David Sacks engagement report
@DavidSacks - 1.8M followers on X
Measured over 13 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 26, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 3.3K interactions against 1.8M followers, an engagement rate of 0.185%. Measured over 13 original posts, its engagement rate beats 80% of 20,688 tracked accounts of a similar size. Comparing inside a size band matters here: engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly just re-measure the follower count. Posts are seen about 235K times each, and 1.39% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 13.3% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 3.4 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 77% of days. Most posts go out around 15:00 UTC, and Monday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 13 posts sampled, 54% carry an image or video, 31% are part of a thread and 23% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 55K interactions, about 17x its own typical post.
Measured over 13 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 26, 2026.
Compared with accounts its own size
David Sacks's engagement rate beats 80% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,688 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 10 of 10)). A percentile is spread evenly by construction, so 50 really is the middle of that group and 90 really is its top tenth.
On engagement per impression rather than per follower it beats 56% of the same group. When those two numbers disagree, the gap is about how far its posts travel rather than how people react to them.
Where this sits in the catalog
At 0.185%, David Sacks sits above the 50th percentile of the 208,131 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the above the median band, which runs 0.144% to 0.683%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.025% |
| 50th percentile | 0.144% |
| 75th percentile | 0.683% |
| 90th percentile | 2.57% |
| 99th percentile | 82.6% |
This ruler is the whole measured catalog, not a size-matched group: it shows where the raw rate falls across every account we can measure, all of which are large. For a like-for-like comparison, read the size-band percentile above instead. See how the bands are built
Posting timing
This account posts most often around 15:00 UTC, and Monday is its busiest day of the week. The bars below are the catalog-wide pattern, with this account's own busiest slot marked. They do not show how this account performs at each hour: we keep one aggregate per account, not one per hour, so that measurement does not exist in our data.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 89K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 88K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 94K |
| 04:00 UTC | -5% | 76K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 75K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 86K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 93K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 108K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 124K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 129K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 141K |
| 12:00 UTC | -3% | 154K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 167K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 173K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 176K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 171K |
| 17:00 UTC | -3% | 159K |
| 18:00 UTC | -2% | 149K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 141K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 131K |
| 21:00 UTC | 0% | 116K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 23:00 UTC | -1% | 90K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 393K |
| Monday | +1% | 483K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 520K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 472K |
| Thursday | -2% | 430K |
| Friday | -3% | 447K |
| Saturday | +2% | 393K |
Formats this account uses
Its own posting mix on the left, and what each of those formats does across every account we track on the right. Only formats where the effect clears our publish test appear here, so an empty row is a format we could not measure rather than one that does nothing.
| Format | This account | Catalog effect | 95% interval | Accounts behind it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image or video | 54% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 23% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 54% of this account's sampled posts carry an image or video. Across the catalog, posts with an image or video run 111% above the same accounts' other posts.
- 23% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts.
- Its average post runs 734 characters, which falls in the over 280 characters band. Across the catalog, posts over 280 characters run 15% above the same accounts' other posts.
These are catalog-wide differences applied to this account's own posting mix, not a measurement of how each format performs for this account specifically. We keep one median per account, not one per format per account, so the second thing is not something this data can tell you.
Best tweets
- Mar 1, 202517x their median
WHY ZELENSKY CANNOT MAKE PEACE Zelensky’s meltdown in the Oval Office began over his refusal to accept a negotiated settlement to the war. Even the Vice President’s use of the word “diplomacy” provoked a heated response. So why can’t Zelensky make a peace deal? 1) He will lose power. Zelensky cancelled elections in Ukraine and remains in power through martial law. Despite what USAID propaganda polls may claim, Zelensky is unpopular in Ukraine and would likely lose a fair election. That could leave him vulnerable to retaliation from political opponents he has imprisoned or seized assets from. In short, Zelensky needs the war to justify his continued rule. 2) The gravy train will end. Ukraine was widely acknowledged as the most corrupt country in Europe before the war, and there is abundant evidence that Ukrainian elites have been hugely profiting from the billions in Western aid. If the war ends, so does the gravy train. A post-war audit of where the money went would also be disastrous for Zelensky’s supporters. 3) He fears the ultra-nationalists. Most Ukrainians say they want the war to end, but the ultra-nationalist faction (a relative minority but well-armed and willing to use violence to achieve their ends) refuses to accept any territorial concessions to Russia. If Zelensky signs such a deal, he has reason to fear for his safety. 4) He’s psychologically committed. Zelensky’s belief in ultimate victory over Russia has “hardened into a form that worries some of his advisors,” according to a report by TIME Magazine, which described Zelensky’s faith as “immovable, verging on the messianic.” According to one of Zelensky’s aides, “He is delusional. We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.” Zelensky may be in too deep to see the situation objectively. 5) History will judge him harshly. Zelensky could have accepted a draft peace deal signed in the first month of the war, the Istanbul Accords, under which Ukraine would have kept all of its territory in exchange for neutrality. A deal now will likely be modeled on Istanbul but require Ukraine to recognize realities on the ground (ie loss of territory). Acknowledging that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died only to get a worse deal may be too bitter a pill for Zelensky to swallow, now or ever. In summary, Zelensky has powerful motivations to reject a deal, no matter how bad the battlefield realities get. His incentive is to continue a doomed war even if it leads to the complete destruction of Ukraine. Instead of offering unconditional support, Zelensky’s supporters in the West should be urging him to seek a diplomatic off-ramp. Certainly they should stop catering to his unrealistic and maximalist demands. As Solzhenitsyn said, the yes-man is your enemy, but a friend will argue with you.
- Jul 27, 202645x their median
btw anthropic's internal document on this literally said "we don't want it to be known that we are working on this.” it was called project panama. here's exactly what happened: 1: anthropic concluded that books were the cheapest way to build a world-class model because they gave claude curated facts, structured arguments, compelling stories, and writing “an editor would approve of.” 2: once anthropic decided it needed books at enormous scale, its first solution was piracy. it downloaded 7m+ books from online libraries including libgen. the judge later wrote that although anthropic had legal ways to buy them, it chose piracy to avoid what dario amodei called the “legal/practice/business slog.” 3: that piracy created a massive legal risk. so in february 2024, anthropic hired tom turvey, the former head of partnerships for google books, to find a legally safer way of obtaining “all the books in the world.” 4: turvey first contacted major publishers about licensing their catalogs. those attempts didn’t produce agreements, so anthropic chose a route that required no publisher permission: buying millions of physical books through distributors and used-book retailers. 5: within about a year, anthropic spent tens of millions acquiring and scanning millions of books, including many rare and 1/1 titles. one vendor proposal targeted 500,000 to 2 million books in six months. 6: to scan that many books within months, the vendors physically dismantled them. a hydraulic cutter removed each spine. the pages were trimmed to size, fed as loose sheets through high-speed industrial scanners, and converted into searchable PDFs. the paper remains were then sent for recycling. 7: these PDFs were fed into claude as training data. the complete collection became a private, searchable anthropic library that the company planned to “store forever.” the scans aren’t available to the public and were never open-sourced.
- Aug 1, 202613x their median
David Sacks on Mamdani’s Government-Run Grocery Stores “It is ironic that they're going to be checking ID to make sure people aren't coming over from Jersey but if you want to come over illegally from any country in the world, that's just fine.” https://t.co/U7TGIzIHKk
- Jul 30, 20268.1x their median
More than a year ago, the House passed the Clarity Act. There’s been progress since — thousands of hours of bipartisan negotiations took place at the staff and Member levels. The Senate Committees on Banking and Agriculture advanced their respective titles. And Senate Republicans produced a floor-ready product that, as I type this, is waiting for a vote. It’s disappointing — but not surprising — that Senate Democrats are choosing politics on the cusp of a major victory for American leadership. Find another instance in history where Congress, when given the choice, opted to push an industry out of the United States rather than smartly regulate it. American Exceptionalism was once a bipartisan goal; if Clarity fails, I have serious doubts. These same Democrats — many of whom have taken millions of dollars from the crypto industry — proclaim that Clarity lacks safeguards for consumers and falls short in countering illicit finance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Titles II and III materially uplift regulatory and compliance obligations for digital asset intermediaries, placing them on similar footing with traditional financial institutions. The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act — which Washington lobbyists have spun up as a boogeyman for certain groups of prosecutors and law enforcement — does nothing other than codify longstanding Treasury Department policy that’s remained consistent across Administrations: non-custodial builders and developers are not, and have never been, subject to registration obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act. And at this point, major law enforcement trades that once opposed the bill, including the Fraternal Order of Police, have now endorsed it. The Senate needs to vote NOW on this landmark legislation. The truth is that Senate Democrats are afraid to advance the Clarity Act as they fear Senator Warren and the “Anti-Crypto Army” she once promised to build. In the days ahead, Leader Thune will put this theory to the test. Will Senate Democrats be on the side of American Exceptionalism, or will they opt to cede American leadership of a global industry for fear of the bespectacled squirrel’s Left flank? America will lead or America won’t. It’s not more complicated than that. I believe Satoshi once said it best: “If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.”
- Sep 30, 20264.8x their median
The Bretton Woods of Super Intelligence https://t.co/J7eFIqYUMq
- Aug 7, 20264.6x their median
Most people don't realize how big of a growth wave we are currently experiencing. So far, with 88% of S&P 500 companies reporting earnings, the index has posted +50.4% growth in earnings year-over-year. To put this into perspective, the already astronomical expectation of +23.1% growth has been more than doubled. This will mark the 2nd consecutive quarter of earnings growth above +25% and the 7th consecutive quarter of double-digit earnings growth for the S&P 500. The last time growth was this strong was in Q2 2021 as the US economy emerged from the pandemic and $4+ trillion in stimulus was handed out. We are arguably in the midst of the biggest technological revolution in US history. The data is absolutely insane.
- Sep 10, 20264.6x their median
Surely Anthropic’s IPO must be paused until the claims of this “whistleblower” can be investigated.
- Jul 26, 20264.3x their median
The entire tech industry (save for Anthropic) has come out in favor of open source AI. So what happens next? Will Anthropic change its lobbying efforts? Not likely. Now the gaslighting begins: “Nobody is trying to ban open source.” “We just want to limit who can use it.” “We just want to limit who can contribute to it.” “We just want to limit how powerful those models can be.” “We just want to make sure the guardrails (we lobbied for) can’t be removed.” The net effect will be the same. They won’t stop until they kneecap open source. The rest of the industry needs to watch these guys like a hawk.
- Jul 27, 20264.0x their median
There’s been a lot of speculation about where we stand on open-weights models. We’ve outlined our views in full here: https://t.co/NtXQuWm2g5
- Sep 19, 20263.8x their median
Thanks to President Trump’s leadership on AI: — a million new jobs have been created around the AI buildout; — 401(k)s are up ~12% this year as AI capex and productivity lift the market; — America is re-industrializing, including the first large private investments in power generation and the grid in a generation; — In rural Richland Parish, Louisiana, teachers just received $50,000 bonuses from data-center tax revenue. Because the media portrays AI only as a menace, people tell pollsters they “don’t like AI.” Their behavior says otherwise. AI products are the fastest-adopted technology in history — faster than the internet or the iPhone. People like the tools, the jobs, and the tax base. President Trump understands the media hoax cycle better than anyone else. That is why he is refusing the “pause” that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are demanding. A pause would not make America safer. It would hand the frontier to China. That would be a disaster for the American economy and for national security.
Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.
Buy or sell Twitter (X) accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for Twitter (X) accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 3.3K interactions against 1.8M followers, an engagement rate of 0.185%. Measured over 13 original posts, its engagement rate beats 80% of 20,688 tracked accounts of a similar size. Comparing inside a size band matters here: engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly just re-measure the follower count. Posts are seen about 235K times each, and 1.39% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 13.3% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 3.4 posts a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 77% of days. Most posts go out around 15:00 UTC, and Monday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 13 posts sampled, 54% carry an image or video, 31% are part of a thread and 23% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 55K interactions, about 17x its own typical post.
- What is David Sacks's engagement rate on X?
- David Sacks (@DavidSacks) has an engagement rate of 0.185%, based on the median interactions across 13 original posts from the last 30 days against 1,772,407 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.185%, David Sacks sits above the 50th percentile of the 208,131 accounts in this comparison. Those comparison accounts are all large ones, because our scanning cadence is weighted towards big accounts, so this is a ranking among peers of similar scale rather than a ranking across X.
- Does @DavidSacks have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 80% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,688 accounts), which puts it in the top quarter for its size group. Ranking inside a size band matters because engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly re-measure the follower count. It is a starting point for a look at follower quality, not a verdict on it.
- When does @DavidSacks post?
- Most posts go out around 15:00 UTC, and Monday is its busiest day, at roughly 3.43 posts per day across the measured window.