I think the network effects and climate advantages of SF are so strong that simply “moving Silicon Valley” isn’t realistic. It can erode if mismanaged long enough, but markets tend to correct eventually. We will simply elect better politicians. In extremis, even a major earthquake could force long-overdue rebuilding and better governance. Some of our team’s largest investments are in Austin. It’s growing fast and doing real work, particularly in hardware. But Austin feels like a pressure valve for CA’s failures, not a place that has surpassed its underlying advantages. LA still remains the strongest ecosystem, and even South SF could easily re-emerge as a world-class industrial zone. Builders want space, power, talent, and common-sense regulation; we made Liberty ships in Marin, and Tesla was founded here. The fact this has not continued is a poltical decision not geographic destiny. Cynically, if SF can’t figure out how to turn itself around, no city can. The same political and social dynamics are present everywhere; SF is just the earliest and most concentrated expression of them. As arguably the most innovative and productive region in human history, it has the best chance of resolving these tensions as technology accelerates. That synthesis — how a rapidly advancing society governs itself without tearing itself apart — is the political problem of our time. And if it’s going to be solved anywhere, it will be solved here. Long CA, Long SF. For now.