December 1, 2025

When Influence Becomes a Business Plan

The tycoon, the throne, and the tokens

Picture this: you're already powerful, already rich, already deep into the Silicon Valley Cool Boys Club—and suddenly, the call comes. There’s a rumour you’re about to be crowned AI and crypto czar by the White House (not just any White House—Trump’s 2.0).

That’s the plot twist David Sacks may be living out, and if a recent report is to be believed, he could stand to make a quiet fortune from it. The guy’s got his hands in everything from LayerZero to bitcoin policy think tanks. So if he gets the nod, his policy pen might just be writing checks… to himself.

The internet’s take? "Conflict of interest." Sacks’ take? "Nothing burger."

But this saga isn’t just politics-meets-portfolio—it's a masterclass in how influence, relationships, and reputation collide to shape decisions. And yep, there’s something in here for hiring leaders, too.

Power compounds when expertise meets narrative

David Sacks isn’t accidentally in this position. He’s built credibility across PayPal, Yammer, Craft Ventures, and countless cap tables. People don’t just know he’s smart—they believe he’s right.

Sound familiar? That’s what candidates bring into your high-stakes hiring moments, too. Not just skills, but narrative capital. They walk into interviews with reputations, stories, followings. In public-facing roles — especially in AI, crypto, or cyber security — their profile matters as much as their CV.

The Sacks situation is a potent reminder:

• Hiring for influence is different from hiring for execution.
• Perception creates leverage — for better or for worse.
• And if you don’t understand a candidate’s strategic narrative, someone else will — and use it.

So when you’re hiring for your AI team, your cloud infrastructure, or that prized CISO seat, ask yourself: what narrative are you actually recruiting for?

Governance matters — in politics and recruitment

Let’s not get cute about it — if Sacks is put in charge of AI and crypto while holding investments across the space, the conflict smells stronger than three-day-old chicken curry in a WeWork fridge.

So what’s the lesson for hiring teams? Simple: setup matters. Put the right structure around power before you hand someone the keys.

When I see startup boards rush to hire superstar-looking candidates because they went to Stripe or sold a company to Google… but haven’t thought through reporting lines, conflict clauses, or post-hire asset disclosures, I flinch so hard I spill my coffee.

Here are three questions every leadership hire should trigger:

• What actual authority are we granting, and where are the limits?
• Where could their outside interests create tension?
• If power were abused (even unknowingly), how would we know?

Look, I’m not saying top talent shouldn’t have side bets — hell, most of them do. I'm saying don’t sleepwalk into power dynamics you haven’t modelled. Because once they're in, unwinding a bad hire can cost more than missing a good one.

Network hires: blessing or blind spot?

The deeper point in the Sacks story? Relationships open doors before formal structures ever do. His potential appointment isn’t just policy work — it’s networking rewarded with national scope.

That’s how hiring often works in tech, too — friends hire friends, investors recommend operators, founders follow each other from one startup to the next. It’s fast, efficient, sometimes magic. And also…terrifyingly incestuous.

Some hiring leaders confuse social proof with competency. Or mistake shared dinner tables for shared vision.

If you’re operating in this space — hiring in fintech, greentech, AI, or data — you need friction in your hiring process to catch unconscious bias. And no, that's not some woke HR policy — it's strategic insurance against building a team of cozy yes-people with identical blind spots.

You want loyalty? Hire well. You want performance? Hire diverse brains and challenge your network's echo chamber.

Look past the flash — even when it shines

Sacks is charismatic. Sharp. Very online. Oh, and did I mention absurdly connected?

Those qualities can blindside even seasoned founders in hiring. I've seen it countless times: candidate comes in with swagger, viral LinkedIn posts, war stories from hypergrowth darlings, maybe a podcast or two.

The founder's eyes light up. "This person gets it!"

But here’s the kicker: charisma covers gaps. And if you assign them too much authority too fast, you’re not hiring a contributor — you’re importing an ideology. One you may not fully understand until you're 6 months and 2 exits deep in political fallout.

Hire boldly, yes. But calibrate power with clarity, not just confidence. Talent isn’t one-size-fits-all. Ask:

• Is this person’s playbook appropriate for our stage?
• Am I falling for style over substance?
• How will this person behave when they disagree with me?

Closing thoughts: beware the “nothing burger”

Calling something a “nothing burger” is a power move. It downplays scrutiny, ridicules concern, and shifts focus. It's also… a little manipulative.

The hiring equivalent? Brushing off red flags. Pretending a funky reference doesn’t matter because the candidate’s a “star.” Handing over authority and hoping they’ll scale into it. That’s the real danger burger.

Whether you’re hiring into a startup or into national policy, the lesson is the same: talent is power. And power, unless rigorously structured and earnestly vetted, doesn’t just go off-course. It goes off-script — fast.

If you want to build teams with integrity, impact and resilient outcomes — don’t just look at what people say they’ll do. Look at what they’re positioned to influence, directly and indirectly. And build from there.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to grill my next candidate — with extra pickles and no "nothing burgers," thanks.

Back to news