because they look at their life and think: "This is my job. These are my expenses. This is inflation. Holy crap, I'm screwed. I will never be the person I want to be for me or my family." I want to inspire people that it doesn't have to be that way. You also don't need to be taking big risks with your retirement money or other critical funds. That's why I'm very clear: if you're going to do this, do it with money that's bucketed for risk. This isn't just about investing. The same methodology—identifying change in the world, tailwinds, and trends—should apply to your career and to entrepreneurship as well. I'm an entrepreneur; I'm about to start another business, and that business is directly tied to the analysis I'm doing—discovering change in the world. We're about to embark on this journey of abundance. That's not going to mean we reach an "age of abundance" in five years and stop working. The age of abundance will happen slowly—it's already happening—and it will unfold over decades through lots of tailwinds and trends. People will work a little less, have a little more free time, and have more flexibility to dive into the things they care about. Wealth signaling will, I think, become even bigger in the future than it is today. There are so many massive changes happening in the world. If you're an entrepreneur figuring out where to spend your time, or someone figuring out your next career path, or a young person asking "Where's my career path?"—you need to analyze where the opportunity is. These are some of the biggest decisions of your life. It's not just about trading a stock.

Shaan Puri

Yeah, especially in **Silicon Valley** — I see this all the time. People will take a job and then realize they're investing all of their life force: their creative energy. They're getting stock options, but they never thought about it *like an investor*. They're just happy they got the job. You should be looking at the job market the way an investor looks at companies. Even if you're not investing capital, you're investing your time. So that applies totally. You said, "You're launching..." [sentence trails off]

Chris Camillo

A new business — what is it? It is related to the private jet industry, which I believe will be one of numerous beneficiaries of us entering this **age of abundance**, with people having more. In fact, I'll just quickly state this: if you want a glimpse into the future, you need to simply look back into our past — to the pandemic. That one year of the pandemic gave us an abnormal amount of time as humans. We had never experienced anything like that in our lifetime: excess time to actually do what we wanted to do. We also just happened to have excess money because of this wild stimulus that happened during the pandemic. So, if you want an example of what the age of abundance is going to look like in terms of winners and losers, just look back to that one year. What did we do when we had more time and more money? We dug into our hobbies and our interests. We did things that, now that we're back in the world, we do a little less of. But if we truly get the industry of intelligence, automation, and robotics to help us do the vast majority of work — at least the repetitive work we do today — I think the entire world has an opportunity to become more creative, to spend more time with family and friends, and to do things that are meaningful. Travel, certainly, is something we can all count on as becoming a larger industry, not a smaller one. I am ultra long on the private jet sector. Even though I personally carry too much guilt to fly private — so you'll never see me on a private jet — I'm **very bullish** on the sector.

Shaan Puri

That's amazing, Chris. Thanks for coming on, man — I appreciate you. People can go find you. You've got your show *Dumb Money Live*; it's on YouTube. That's where I watch it, at least when I tune in. So, thanks for coming on.

Chris Camillo

And by the way, the only place I am personally is on *X* — *@chriscamillo* on X. *Dumbmoney.tv* has all the socials. Thanks for having me on; I appreciate it. Very cool.

Shaan Puri

Well, that's it. That's the pod.