不无聊（与帕基·麦考密克）

完全正确。最糟糕的情况莫过于我做了篇敷衍的赞助内容浪费读者时间，导致他们取消订阅、不再看后续合作文章。如果在这个过程中丧失公信力，整个模式就会崩塌。幸运的是我一直保持透明乐观的态度，所以没人觉得‘这家伙周一痛批科技行业，周四收了钱就突然对这个行业和颜悦色’很分裂。

A 100%. Yeah. The worst thing that could possibly happen is if I did one of those and wasted people's time because people would unsubscribe, people wouldn't read the next sponsored post. The whole thing falls apart if I lose my integrity throughout this process. The lucky thing is that I've been pretty open optimist the whole time, so no one's like, that's so weird.

至少我的立场始终是一致的。

You rip apart tech on Monday. Then on Thursday when people pay you, you're, like, really generous to this whole industry. So it it's all consistent at least.

所以一开始我就告诉过你，这不会全是轻松的话题。我不想假装每个周四的文章都和周一的一样有趣。因为——重申一次，我觉得这没关系——但确实有很多周四文章的标题对我来说不够吸引人。结果我要么不读，要么只是快速浏览，确保自己没有错过什么重要信息，心想‘知道这个可能对我有好处’。然而，当周一文章发布时，我会想‘哦，这可能是下一款伟大的网络游戏。’

So I told you at the beginning this wasn't gonna be all softballs. I don't wanna pretend that every Thursday piece is exactly as interesting as every Monday piece. Because and again, I think this is okay, but there are a lot of Thursday pieces that the headline doesn't sound interesting to me. And I end up either not reading it or just like skimming it to make sure I like didn't miss some huge piece of information where I'm like, it would be good for me to know this. However, when the Monday pieces come out, I'm like, oh, this could be the next great online game.

这可能是下一个合作经济。而周四文章很少给我这种感觉。实际上，像‘Solana之夏’那篇确实算是个例外。但我确实认为这大概符合赞助商的预期——它会吸引他们特别想触达的那群人，那些想了解他们公司的人，而这恰好是你读者群的一部分。但这不太可能是‘来，我们一起闭眼祈祷，假装这和普通内容完全一样’的情况。

This could be the next cooperation economy. And it's rare that I think that a Thursday piece is going to be that. Actually, for, like, Solana Summer, that kinda was that. But I I do think that that's probably in line with your sponsor's expectations is that it's gonna appeal to a group of people that they particularly want to appeal to who wants to know about their company and happens to be a subset of your audience. But it's probably not going to be like, hey, let's all close our eyes and pray and do Kumbaya that this is exactly the same thing as the non sponsored content.

这完全合理。

That's totally fair.

我尽力做到最好。不过我经常写的是某个具体公司，这类题材的设计空间本就比‘伟大网络游戏’之类要小。而且写的公司往往历史较短，可能也没有我写的一些大型上市公司那么复杂。所以我的目标是，每次撰写赞助深度报道时，都要写出关于该公司的最佳文章。很多时候，那是一家成立仅两年的公司——

I try to make it as good as I possibly can. I'm often writing though about either a specific company, which is just like a smaller design space than something like a great online game would be. And I'm also writing, I guess about, you know, a company that has less of a history and like less complexity to it maybe than some of the larger public companies that I write about. So my goal is to write the best thing that's been written on that company every time I do a sponsored deep dive. And chances are, in a lot of cases, it's a two year old company.

关于这种公司的最佳文章，自然比不上用两万字剖析腾讯来得有趣，因为腾讯是业务庞杂、拥有疯狂创新商业模式的企业。所以虽然我希望周四文章尽可能接近周一文章的水准，但真正的自我要求是：这能否成为关于该公司的史上最佳文章？外加：这是我会投资的公司吗？因此，如果周四文章打开率是37%而非45%，我完全接受。而且从公司方的反馈来看，所有人都对赞助深度报道非常满意。

The best thing that's ever been written on that company isn't going to be as interesting as breaking down Tencent over 20,000 words because Tencent is a sprawling business that has this, like, crazy innovative business model. And so while I wanted to be as close to the Monday as humanly possible, like, my real bar for myself is can this be the best thing that's ever been written on this particular company? Plus, is this a company that I would invest in and all of that? And so if the open rate is 37% instead of 45% on Thursdays, I'm totally fine with that. And you know, everybody's come away very happy from the sponsored deep dives on the company side.

是啊。在我看来，关键问题不一定是‘每篇周四文章都要和周一的一样好’，而是‘如果我是公司方，是你的客户，这是否明显是获取深度公司分析的最佳选择？’答案显然是肯定的。他们还能有什么其他选择？

Yeah. To my mind, the right question to ask isn't necessarily is every Thursday piece gonna be as good as every Monday piece. It's if I'm the company, if I'm your customer, is this blatantly obviously the very best thing that I can do to get something written and a great deep analysis done about my company? And that is so obviously yes. What are their alternatives?

懂我意思吗？未来肯定会出现更多像你这样的作者，这很好。这不是零和游戏。但如果我是一家成立两年的公司的创始人，自认做出了很棒的产品，却需要跨越认知鸿沟——毕竟正常情况下，你不太可能为此写周一专栏。

You know? I'm sure there'll be more people like you who pop up and that's great. It's not a zero sum game. But if I'm a two year old company and I'm the founders of that company and I want to I think I've got something great but I need to cross the chasm to have people know about it. It's not like you're gonna write a Monday piece about it otherwise, necessarily.

另一件有趣的事是，公司几乎可以选择他们想要多有趣。我认为我做过的最好的赞助深度报道案例是Ramp公司，那是在早期阶段。他们在同一轮融资中以11亿美元和16亿美元的估值完成了双独角兽轮次。这个案例之所以如此成功，是因为他们的CEO埃里克完全敞开了心扉，他说‘兄弟，毫无保留，随便问’。

The other fun thing too is like, companies can almost choose how interesting they want it to be. I think the best example of a sponsored deep dive that I've done was and this was, you know, this was kind of early on, it was ramp. Then like their kind of double unicorn round when they raised at a $1,100,000,000 valuation and a $1,600,000,000 valuation in the same transaction. And the reason that one worked so well was because Eric, the CEO there was like, dude, completely open kimono. Ask us anything.

我会告诉你这轮融资是如何达成的完整时间线，我会详细解释我们如何构建股权结构表。你告诉我需要什么才能让这篇报道尽可能有趣，我就会提供给你。很多公司会选择另一条路，这也完全合理——他们认为保留某些信息能带来竞争优势。这就是我认为需要权衡的地方。

I will give you the timeline of how this round game came together. I will give you exactly how we think about cap table construction. You tell me what you need to make this the most interesting piece possible, and I will give that to you. And a lot of companies make the trade on the other side, which is also totally fair that they want to keep some information private that they think there's an advantage to keeping private. And so that's the trade that that I think you make there.

但这就是为什么人们在联系我做赞助内容时经常提到那篇报道。而很多公司不愿意做出那种权衡，当我表示‘酷，那篇成功的原因是他们告诉了我一切’时，他们会说‘很好，但...’

But there's a reason, like, I think people refer to that piece often when, you know, they're reaching out to me about sponsored posts. And then a lot of companies aren't willing to make that trade off when I'm like, cool. The reason that one works so well is because they told me everything. And they're like, cool. Do that, but, like,

可能只愿意透露90%的信息。在继续之前，我想讨论最后一个关于新闻操守的话题。因为大卫，我觉得当我们回听这段时，你的观点可能会显得有点...就像‘民主衰败就是从这时开始的’。是的，我们可以指着这个时刻说‘大卫·罗森塔尔说新闻操守不重要’

you know, maybe 90% of the information. Before we move on, I wanna cover one final topic of journalistic integrity. Because David, I think, like, your take may come across when we go back and listen to this as a little bit too, like, and this is when the downfall of democracy started. Yeah. We can point to this moment where David Rosenthal said that journalistic integrity is not

我不是那个意思。

I don't mean it that way.

首先，我不认为这是正确的理解，但确实可能被那样解读。我认为当真正剖析时，新闻操守的重要性体现在两方面：第一是读者完全知晓内容动机，明白自己获得的是什么。我们讨论过这个话题——就像帕基手舞足蹈时，每个人都知道自己参与的是什么。

A, I don't think that's, like, really the right takeaway, but it could be heard that way. I think there's, like, two pieces when you really unpack it of, like, why is journalistic integrity important? The first one is that the reader is fully disclosed on the incentives and knows what they're getting. And we've covered that topic. Like, Packy, wave your arms around all over the place and everyone knows what they signed up for.

这可以说是微观层面或商业层面的考量。但还有宏观层面——如果每个记者都看着你的做法说‘我也能这么干’，对国家可能是坏事。当《纽约时报》《福布斯》《华尔街日报》最优秀的作家们都想着‘我能赚五到十倍的钱，还能拥有更自主的生活方式’，通过开启这种所谓的‘独立新闻’（我认为不该称为新闻，而是完全披露动机、娱乐性强的独立内容创作），我们是否在侵蚀第四权力？

So that's almost like the microeconomic or like the micro to your business. But then there's a macro one too where it could be a bad thing for the state of the republic if every journalist looks over at what you're doing, Packy, and says, I could do that. And you have the very best writers from the New York Times or Forbes or Wall Street Journal that are just like, I could go make five to 10 times as much and have a much more independent lifestyle with control over my life. Okay. By opening this up, this independent journalism, unquote journalism, I think it's important to not call it journalism, independent content creation that is entertaining to read and fully disclosed incentivized do we chisel away at the third estate?

我认为非常有趣的一点是，人们从为出版物工作跳槽到独立发展，现在又开始往回跳。我做不到他们那样的事。这并非是对那些人不尊重，而是我的思维方式不允许。如果有人雇我去当调查记者。

So one of the things that I think has been really interesting is that people have jumped over the fence from working for a publication to going independent, and then now have started to jump back. And like, I couldn't do what they do. And this is not like, you know, a lack of respect for those people. My brain wouldn't work. If someone hired me to be like, you have to go be an investigative journalist.

这行不通对吧？这是我尊重这种工作方式的原因之一，特别是当它被正确运用时。但当同样的标准被套用在刚成立一年的初创公司上时——这些公司可能有点压榨员工，就像初创公司偶尔会做的那样，很多企业也偶尔如此——我就有意见了。

It wouldn't work. Right? And so that's one part. I do have respect for that, particularly where it's applied the right way. My problem is when it's applied to a one year old startup that maybe overworks their, quote unquote, overworks their employees a little bit, as startups occasionally do, and as a lot of companies occasionally do.

当你用调查水门事件般的严苛标准去审视这类公司时，我就觉得不太合适。回到人们来回跳槽这个话题，其中涉及很多因素。我认为独立完成这类新闻调查极其困难，因为你需要律师支持、编辑把关确保准确性，还需要整套保护机制来保障你从事这项勇敢的工作——在独立状态下这些资源更难获取。所以我百分百认同这类新闻存在的必要性。

Like when you apply the same rigor to that as like Watergate, like that's when I I kind of have a bit of an issue with it. So going back to the the piece on kind of people jumping over and back, there's a lot that goes into that. And I think it's really hard to do that kind of journalism independently because you need lawyers who have your back, and you need editors to make sure that you get everything right. And you need like all this stuff to protect you when you're doing this really brave work that I think is tougher to do on the on the independent side. So I a 100% think that there's a place for that kind of journalism.

只是别把这套标准用在，比如说，一家做热狗的初创公司上——就因为某个季度超预算了，就被写成证明初创公司多愚蠢的案例。这种文章真的让我很恼火。

It's just like, don't apply that to, like, a startup that makes hot dogs and, like, came in over budget one quarter and, like, that shows how stupid startups are. Like, that kind of article is what what really gets me.

我觉得反过来说也成立，你做的工作同样不容易。本期节目的目标就是讲述你的故事。我毫不意外的发现是：你整个人生和职业生涯都在为此铺垫。如果你曾是xyz刊物的调查记者，做着完全不同的工作，然后突然转行模仿Paki的做法，你不可能像现在这样得心应手。毕竟你在初创公司从第六号员工做到数百人规模，经历了六年。

Well, I think it also works the other way too, which is that it's hard to do what you're doing. The goal of this episode has been to tell your story. And I think one of the takeaways that I'm not surprised by is like your whole life and career led to this. So if you were an investigative journalist at x y z publication doing very much not this, and then you're like, oh, I'm just gonna jump over and do what Paki does, You wouldn't be equipped in the same way that you are. You know, you worked for six years at a startup from employee six through hundreds of people.

还经历过失败，这很有帮助。没错，正是失败的经历。

And through failure, which helps. Through failure. Yeah. Exactly.

你说得对。这其中也包含着同理心。我完全清楚自己作为员工（而非创始人）所在的初创公司，在融资1.2亿美元后以300万美元出售是多么罕见。所以除非内容本身有价值，否则没人应该听我说话——外面有更多更成功的人值得学习。所有这些经历让我对创业者充满同理心，但内容终究要靠实力说话。

I think that's right. There's definitely an empathy there too. And, like, I go into this knowing full well that it's wild that I was an employee, not a founder, at a startup that sold for $3,000,000 after raising $120,000,000 So like, unless the content stands for itself, like nobody should be listening to me because there are many more successful people to listen to out there. So all of that has led in, I think gives me a great empathy for what founders are doing, but the content has to stand for itself.

好的，让我们回到故事主线。你提到二月份时本·汤普森曾用‘某个写通讯稿的家伙，名字记不清了’之类的话提到你。复合效应的有趣之处在于，你从一生从未被本·汤普森提及，到现在感觉几乎每读几期他的通讯都能看到‘帕基又出现了’。但第一次被以‘无名氏’方式提及是在二月，当时你推特粉丝数是22,000。同月你还发了条推文说希望《Not Boring》今年能赚100万，正如戴维在笔记里写的——这听起来简直疯狂。

Okay. So taking us back to the story, you mentioned February is when Ben Thompson mentioned you as some guy who writes a newsletter whose name I can't remember or something like that. And of course, the funny thing about compounding, you went from zero Ben Thompson mentions your whole life to like, now it feels like every few, newsletters I read from him, I'm like, oh, there's Packy again. But that first no name name mention, I think was in February when you had 22,000 Twitter followers. You also sent out a tweet in February that you wanted Not Boring to make 1,000,000 this year, which as David has in the notes sounds effing crazy.

我很好奇你构思那条推文时心理活动是怎样的？是因为赞助内容进展顺利吗？还是当时已经在考虑成立‘Not Boring Capital’了？那一刻是什么感觉？

And I'm curious what happened in your brain as you formulated that tweet? Was it that the sponsored posts had been going well? Were you already contemplating not boring capital? What was that moment like?

没错。我当时确实稍微考虑过‘Not Boring Capital’，但这个想法还在雏形。那条推文纯粹是指通过新闻通讯赚一百万。那时候发生了几件事：比如我和Composer的本合写了篇关于Excel的文章，被两篇不同的《纽约时报》文章引用，还登上了Hacker News榜首之类的。那是我第一次感受到自己的内容真正进入主流视野。

Yeah. So I'd been thinking a little bit about not boring capital. And so that was there, but really was talking about just purely making a million dollars off of the newsletter. A couple of things that happened around that time, like me and Ben from Composer wrote this piece on Excel that got picked up, I think, by two separate New York Times articles and got to the top of Hacker News and all of that kind of stuff. I was like, woah, that was my first taste of, like, this thing really going kind of mainstream.

当时我刚刚写完或正在写一篇赞助内容，合作公司反馈特别好。我人在迈阿密，天气晴朗。如果二月份还在纽约，我可能就不会发那条推了。但那天醒来阳光明媚——

I had written a sponsored post, I think probably, you know, either that week or was in the middle of writing the post. And the company was really happy with it. And I was in Miami, the weather was nice. And I could have been in New York in the February, and I probably wouldn't have tweeted the same thing. But I woke up and the sun was shining.

我就想：生活真不赖。那时候月收入大概1万到1.5万美元？也可能2万？记不清了。总之那天早上感觉特别棒，

And I was like, you know what, Life is pretty good. Like, I'm probably making at this point, call it 10 or $15,000 a month or something like that. So like, not close, maybe 20. I don't know. But I just woke up feeling like really good.

于是决定：干脆说出来吧。别人可能觉得我是个混蛋，但我也经历过几个月零收入的挣扎，现在就想大胆说出来。后来发现这类推文往往能获得巨大支持——没人觉得这是傲慢，因为我说的是‘要是能实现就太酷了’而不是‘快看我做到了’。

And I was like, you know, I'm just gonna say this. So like, people will probably think I'm an asshole, but I've struggled on $0 for the past x number of months, and I'm just gonna say it. And then as I think happens often with those tweets, like, the support was actually huge from them. Like, nobody reads that as a cocky signal because first, didn't say, like, guess what I just did. It was more like, hope that it'd be wild if this happens.

而且人们确实喜欢看别人冒险并取得成功。

But also people, like, wanna see other people take risks and succeed at them,

我想说的是，如果帕奎在做这件事，某种程度上可能我也在做类似的事。

I think. It's like if Pacqui's making it, maybe I'm kinda making it in a way.

另外一点是，我想，在我宣称‘今年我要赚百万年薪’和说‘Not Boring公司能赚百万美元’之间还是有个微小缓冲的，毕竟它是个企业。对企业而言，年入百万不算什么。在当前市场环境下，你或许能凭此筹集种子轮甚至A轮融资，但对媒体公司来说肯定不行。从商业角度看，这并不疯狂，但这就是当初想法的来源。

The other thing is, I guess, there is, like, a tiny buffer between just, like, me saying, I'm gonna make a million dollar salary this year, and saying, Not Boring will make a million dollars because it's still a business. For a business, million dollars a year is fine. You could probably raise a seed and maybe a series A in this market on that, and certainly not in a media company. You know, it's not like anything crazy from a business perspective, but, you know, that was that was where that came from.

好的，给我们更新下进展吧。现在已经是——等这期发布时应该到12月了——目前趋势如何？

Alright. So give us the update. We're now in, it'll be December by the time this comes out. How are trending?

我觉得WagMe...我们正在讨论Pilot项目，我确实可能需要簿记员的协助。我刚查看了Mercury账户——我所有银行业务都在那里处理——估计目前营收约75万美元。还有一堆未结发票，有些人寄支票，有些款项直接打到我的个人账户。

I think WagMe. We're talking about Pilot, and I certainly probably need the help of bookkeepers. I just pulled my Mercury account that, you know, I I do all of my banking in, and and I think that probably has about 750,000 in revenue. There's a bunch of invoices outstanding. Some people send checks, some goes to my personal banking.

无论如何这都算不上运营良好的企业。不过有几个项目即将落地，所以2021年我们很可能会勉强突破百万美元营收。

This is not a well run business by any stretch of the imagination. And I have a few pieces kind of coming up and so I think chances are we're going to just kind of cross a million dollars in 2021.

哇，太棒了。

Wow. So great.

你发那条推特时，预估的成功概率是多少？我当时会认为概率大概是...

What would you have put the percentage chance at when you sent that tweet? I would have put the percentage chance that

我们的年收入达到了百万美元级别，这相当高了。考虑到我当时已经大致了解接下来几个月的赞助日程安排，而这样的增长速度还不足以让我实现目标，我原本估计今年实际达成百万美元的概率可能只有20%左右。这就是复利效应的力量——数字不断累积扩大，以至于原本需要10次赞助深度访谈才能达到的效果，现在一次就能完成。这一切都在不断增长和叠加，但依然让人觉得难以置信。

we got to a million dollar run rate pretty high. I thought probably given that I kind of like knew what my sponsorship calendar was for the next couple months at that point, and it wasn't the right run rate to get me there, I probably would have put it at like 20% that I actually hit a million this year. It is the power of compounding kind of happening where like, the numbers just keep getting bigger to the point where it's like, you know, what would have taken me 10 sponsored deep dives, can now do in one sponsored deep dive. And so that just kind of all grows and compounds, I guess, but still absolutely crazy.

说到复利效应，你从最初的几百粉丝增长到2万或2.2万粉丝（截至你发那条推文的二月），到六月时又翻倍至4.2万。现在你粉丝数突破10万简直太疯狂了。你的粉丝量每月保持着20%到40%的增长速度，虽然会有些波动。

I mean, speaking of compounding, so you had gone from a few 100 followers to 20,000 followers or 22,000 followers by that February when you sent that tweet. You'd already doubled that then by June to 42,000. It's crazy that you're now over a 100,000. You definitely have this thing where you're growing somewhere from 20 to 40% per month. It kinda bumps up and down.

但现在对你来说，更多是市场饱和的问题——这条S型曲线的顶端何时会出现？或者说增长何时会趋于平缓？这里存在一点...

But at this point, it's probably for you more of a market saturation question of like, when does that top of the s curve start to hit? Or when does this thing linear out a little bit? There's a little bit

推特数据里有个小遗憾：曾经让我自豪的是订阅用户数多于推特粉丝数，而现在情况反过来了。目前我在推特上有约105万粉丝，而新闻通讯订阅者只有88万。所以我们需要改变这种状况，这可能意味着我该少花点时间发推文了。

of a bummer in those Twitter numbers, which is a point of pride for a while was that I had more subscribers than I had Twitter followers. And now I have more Twitter followers than I have subscribers. I'm at like, you know, a 105 or something on Twitter and 88 in the newsletter. And so like Let's change that. That probably means that I should spend a little less time tweeting.

各位，我们需要帮帮忙。如果还没订阅的话，赶紧去订阅吧。

Everybody, we need to help pack you out here. Go subscribe if you haven't already.

某种程度上说，如果那些收听《Acquired》节目却未订阅《Not Boring》的人真实存在，这确实会让我震惊。我总忍不住想：这些人是谁？我们的内容相对更...（这正是我想和你探讨的）更虚无缥缈、理论化、抽象，坦白说也更少关注未来。有个问题想问你：你是什么时候抱着怀疑态度走到Web3悬崖边，然后不带降落伞就跳下去的？因为你在这方面比我们《Acquired》走得远得多。

In some ways, would shock me actually if well, know numbers wise, there are people who listen to Acquired who aren't subscribed to Not Boring. But in my head, I'm like, who are those people? Like, we're a little bit less and this is something I wanted to talk to you about, like ethereal, theoretical, abstract, and frankly, like, little bit less future looking. Like, one question I have for you is, at what point did you skeptically walk up to the web three cliff and then just jump off it without a parachute? Because you did way more of that than we've done here at Acquired.

所以这可能反映了受众群体的差异。但话说回来——如果你还没订阅《Not Boring》，天哪，赶紧去订阅吧！

So I can imagine maybe that's a difference in audience. But let me bring it back to, if you're not subscribed to Not Boring, oh my god, go subscribe.

谢谢。Notboring.co。是的。我认为Web3是一个转折点。所以，你知道，我在2020年写了很多关于这个话题的内容，很多公司都非常引人入胜，我一直想深入挖掘。坦白说，你们在这方面做得比我好得多，我能够基于你们的工作成果进一步展开。

Thank you. Notboring.co. Yeah. So the Web three point, I think the Web three was a turning point. And so, you know, I wrote about for a lot of 2020, a lot of companies that are super fascinating and that I've always wanted to just like dig really deep into and frankly that you all have done way better work on than I have and was able to kind of build on the backup of what you've done there.

谢谢。并非如此。不同的方法。请继续。

Thank you. Not true. Different approaches. Continue.

你们是先行者。我可以肯定地说，如果没有——我们稍后会提到腾讯那期节目——但如果没有《Unacquired》上关于腾讯的那期节目，可能就不会有那两期关于腾讯的《Not Boring》专题。无论如何，这些都是基础性的内容。我意识到，可能最初在金融行业工作时就明白，有些人比我更擅长深入研究上市公司和分析上市公司。所以，选择转向Web3而不是继续研究上市公司，并不是一个那么清晰的决定。

You were first. And so like, I I can tell you for a fact that without, again, we'll go to the Tencent episode, but without the Tencent episode on Unacquired, there wouldn't probably be that not boring two parter on Tencent. And so either way, that is just foundational stuff. And I realized, I think probably something that I realized when I was in finance in the first place is that there are people who are just so much better at digging into public companies than I am, and analyzing public companies than I am. And so it wasn't really kind of that clean a choice to say like, you know what, instead of public companies, I'm gonna do this web three thing.

但当我开始写关于Web3的内容时，我记得在1月份写过一篇文章《开放元宇宙的价值链》，在那篇文章的开头，我几乎是在为写关于加密货币和元宇宙的内容道歉。我当时说，大家，这真的很奇怪。我的读者群体已经变得偏向金融推特（FinTwit）和金融领域，我当时想——

But when I started writing about web three, I remember there was one essay that I wrote, the value chain of the open metaverse back in January, where I was really apologetic, almost even in the intro to that piece that I was writing about crypto and the metaverse. I was everybody, this is really weird. My audience had become, like, fairly FinTwit and finance heavy, and I thought

今年。那是Paki McCormack在2021年写的，带着歉意说：'对不起，我在谈论加密货币。'

this year. That's Paki McCormack writing in 2021 apologetically that I I'm sorry. I'm talking about crypto.

对吧？这说明自那以后世界发生了多大的变化。那是在Beeple以6900万美元出售作品之前，以及我提到的Beeple早期的一些事情之前。在你试图——

Right? I mean, it shows how much the world has changed since then. This was before Beeple's $69,000,000 sale and a bunch of stuff that I talked about kind of some of the early early Beeple's. Before you tried to

购买美国宪法之前。

buy the US constitution.

之前我曾尝试与一群朋友共同购买美国宪法。但你知道，那件事最终反响很好，因为我认为它再次以乐观的视角看待加密货币。至少，它没有对正在发生的事情持否定态度。但归根结底，这其实是回归基础：拿价值链来说，当你剔除中间商时会发生什么？

Before I tried to buy the US constitution with a bunch of friends. But, you know, that piece ended up being, I think, really well received because it was a, again, optimistic take, I guess, on crypto. It was like a non dismissive take, at least, on what was going on. But it was really back to, like, the basics of, like, alright, take a value chain. What happens when you take the middleman out?

我不喜欢当时围绕加密货币使用的那些语言。我觉得那些言论把我吓退了，比如‘我们要推翻机构’、‘我们要消除中间商’之类的。我当时就想，不不不。让我们退一步看，如果你从交易中剔除某人，让消费者和创作者直接互动，更多的价值就会流向消费者和创作者。

Like, I didn't like the language that was used around crypto at the time. And I think it had scared me away where it was like, we're going to take down the institutions and we're going to remove the middleman and we're going to blah, blah, blah. And I was like, no, no. Alright. So just taking a step back, if you take out somebody from the transaction and you let the consumer and the creator interact directly, more value accrues to the consumer and the creator.

在座的各位更可能是消费者或创作者，而不是成为Facebook或Twitter那样的平台。所以这对我们大多数人来说可能是件好事，因为双方都能获得更多价值。这就是我的出发点，当人们说‘这真的很有趣’时。我之前完全不懂这些，现在依然不太懂，但比之前稍微明白了一点。

Everybody out there reading is more likely to be a consumer or a creator than you are likely to be Facebook or Twitter. So this is actually probably a pretty good thing for most of us that there's just more value that can accrue to both sides of this equation. And so that was kind of, I think, my jumping off point into it when people were like, this is actually really interesting. And I didn't understand this stuff at all before. And now I really don't understand it still, but I understand it a little bit better.

我开始觉得或许值得深入研究。我甚至给自己定了个规矩，每月只写一篇关于Web3（当时可能还叫加密货币）的文章。但后来又有其他有趣的事情发生，于是变成了两篇。

And I understand that maybe it's worth looking into. And I even set myself a rule that I would just do kind of like maybe one web three. I'd probably call it crypto back in the day before it was even called web three. One crypto piece a month, and then something else interesting happened. And so then it was two.

接着我思考其他想法，比如写了篇《权力归于个人》的文章，虽不完全关于加密货币，但部分涉及加密技术如何赋能独立创作者或个体创业者。之后又有几篇类似文章，我想写其他主题时，加密货币总是悄然渗入。后来我们在一期《Acquired》节目中讨论了关于以太坊的文章，我又深入研究了Solana。说实话，我需要保持清醒，因为现在太兴奋可能会遗漏重点——我想在‘这是骗局’和‘这将拯救世界并颠覆机构’之间找到平衡，给出中立的观点：这里才是它的价值所在。

And then other ideas that I was thinking about, like, you know, I wrote this piece called power to the person, which wasn't sensibly about crypto, but it certainly was partially about the things that crypto lets a solo creator or solopreneur do. And then there are a few more articles like that where I wanted to write about something else, and crypto just kind of kept creeping back into it. And then, know, wrote a piece that we discussed on a previous acquired episode about Ethereum and then dove into Solana. And I think, hopefully, what I can do I actually need to keep myself honest because I'm getting so excited that I might, like, actually lose some of this, but really wanna give the, like, somewhere between this is a scam and this is going to save the world and take down the institutions. I wanna be able to give that take in the middle that is like, here's where it's good.

我认为Solana那篇文章的成功之处在于它说：这就是区块链，这很疯狂；这是个平台，需要吸引开发者来构建应用，而这些开发者需要吸引用户。如果做到这些，Solana前景就会很好。这里提供了一种评估区块链价值的思路。这就是我对待这一切的态度：这很神奇，但我们要把它拉回你熟悉的商业概念上来。

So I think the thing about the Solana piece maybe that worked is that it's like, here's what this thing is. It's a blockchain and that's crazy. It's a platform, and it needs to attract developers to build on top of the platform, and those developers need to attract users. And if that happens, then Solana will probably be in a pretty good shape, here's maybe one way you'd think about valuing the blockchain and and go from there. But it's really that's kind of the approach that I'm trying to take to all of this is like, this is amazing, and let's tie it back to some sort of, like, business concept that you're familiar with.

我喜欢这个观点。目前存在明显分野：一边是投资传统公司的世界，另一边是（恕我直言）掉进兔子洞的人。这种分野本质上是商业基础与结构基础的差异，因为很多人说‘DAO让我们抛弃一切，连管理者都不需要了’。

I like that. That is a thing that doesn't exist. There's a clear divide between the let's look at regular company's world and invest in regular company's world and the people who have, for lack of a better phrase, gone down the rabbit hole. And that divide is really around business fundamentals and structure fundamentals because a lot of people are like, oh, well, with DAOs, we throw everything out. So no one even, like, has a manager.

而且，当然，没有董事会，没有股份，没有合同，也没有雇佣协议。但是，这样每个人都能做自己想做的事。我喜欢你写合作经济时提到的观点——归根结底，人类终究是人类，如果我们的目标是交付产品，确实需要建立某种组织结构来实现。

And, like, of course, there's no board, and, of course, there's no shares, and, of course, there's no contracts, and, of course, there's no employment agreements. But, like, yeah, this way everyone gets to do what they want. And I liked your point when you were writing about the cooperation economy where you're sort of well, at the end of the day, humans are still humans and do need to organize in ways that if our goal is to ship a product, we do have to figure out some structure to ship a product.

是的。我的意思是，没有什么万灵药。我认为这是一套非常棒的新工具包，它再次打开了...可能我在科技和风投领域待太久了，现在总把'设计空间'挂嘴边，但它确实开辟了这个新设计空间，让你拥有可构建的新工具集。因此DAO在某些情境下确实非常出色。

Yeah. I mean, nothing is a panacea. I think this is a really amazing new toolkit to have and opens up again. I'm just probably have spent too much time in tech and VC, so I say design space now too often, but it opens up this new design space where you just have a new set of tools that you can build with. And so DAOs, I think, are really great in certain situations.

我认为十之八九的DAO可能会彻底失败，因为它们存在领导力问题或最终决策者不明确的问题。但剩下那两个DAO会做出传统公司根本想不到的事，它们启动更快，反应更敏捷。所以没有绝对的好坏，但DAO会涌现出一些非常有趣、以往不可能实现的新特性。因此我不希望人们全盘否定DAO，尽管它们有时可能显得混乱。比如我参与了这个试图购买宪法的'宪法DAO'，它既展示了惊人的一面——能围绕共同使命集结人群，筹集近5000万美元竞拍宪法归还民众...

Think eight out of 10 DAOs might totally fail because they they have, like, kind of that leadership issue or, like, who is the final decision maker issue. But I think those other two are gonna do things that, like, you might not have ever thought to do with a traditional corporation, and they'll spin up faster, and they'll be more responsive. So I think nothing is all good and bad, but I think there are gonna be some emergent properties to DAOs that are really interesting and probably previously would not have been possible. So that's a really good thing, and so I don't want people to just dismiss DAOs outright because sometimes they can be a little bit chaotic or whatever else. I mean, like, I got involved in the constitution DAO, which was trying to buy the constitution this week, and it shows both the amazing things, which is you can rally a group of people around this shared mission and raise almost $50,000,000 to go fight to win the constitution and bring it back to the people.

同时也暴露出问题——在七天内做出重大决策、管理两万人的Discord群（每个人都被告知自己是DAO成员且有发言权）非常困难。如何找到平衡点？这就引出了渐进式去中心化的理念：开始时像公司那样运作，特别是如果你在构建协议或非直面消费者的产品时，可以逐步放弃控制权，将其交给用户和所有者。所以DAO的核心理念是：这是它的优势所在，这是它的问题所在，这是可能行得通的方案——让我们尝试吧。最糟糕的做法就是直接否定。

And then it's also, like, very hard to make huge decisions in a seven day time frame and to organize a 20,000 person Discord, all of whom has been told that they're a part of a DAO and has a voice. And so, like, what's the right balance there? Then you go into the idea of, like, progressive decentralization, which I think makes a lot of sense, which is start out kind of like a company, and then over time, particularly if you're building a protocol or something that is not as, like, consumer facing maybe, then over time you can kind of progressively give up control and and see more control to the users and the owners. So I guess, yeah, again, they're the whole the whole approach is like, here's where it's good, here's where there's issues, and like, here's something that might kind of work and I don't know, let's go try it. The worst thing you could do is just dismiss something.

那些曾经热衷你早期文章的人，现在会不会抨击你说'你得拆分业务'或者'我就是不买账'？

Do you get blowback from people who were really into what you used to write about and are now like, you gotta like, spin something off or like, I just can't I'm not buying it.

以前我会...虽然现在仍保留着退订通知功能，但我不再查看了。以前每当有人退订，我都会逐条查看并纠结。现在不那么在意了。这就像你之前说的'获得应得的受众'——虽然不敢自比杰夫·贝索斯，但有点像亚马逊股东的情况：他必须拼命工作才能获得真正理解亚马逊价值的股东。

Before I I had and I still have it on, but I I just don't read them. I had my unsubscribes turned on and and would literally go through every time someone unsubscribed and be like, someone unsubscribed. Now I don't care as much. Think this is kinda to your point earlier about kind of, like, getting the audience that you deserve. Maybe there's a little I'm not comparing myself to Jeff Bezos here, but like a little bit of the Amazon shareholder thing, right, where like he had to work his ass off to get the shareholders that would actually appreciate what Amazon was doing.

但当你做到这点时，公司就处于绝佳位置——股东们完全认同...

But then when he did, that puts you in a really great spot as a company when you have shareholders who are bought into the fact that

你引用的原话确实有道理。原话不是'你会得到股东，你确实会得到你要求的股东'，而是'长远来看，你会获得你主动争取的观众'。完全正确。

you're the actual quote it does make sense. The actual quote is not you get shareholders you do, you get the shareholders you ask for. In the long run, you get the audience you ask for. Exactly.

我希望不要疏远那些认为基本面有价值的人。这些人正是我希望阅读《不无聊》的读者，也希望他们能监督我。但如果有人觉得'嘿，你在写Web3我觉得很蠢'然后离开，那完全没问题。真正让我警觉的是当有人说'你正在丧失对基本面的判断'，那时我才意识到问题所在。其实有人在看完我写Solana那篇文章后私信说：'老兄，我怀念以前那个提前透露Snap等公司内幕消息的帕基。'

And I hope what I don't want to do is alienate everybody who has some sense of that fundamentals have value. Those are people that I really want to read Not Boring, and I want to keep me accountable. But if people are just like, hey, you're writing about Web three and I think it's stupid, and they leave, then that's totally fine. It's really like the people who are like, hey, you're actually like losing all sense of fundamentals here, like, denim out, like that's when I'll know that I have an issue. There was one there's somebody who DM me after I wrote the piece on Solana actually that was like, Man, I miss the old paki when you would give us alpha and you'd be early on things like Snap or whatever.

然后Solana当然在接下来的ICO中涨了三倍半

And then of course Solana like three and a half X in the next I two

这不就给了你满满一车的内幕消息

just gave you a truckload of alpha.

但这种反馈还是会刺痛我。我不想辜负读者的期待，但我也从未限定过具体方向——我一直坦诚会追踪最有趣的事物。这让我的工作安排很痛苦，因为每周选题都基于当下最有趣的事件，但我的确想紧跟最值得关注的事物。

But that stuff still hurts. I don't want to not do the thing that I'm promising to people, but I also have been I've never had a very specific focus, and I've always been honest that I'm going follow whatever I think is the most interesting. It makes my schedule miserable because I pick each week what I want to write about based on what I think the most interesting thing happening is, but know, I do wanna follow whatever I think is is the most interesting thing going on.

看，这种风格已经吸引了包括FAANG公司CEO在内的读者群。只要他们没退订，就说明这模式是可行的。

And look, that has attracted an audience that includes CEOs of FAANG companies. I mean, are active subscribers to your newsletter. So unless they've unsubscribed, seems like it's working.

杰夫·贝索斯给你发那封邮件了吗？

Did Jeff Bezos send you that email?

是的。杰夫和我，关于这件事

Yeah. Jeff and I so the thing about

杰夫，你不再给他阿尔法权限了吗？

Jeff You're not giving him the alpha anymore?

不，我开玩笑的。杰夫·贝索斯和我从未交谈过。他没有订阅。有人用萨提亚·纳德拉的邮箱地址注册了，但那肯定不是他本人，那个邮箱从未打开过任何邮件。

No. I'm kidding. Jeff Jeff Bezos and I have never spoken. He doesn't subscribe. Someone I think signed up with Satya Nadella's email address, but it certainly wasn't him, that email address has never opened an email.

所以我觉得那是个恶作剧。但你知道，我确实认识一些大公司的CEO之类的

So I think that was a prank. But, like, you know, I do know that, you know, CEOs of big companies and all of that

其实是普贾。

It's actually Pooja.

不，那样就太离谱了。我当时可兴奋了。

No. That would be messed up. I was so excited.

好吧。说到Web3，你在《赋权于人》那篇文章里做了另一个听起来很疯狂的预测，你预言未来一二十年内会出现多家市值万亿美元、由“单个人”运营的所谓“单人公司”。你的观点是，这已经存在了，比如比特币。没人替比特币工作，但它市值已达万亿美元。

Alright. So speaking of Web three, you wrote in your power to the person piece another sort of crazy sounding prognostication that you predicted that within a decade or two, there would be multiple trillion dollar market cap organizations that were run quote unquote by just one person that you called solo corporations. And your point was, hey, it already exists. It's called Bitcoin. Nobody works for Bitcoin, and it's a trillion dollar market cap.

回归到‘不无聊’本身。这太棒了，简直不可思议。本和我完全站在为你欢呼的阵营，庆祝你实现了今年十亿美元营收的目标。用传统思维来看，帕基就像是创作者经济中的分发主管，是少数真正脱颖而出的佼佼者之一。

Back to not boring itself. It's so awesome. It's, like, incredible. And, like, Ben and I are a 100% in the camp that are cheering for you that you made it to to your goal of making a billion dollars in revenue this year. A kinda old school way of thinking about that would be like, Packy is the head of the distribution in the creator economy and one of the few people that have really broken out.

你会成为创作者经济中的NBA球员级别职业选手。另一种思考方向是，不，你正在打造一个单人企业帝国。这不仅仅是每年通过写新闻简报赚几百万美元那么简单。‘不无聊’可以成就更多。你对此有何看法？

You're gonna be like an NBA player, you know, level in the a professional player in the creator economy. Another way to think about where this could go though is, no, you're building a solo corporation. And it's not just that you're gonna make a few million dollars a year writing a newsletter. Not boring can be something a lot more. How do you think about that?

这可能算是‘不无聊’的一个矛盾点——我分析别人的战略计划头头是道，但‘不无聊’自身却缺乏明确规划。我当然希望它能成为一个持久壮大的事业，开发实体产品，做些能超越我生命长度的东西。但现实是，我现在连周一要写什么内容都发愁。这既是恩赐也是诅咒。

This is, I guess, one of the hypocritical things about not boring maybe is that, you know, I analyze everybody else's strategy and plans and all these things, and there really isn't one for not boring. Like, would I love not boring to be a big and lasting thing that builds actual products and does, you know, things that kind of outlive me a 100%. I would love that. I'm right now worried about what I'm gonna write about on Monday. And so that's like both a blessing and a curse.

目前看来，‘不无聊’的好处在于我能全心投入内容创作，确保质量精益求精。弊端则是毫无前瞻规划——你大概没见过比我更不会做计划的人了。

Think so far, I think maybe the good thing about Not Boring has been that, you know, I'm fully focused on the content and making sure that's as good as possible. The downside is that I'm not planning ahead by like any stretch. I'm like one of the worst planners you've ever met.

听完这个故事，显然确实如此。

Clearly, if you've been listening to this story.

所以目前还没有这类长期规划。指数级增长带来的有趣之处在于新机遇会不断涌现。我认为需要建立某种正式或非正式的结构框架，这样才有余力把握其他机会——不管是随机出现的还是（但愿如此）主动创造的。但现阶段，媒体企业难以转型做大的原因或许在于：如果我说要转型开发应用，发行帕基币，打造一堆应用来赚十亿，却忽视内容核心，整个事业就会崩塌。

So there isn't right now a long term plan for something like that. I think the really fun thing about kind of like, you know, the exponential growth of this is that new opportunities kind of pop up. I do think I need to put, you know, a bit of a structure in place whether that's formal or informal around not boring so that I can have some time to focus on other opportunities, you know, either as they arrive or God forbid proactively. But for right now, I mean, I think one of the things that I can and this may be why media businesses are hard and have a hard time transitioning into into something a lot lot bigger is that if I say, you know what? I really wanna like go start building apps, and I'm gonna build like, I'm gonna launch Paki coin, and I'm going to build a bunch of apps and make like try to make like a billion dollars.

如果引入团队协助研究和代笔，又会丧失我热爱的核心特质——这正是整个事业的基础。这里存在有趣的Web3角度：如何通过DAO或松散结构，让他人能基于‘不无聊’的受众网络进行衍生开发。当然，‘不无聊资本’可以通过资产管理规模与精准投资来扩大成果，但除此之外确实缺乏详细规划。

And I don't focus on the content, the whole thing probably falls apart. And if I bring in people to like help on the research and to ghostwrite for me and all of that, then it loses the thing that's one that I like doing and two is at the core of it and on which everything else relies. I think there's a really interesting kind of web three angle here where, like, how do I figure out how to build, you know, whether it's a DAO or some, like, kind of loose structure around this where other people can go off and, like, kind of tap into the not boring audience and network and all of those things to build things on top that are aligned with with what we're doing. Obviously, not boring capital. You know, you can kind of scale the outcomes with, I guess, both a combination of AUM and actual ability to invest in the right companies, but there's not a lot of plans beyond that.

如果这能成为每年带来几百万美元收益的事业，我绝对不会有任何怨言。但我在想，当我80岁时回望人生，是否希望看到自己构建的事物不会因停笔而崩塌？就像满分答卷那样。

If this becomes a thing that is a couple million dollars a year, you'll never hear a complaint from me about that. But it's like, certainly, I think when I'm 80, would I wanna look back and say, like, that I build something that the second I stop writing doesn't fall apart? Like, a 100.

是的。我认为值得花些时间在'不无聊资本'上——虽然它显然不属于Web3范畴（尽管能通过它投资Web3项目）。这是个非常有趣的概念，或许是我们创作者经济圈特有的现象。但这是实实在在的生意，是从单纯内容创作者转型的重要一步。记得一年半前我们讨论奥普拉那期节目吗？她第一任经纪人说过：你可以选择当镜头前的明星，每年赚几百万过上优渥生活；或者选择掌控制作公司，最终成为奥普拉级别的媒体大亨。

Yes. I think it's worth spending a little bit of time on not boring capital, which is obviously not Web three other than you are able to invest in Web three projects via it. But it is this really interesting thing, like and maybe it's unique to sort of our collective corner of the creator economy, But it is a real business, and it is a real step towards going from just being a you know, I'm thinking about, like, the Oprah episode that we did a year and a half ago, whatever it was, where was it her first agent, if I'm remembering right, who said, like, look, you can be the talent in front of the camera and you're like, you can make a few million dollars a year. You'll have a great life. Right?

现在创作者们正面临类似机遇——从独立内容生产者向更广阔领域进发。

Or you can own the production, you know, and then then you can become Oprah. It does feel like there's kind of this opportunity for creators now to go from just being, like, an indie version of the talent in front of the camera to a lot more.

确实。运营资本就是朝这个方向迈出的一步。我们三人很幸运，因为制作的内容与风险投资高度契合。现在很多创作者开始投资初创公司，我比多数人更看好这点——他们拥有某些领域深刻的洞察力，这是非创作者难以理解的。

Yeah. I mean, think certainly an operating capital is a step in that direction. I think the three of us are very lucky that the type of content that we make is also really well aligned with doing venture capital. Obviously, there's a lot of creators who are starting to invest in startups. I'm less dismissive of that, you know, you can probably tell at this point than most people are because I think, you know, they probably have really deep insights into certain spaces that other people who haven't been creators and haven't built that kind of business wouldn't understand.

特别是我们这群人——Harry Stebbings、Lenny、Turner等都深谙此道。我们每天都在亲历这个领域，这又回到之前关于新闻操守的讨论：我不愿纸上谈兵，而是想真正参与所报道的公司，帮助塑造其发展轨迹。我享受与创始人通电话讨论具体问题，而非抽象概念。

But I think for us in particular, we're really lucky and, you know, Harry Stebbings falls into this camp and a bunch of other people do as well. Lenny and Turner all fall into this camp where we're living and breathing this stuff every day. And this probably goes back to our conversation on journalistic integrity where, like, I actually don't want to do this without having skin in the game. And I don't want to do this without kind of like digging in and getting involved in the companies that I'm writing about and like trying to help shape their trajectories. And like, I love picking up the phone and talking to a founder about like, not just like, here's this idea that I came up with and wrote about kind of abstractly, but like, here's this problem that we're having right now.

这种'不无聊资本'与新闻通讯的协同效应巨大。商业角度看，运营风投基金比每周找赞助商写文章更具扩展性。不过这一切最初并非计划——它源于有次我帮朋友解释其公司运作而写的文章，后来演变成联合投资，最终因为每次交易都要写备忘录太麻烦，而创始人也不愿等三周才能确定融资额，才发展成了基金。

How should we think about solving this problem? And so I think like that is really like a huge benefit of being able to have both the not boring capital and not boring the newsletter, and there's all sorts of ways that they work together. And from a business perspective, it's phenomenal because it does scale a lot better to run a venture fund than to show up every week and get a sponsor and then write an essay. But again, this wasn't even planned. That's not where it came.

（接上文）整个过程完全是有机生长的结果。

It really came from one time where I wrote an essay to help a friend who was trying to explain how his company worked, and then he raised a syndicate with somebody else. And then that turned into my own syndicate, which turned into a fund because it was too much of a pain in the ass to write memos every time that I wanted to do a deal, and founders didn't wanna wait three weeks to see how much money I might be able to give them.

等等。你是说作为你一号基金和二号基金的有限合伙人，你并没有为每一笔投资撰写投资备忘录？

Wait. You're telling me as an LP in your fund one and fund two, you don't write investment memos for every single one of your packy?

我在这里写了。是的。不，所以我在一号基金做了91笔投资，并非所有都有投资备忘录。但说真的，我确实认为我花时间撰写关于这些不同行业和公司的文章，确实帮助我做好准备，思考在这些不同的企业中

I I write them up here. Yeah. No. So I the one I did, fund one I did 91 investments, and not all of them have investment memos. But in all seriousness, I do think that all of the time that I've spent writing about all of these different kind of industries and companies and all that like really helped me show up kind of prepared and thinking about what to

寻找什么。而且你写了很多关于你的投资。很多

look for in these different businesses. And a lot of your investments you've written about. A lot of

我的投资我都写过。坦白说，很多投资是因为我开始写Web3.0，比如写了关于合作经济的文章，这改变了某些人的思考方式，然后他们想要开始创业。我有几次与创始人的对话，他们说'我们让所有员工都读这个，因为这就是我们想做的'。所以这在项目来源和赢得交易方面确实有帮助。但这也并非计划之内。所以我认为'不无聊'的下一个迭代，无论我们在这里添加什么，可能也不会是计划好的，而是因为它与我正在做的事情相符。

my investments I've written about. A lot of investments frankly come in because I start writing about Web three point and I write something like the cooperation economy that unlocks how somebody thinks about something and then they want to start I've had that conversation with founders a few times where they're like, this is actually like we make all of our employees read this because this is what we're trying to do. And so like that kind of helps, you know, on the sourcing and and winning deal side. But this wasn't planned either. And so I think the next iteration of not boring, whatever, like we kind of add on top here, it probably won't be planned and it'll probably be because it makes sense with what I'm doing.

但我本可以不这样做，我也没有这样计划。如果我没有在这里投入一些实际的利益，我无法做到这一点。我喜欢在我犯错时诚实面对，比如bill.com，我做空它是史上最糟糕的决策，那几乎是我唯一一次变得悲观。我喜欢在我犯错时被指出来。我认为要运营一个风投基金，可以说'看，这些是我的想法'，但同时我也在投入资金，你会从一号基金、二号基金、三号基金的表现中看到结果。

But I could not do this and I didn't plan it this way. I couldn't do this if I didn't have some sort of skin in the game with what's going on here. Some sort of like I like to be honest when I get stuff wrong, bill.com, my worst call of all time being short bill.com, only really the only time I've ever gotten kind of pessimistic. I like being called out when I'm wrong on stuff. And I think to be able to run a venture fund that says like, cool, here are the ideas, but then also like I'm putting money behind it and you'll see the results in how well fund one, fund two, fund three did.

无论我是完全在胡说八道，还是部分胡说八道并有点幸运，这些基金的表现会说明一切。

And whether I'm just, like, fully talking out of my ass or only partially talking out of my ass and got lucky a little bit, in the results of of how these funds do.

嗯，看起来你几乎是在公开。比如，我想周六你会给有限合伙人发邮件，然后周一就发布公开版本。内容几乎一样。当然，有些公司不希望分享的内容除外。但除此之外，这是一种非常透明的风险投资方式。

Well, it does seem like you're publishing pretty much. Like, I think on Saturday, you send out the email to LPs, and then come Monday, you send out a public version. And it's pretty much the same. Obviously, there's some things that the companies don't want you sharing. But other than that, it's a remarkably transparent way of going about venture investing.

而且它与传统风险投资截然不同。比如，你是否主导过任何一轮融资？起草过任何条款书？在你那91项投资中，你是否是单笔投资额最大的出资方？

And it's also super different than classic venture capital. Like, did you lead a single round? Did you write any term sheets? Were you the biggest check-in any one of those 91 investments?

从未有过。这正是战略的一部分。对吧？我们都喜欢谈论战略，而战略并非面面俱到，而是选择你想做好的事情并充分利用这些优势。

Never. And that's all part of the strategy. Right? Like, I mean, we all love talking about strategy, and strategy isn't doing everything well. It's picking what things you want to do well and and taking advantage of those things.

所以即便是确定融资估值、拟定条款书内容、花时间谈判条款、甚至担任董事（但愿别发生）——这些都与我的战略不兼容。因为我的体系就像纸牌屋，动一处就全盘崩塌。以我目前的运作模式，若投身风险投资中那些更耗时的环节，根本行不通。但当我能与创始人对话，并在特定领域（无论是内部还是外部）提供切实帮助时，这套模式就非常有效——当然不是要调侃那个风险投资的双关梗。

And so even, like, figuring out how to price the round and figuring out what should go into the term sheet and spending time negotiating that and then being on a board, god forbid, like, it actually just doesn't work with my strategy because like, it is a house of cards already where you move one thing and like, the whole thing breaks. And so if I'm doing kind of the more deeply time consuming parts of a venture, It at least as I'm currently constructed doesn't work. But it really works very well when you know, can talk to a founder and we have the specific area either kind of internally or externally where I can be helpful, not to you know, make fun of that, that venture pun but

穿上你的卡其裤开始提问吧。没错。

put on your khakis and ask the question. Yeah.

是的。但你要明白，整个过程中需要做很多权衡。我在公开和私下的备忘录中都写过：我对具体公司的尽职调查可能比大多数投资人要少。当有限合伙人或公众读到这种话时，确实令人尴尬。但这就是商业现实——我身兼数职，独自管理91家公司投资，根本不可能像其他人那样深入挖掘公司缺陷，打电话核实管理者过往过失。

Yeah. But there's a bunch of things that, you know, you make trade offs throughout. I wrote in both the public and private memo that I'm doing probably less diligence on a specific company than most people who are investing in a company will. That's like an embarrassing thing to say publicly when LPs are reading that or when the world is reading that. But it's a fact of the business that there's just no way in the world that by myself here, while I have another job and investing in 91 companies, I'm going as deep looking for the flaws in a company and calling references to look at what this person did wrong managerially.

我相信如果由优质基金或我信任的机构领投，他们已完成了这些工作。我的职责就像'不无聊'基金一样，专注于寻找爆发式增长潜力。所以要么这套方法会让我彻底翻车（毕竟身处疯狂牛市，本应采取更保守的价值投资策略），要么就能成功——尽管整个

I trust that if a good fund is leading the round or somebody that I trust is leading the round, that they've done that stuff. And my job is, as it is with not boring, to look for like what can go really really right here. And so this will either blow up totally in my face or run this crazy bull market, and I should have been a lot more conservative and like gone for like VC value investing, or it'll work, but the whole

机制完全透明。顺便说，透明策略可从来没成功过。

thing is transparent. Which is a thing that's never worked, by the way.

即便是Ho和Altus大概也会同意这一点。我想说的是，我在幼儿园创投与Nat合作的方式，和你通过Not Boring Capital所做的非常相似。所以某种程度上我是在为自己辩护。但我认为你通过Not Boring Capital低估了自己。而且我很欣赏你所有的事情都像是自然生长出来的。

Even Ho and Altus would probably agree with that. I would argue I mean, I'm sort of doing very similar things with kindergarten ventures with Nat as what you're doing with Not Boring Capital. So I'm arguing my own book here to a certain extent. But I would argue you're selling yourself short with not boring capital. And I love how, you know, everything you've done is, like, emergent.

这不像你事先在白板上规划好一切，更像是那些赞助帖子的逻辑对吧？人们过去总把风险投资框在一种固定模式里——做大量尽调、起草条款清单、

It it's not like you cooked it all up on a whiteboard, but it's kinda like the sponsored posts. Right? People used to think about venture capital in a box in only one way. You did a lot of diligence. You wrote the term sheet.

进行估值谈判、加入董事会，完成所有这些流程。但显然，这套模式对你的事业行不通。

You came to evaluation. You negotiated. You joined the board. You did all these things. And, obviously, that wouldn't work for what you're doing.

明白吗？你通过新闻通讯建立了庞大业务，但你的某些做法比传统思维高效得多。而且用这种方式，你已经实现了管理资本的规模扩张。

You know? You you've got a big big business writing a newsletter. But there's aspects of what you're doing that work way better than that one specific way of thinking. Right? And, you know, you've already scaled capital under management doing this.

照这个策略你很可能还能继续扩大规模，但你带来的价值在于这种全新的思维方式，对吧？

You could probably keep scaling even a lot further with this strategy, but what you're bringing to the table and how you're doing it is just this kind of new way of thinking. Right?

没错。我认为有群人正在这样做——你肯定参与其中，或许可以引用我自己的说法叫'液态超级团队'（自引总是有趣的）。我们聚在一起分享项目、交换观点建议，比如'我觉得你那笔投资可能有问题'。这些原本需要加入机构合伙人才能获得的互动，现在以非正式形式实现了。当然我仍会比机构犯更多错误，特别是在不该点头时说了yes。

Yeah. And there's a group of people who I think are doing this. I mean, you're certainly involved in this, it's maybe a liquid super team to quote myself, which is always fun. But that's coming together and sharing deals with each other and trading thoughts and advice and here's where I think you were maybe wrong on that investment. The kind of things that maybe before you would have gotten out of a partnership at a firm and certainly that right now you get out of a partnership at a firm and it's not as formal and I will still make more mistakes than probably a firm will make at least on, like, saying yes to things that maybe I shouldn't say yes to.

但风投从来不在乎错误，唯一重要的是那些成功的案例。这才是关键所在，不是吗？

But venture capital is never about the mistakes. The only thing that matters in venture capital are the ones you get right. And that's kind of the point. Right?

甚至可能你投资的一个创始人存在欺诈行为，但这某种程度上无关紧要。

There may even be one founder committing fraud that you've invested in, and it kind of doesn't matter.

据我所知，我的创始人们都没有欺诈行为，他们都很出色。但我的意思是，我希望这种情况不要发生。对吧？我不想给人们留下欺诈的空间，然后自己视而不见，草率决定说我不在乎。但我对整个生态系统和体系抱有信心，相信其他人也在尽职尽责——虽然这完全可能让我栽跟头，也可能不会，这就是个权衡取舍的问题。

To the best of my knowledge, none of my founders are committing fraud, and they're all amazing. But, I mean, I you hope that doesn't happen. Right? Like, I don't want to, like, leave room for people to commit fraud and for me to just kind of look the other way and make a quick decision and be like, I I don't really care. But I'm putting trust in the overall kind of ecosystem and system that other people are doing their jobs, which again could totally blow up in my face or not, but that's just a trade off.

你构建91家公司的投资组合时，当然我们绝对不希望发生欺诈，这不是目的。但你已从防守思维——比如严防欺诈发生——转向了风险投资的本质：亏损有下限（最多损失本金），盈利无上限（可能获得千倍回报）。

Well, the way you're constructing your portfolio with 91 companies is, you know, of course, look, absolutely, we don't want any fraud to happen. Like, that's not the goal. But you've kinda shifted the mindset from, like, playing defense of, like, we're going to make sure fraud doesn't happen. But in venture capital, the zeros are meaning You know, the most you can lose is your money. The most you can make is a thousand times your money.

因此你要最大化赢家。关键在于，通过'不无聊'计划，你能获得优质投资机会。若作为传统风投，这些机会需要你付出大量努力去争取——比如担任董事席位、提供专业建议等等。

And so you wanna maximize the winners. And the thing is because of what you're doing with not boring, you're getting access to these great investment opportunities that otherwise if you were a traditional venture investor, you would have to do all of that effort and work to build it. We're gonna take board seats. We're gonna give you great advice. We're gonna do all this stuff.

对你而言，这些都是副产品。

For you, it's a byproduct.

这部分我非常认同。投资组合构建也很有意思，因为我曾在一家最终失败的初创公司待了太久——远超合理时长。我亲眼见过投资者如何迅速抽身，到某个时点就对特定公司漠不关心，转而关注下一家。我绝不想持这种态度。对于表现不佳的公司，我希望像对待成功企业那样快速响应，因为我深知被冷落的滋味。

Think that part is totally true. Mean, portfolio construction thing is super interesting too because I spent way longer than you should spend inside of even a successful startup at a startup that ended up failing. So I saw, you know, the other side of that where there are investors who are right off and at some point, you just kind of stop caring about that particular company, and you move on to the next one. I really don't want to take that attitude towards it. If there are companies that are not doing well, I want to answer their call as quickly as the companies who are doing really, really well because, like, I know how it feels to be on the other side of that.

但同样，这也是为何我完全支持创始人同时担任投资者。应当分散风险，别把所有鸡蛋放一个篮子里。当然，如果你是拥有上千名、哪怕只是20名员工的创始人，这些人依赖着你，你就该把绝大部分时间用于确保他们——这些把所有赌注押在你身上的人——获得最好结果，得到领导者应有的关怀。不过我认为构建投资组合显然有价值，而亲历过另一面的我对此更加认同。

But at the same time, like, this is why I'm totally cool with founders being investors as well and all that. Like, you should diversify and not put all of your eggs in one basket. Obviously, if you're a founder and you have a thousand employees or a 100 employees or even 20 employees, you people are relying on you. You should be giving a vast majority of your time to make sure that those people who are definitely putting all their eggs in one basket get the best possible outcome and as much care as they need from a leader. But I do think there's obviously value to constructing a portfolio and having been on the other side of that, I appreciate that I think even more.

好的。我们正在讨论投资组合构建。你投资了91家公司。现在运作的是第二只基金，第一只基金的规模是

Alright. So we're talking about portfolio construction. You invested 91 companies. You're on your second fund. First fund was

多少？9,990,000美元。

many? $9,990,000.

9.99。你的第二只基金是25,000,000美元？

9.99. Your second fund's 25,000,000?

你没能凑到10吗？

You couldn't get it to 10?

按规定不能达到10。

You're not allowed to get it to 10.

哦，明白了。我刚想说，可以打电话给我，我多给你100块。

Oh, I see. Was gonna say, could call me up. I'd give you an extra $100.

如果存在第二只基金的话，规模可能在2500万到3000万美元之间。

Fund two, were it to exist, would potentially be in the 25 to $30,000,000 range.

就在那个范围内。好的。各位听众，现在我们要聊聊我们最喜爱的公司之一——Statsig。自从上次我们提到Statsig以来，他们有了一个非常激动人心的更新。

In that range. Okay. Alright, listeners. It's time to talk about another one of our favorite companies, Statsig. Since you last heard from us about Statsig, they have a very exciting update.

他们完成了C轮融资，估值达到了11亿美元。

They raised their series c, valuing them at $1,100,000,000.

没错。这是个巨大的里程碑，祝贺团队。而且时机很有意思，因为实验领域现在正变得异常火热。

Yeah. Huge milestone. Congrats to the team. And timing is interesting because the experimentation space is, really heating up.

是的。那么为什么投资者会给Statsig超过十亿美元的估值呢？因为实验已经成为全球顶尖产品团队产品技术栈中至关重要的一部分。

Yes. So why do investors value stat seg at over a billion dollars? It's because experimentation has become a critical part of the product stack for the world's best product teams.

对。这一趋势始于Web 2.0时代的公司，如Facebook、Netflix和Airbnb。这些公司面临一个问题：如何在保持快速去中心化的产品与工程文化的同时，扩展到数千名员工？实验系统就是这个答案的重要组成部分。

Yep. This trend started with web 2 dot o companies like Facebook and Netflix and Airbnb. Those companies faced a problem. How do you maintain a fast decentralized product and engineering culture while also scaling up to thousands of employees? Experimentation systems were a huge part of that answer.

这些系统让这些公司的每个人都能访问一套全球性的产品指标，从页面浏览量到观看时长再到性能表现。每当团队发布新功能或产品时，他们就能衡量该功能对这些指标的影响。

These systems gave everyone at those companies access to a global set of product metrics, from page views to watch time to performance. And then every time a team released a new feature or product, they could measure the impact of that feature on those metrics.

因此，Facebook可以设定一个公司范围内的目标，比如增加应用内停留时间，然后让各个团队自行探索如何实现。将这种做法扩展到数千名工程师和产品经理身上，砰，你就获得了指数级增长。难怪实验现在被视为必不可少的基础设施。

So Facebook could set a company wide goal like increasing time in app and let individual teams go and figure out how to achieve it. Multiply this across thousands of engineers and PMs, and boom, you get exponential growth. It's no wonder that experimentation is now seen as essential infrastructure.

没错。如今最优秀的产品团队如Notion、OpenAI、Rippling和Figma都同样依赖实验。但他们不再自行搭建系统，而是直接使用Statsig。而且Statsig不仅用于实验——过去几年里，它已整合了快速产品团队所需的所有工具，包括功能开关、产品分析、会话回放等等。

Yep. Today's best product teams like Notion, OpenAI, Rippling, and Figma are equally reliant on experimentation. But instead of building it in house, they just use Statsig. And they don't just use Statsig for experimentation. Over the last few years, Statsig has added all the tools that fast product teams need, like feature flags, product analytics, session replays, and more.

所以如果你的团队希望帮助工程师和产品经理提升开发效率、做出更明智的决策，请访问statsig.com/acquired或点击节目说明中的链接。他们提供极其慷慨的免费套餐、5万美元的初创企业计划，以及适合大企业的实惠企业合约。只需告诉他们是本和大卫推荐你的。

So if you would like to help your team's engineers and PMs figure out how to build faster and make smarter decisions, go to statsig.com/acquired, or click the link in the show notes. They have a super generous free tier, a $50,000 startup program, and affordable enterprise contracts for large companies. Just tell them that Ben and David sent you.

好的。在我们告别'不无聊资本'这个新阶段之前——也许这是'不无聊'的最终附加阶段，也许未来还会有更多阶段——我们讨论过Substack、Twitter等平台如何赋能媒体公司。AngelList则赋能了'不无聊资本'，继而催生了'幼儿园资本'。

Okay. So I think before we move on from not boring capital as sort of this next phase, maybe it's the final additional phase of not boring. Maybe there's more phases to come in the future. We talked about Substack, Twitter, etcetera, you know, the platforms enabling not boring the media company. AngelList enables not boring capital, enables kindergarten capital.

我在风投行业已深耕十一二年，其中九到十年是传统职业风投人。这种模式过去根本不可能实现。你单枪匹马就在第一支基金完成了91笔交易，谁知道未来基金还会投多少项目？

Like, I've spent eleven, twelve years in venture now, nine or ten of those as a traditional professional venture capitalist. This would not have been possible. You are one person. You did 91 deals in fund one. Who knows how many you'll do in future funds?

现在拥有了相当于风投界的Substack平台，这彻底改变了游戏规则。这在过去是无法想象的。

Now having the equivalent of sub stack for a venture firm, it's game changing. This was not possible before.

我认为它远不止风投界的Substack——因为在Substack上，我仍需亲自撰写所有内容、编辑排版、制作所有视觉素材。而在AngelList团队，我与Jen合作。我要抓住一切机会为Jen打call，因为这不仅是多了个队友，而是获得整个团队的支持。比如我冒出个疯狂点子说'嘿，我们明天就要实现这个疯狂想法，行吗？'

It's more than, I'd say, the equivalent of Substack for a venture firm because Substack, I still have to write everything and edit everything and make all of my own graphics and all of that. I work with Jen on the Angelis team. I will give Jen a shout out anywhere that I possibly can, because it is like having more than just a teammate, like a whole team of people working with me. Like, I will come up with a crazy idea and be like, hey, we need this crazy idea done kind of like tomorrow. Is that okay?

我会非常抱歉，而她总是回答'没问题100%'。她会去和法律团队沟通，然后告诉我'只要完成X、Y、Z步骤就能实现'。这个平台本身不仅让募资变得更简单，也让LP能清晰了解投资组合表现——虽然数据有些延迟，实际上当前表现比平台显示的更好。

I'm so sorry. And she's like, yeah, 100. I went and talked to our legal team, and we can make it work if we do x, y and z thing. And so having both the platform itself, which is great and makes it really easy to raise money from LPs and for LPs to get visibility into kind of how the portfolio is performing. All that data is a little bit delayed LPs, so it's actually performing better than it looks on there.

但说实话，有一位队友在那里全权负责确保一切顺利进行，才让这一切成为可能。如果没有Janet AngelList，Boring Capital百分之百不会存在。

But really, like, having a teammate over there who is, like, fully responsible for making sure that things go smoothly lets all of this happen. If there was no Janet AngelList, not Boring Capital would not a 100% would not be a thing.

这是通过拆解风投公司垂直整合对价值链的彻底重组。有趣的是，在准备这期节目时我曾想，哦，我明白了——当然这是过于简化的说法。但对Not Boring Capital而言，Paki不需要安排合伙人在外奔波与创业者会面，因为他有数字化手段来实现，那就是Not Boring通讯。这样他就能从中获取项目源。

It's a total reorganization of the value chain by dismantling the vertical integration of venture firms. And it's so interesting that going into this episode, I thought, oh, I see. And this is a crude oversimplification. But for not pouring capital, Paki doesn't need to have associates that are pounding the pavement out in the community meeting with entrepreneurs because he has a digital way to do that called not boring the newsletter. And that way, he gets deal flow from that.

但这远比表面更根本。看看那些拥有50名员工、管理多支基金的老牌风投公司。你不仅不再需要庞大的后台支持团队，传统风投公司还得配备IT人员——正如我提到的，你根本不需要IT人员。

But it's so much more fundamental than that. Like, look at a venture firm that has 50 employees, that has several funds, and has been around for a while. It's not just that there's a massive back office that you now don't need to have too. I mean, traditionally, a venture firms, you have an IT person. Like I mentioned, you don't have an IT person.

因此，不仅你的媒体公司不需要垂直整合的团队，你的风投机构也不需要配备团队。这样你就能充分利用这条为媒体和风投业务完全重组的新价值链，维持单人公司的运作模式。

So not only does your media company not have a vertically integrated staff associated with it, but your venture capital firm also doesn't have a staff associated with it. And so you actually can leverage all this new value chain that is completely reorganized for both the media and the venture capital business to stay a one person corporation.

十年前这些都不可能实现。我的技术能力远不足以独自完成这些，即使我能开发软件，我的组织能力也不足以建立相关系统。正是这些软件工具的存在，才让Not Boring成为可能——这也是《权力归于个人》一文的核心观点：现在有太多现成工具可供直接取用。

I mean, none of this is possible ten years ago. I'm not nearly technical enough to make any of this happen on my own. I'm not organized enough to build the systems to even make it happen even if I couldn't build software. Having these software tools is the only reason that not bringing this. I mean, this is kind of the point of the power to the person piece was that there are just all of these things that you can snap off of the shelf.

所以与其应付管理和组织公司的各种行政难题，现在可以按需随时接入单个服务模块。Substack不是按需使用的工具，我每周都会发送内容。而AngelList就像瞬间接入了一整套复杂的后台系统，它甚至...

So instead of having to deal with all of the organizational headache of managing and organizing a firm, it's very easy then to just snap one piece in at a time when you need it. Now it's great, you know, Substack is not an as needed thing. It's every week I'm sending on that. AngelList is like snapping a whole huge sophisticated back office into place. It's not even

就像是风投界的Substack。或者说风投界的AWS

like Substack for a venture firm. Like AWS a venture

这就像是风投公司的AWS服务，还附带一个帮你做整合的人——假设我不懂技术，就像最初设置AWS时需要有人协助那样。对我来说最关键的不只是有简化流程的软件，更是当我不知所措时能咨询‘这样可行吗？’的人。比如我们曾咨询过基金一的9,999,000美元问题，Jen在对话中提到‘顺便说，我查到这个基金有这么多实际受益人，但如果他们占比低于10%，就可以采取XYZ措施’。在AI还不够强大的当下，这种服务甚至优于普通软件，因为他们能预判我意识不到的盲区并引导你。这不是给AngelList打广告，但可能是给Jen的广告。

It's like AWS for a venture firm firm with a little bit of like also the person doing, you know, like, let's say I'm not technical, like, also the person doing the integration when setting up AWS in the first place. Because that has been the big thing for me is not just the fact that there's the software there that makes it really easy, but even when I don't know what to do, there's somebody that I can ask about like, hey, is this a thing? Like, we ask about, you know, $9,999,000 for fund one. That was, you know, through a conversation with Jen where she's like, by the way, like, I looked into it, this fund actually has this many beneficiary owners, but if they're less than 10% of this, then you can do x y and z thing. And so it's even better than normal software until AI gets a lot better, because, like, all the things that I'm too stupid to know that I don't know, they can kind of anticipate and show you the ropes, so this is not an AngelList ad, but it is maybe a Jen ad.

Jen是最棒的。

Jen's a best.

Nicole也很优秀，她是我们在那边的对接人。

Nicole is also great. She's our person there.

没错，谢谢Nicole。令人惊叹的是这不只是软件服务——当你思考未来科技和AI取代人类工作时，或许那终将发生。但真正美妙的是人们把资源整合到正确位置，让你能在需要时调用。如果AngelList每年只收我们25,000美元却提供现在对Adopt Boring的服务，这种模式根本不可能成立。

There you go. Thank you, Nicole. It is amazing that it's not just software and like there are, like, when you think about the future and tech and like AI stealing everyone's job, maybe that happens at some point in the future. But I think the really great thing is that it's just people kind of like pulling resources in the right place, and then you can go access them at the time that makes sense. So AngelList model would never work if I only paid them $25,000 a year to do what they're doing for adopt boring.

我从AngelList获得了价值数十万美元的咨询和服务，但他们同时服务着数千家客户。当某些机构在特定领域做到极致时，个人创业者就越容易整合这些资源来开展业务。

Like, I've got a hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of advice and service and all of that from AngelList, but they also have thousands of other clients. And so it works. And the more there are places that get really, really good at one specific thing, the easier it is for one person to start a business that draws from all of that.

你在倡导劳动分工专业化。就像‘当每个人都专精一事，并通过高效协作将其串联，整体效益就会增长’。没错。现在我们正以最乐观的态度评估一人公司模式，满是阳光与彩虹。

You're championing specialization of labor. It's like, hey, pie growth happens when everybody gets really good at one thing, and we have a super super liquid way of stitching all those together. Exactly. Okay. So we're sitting here evaluating in all the most positive ways and sunshine and butterflies around this one person corporation thing.

那么代价是什么？作为战略专家，你认为...

What are the trade offs? You're a strategy person. Where does

这变得困难了吗？所以目前的权衡是，我没有外部投资者。我的意思是，我有基金的有限合伙人，但如果我遭遇不测，'不无聊'项目就结束了。这是极端例子，也是人们谈论单人项目时常用的例子。但这意味着每周如果我不出现并写点什么，势头就会减缓一点。

it get hard? So the trade offs right now are I don't have any outside investors. I mean, I have LPs for the fund, but if I get hit by a bus, not boring is just done. And that's like the extreme example and the example that everybody uses when they talk about one person things. But that means every week, if I don't show up and write something, the momentum slows a little bit.

因此从这个角度看，我认为这非常非常困难。虽然你不会听到我抱怨，但真的很难休息一周，因为我每次都担心势头会放缓，而且团队里没有其他人能写点别的来维持那一周的势头。所以我认为这是显而易见的问题，也是我目前没有解决方案的问题，因为我也说过，如果有其他人写作，可能人们就不想来'不无聊'读其他作者的内容了。这不是重点，我不想当编辑确保大家风格一致。

And so it's like very, very, very hard, I think, from that perspective. Like, you'll hear zero complaints out of me, but it's really hard to take a week off because I'm worried every time that the momentum will slow and there's not, you know, somebody else in the team who's just gonna like go write something else and keep the momentum going that particular week. So I think that is the obvious one and the one that, you know, I don't have a solution to because I've said on the other side that if I have other people writing, maybe people don't wanna come to not boring to read x y and z other person. That's not the point. I don't wanna be an editor and make sure that we all have the same tone.

所以我某种程度上受限于自己作为这个项目唯一前台人物能做的事。这是一个重大缺点。另一个问题，存在整个'核心粉丝群体'理论对吧？如果你有一批忠诚且专注于某个特定事物的观众，就应该能围绕这个人建立各种业务。但正如我所说，我根本没时间考虑围绕'不无聊'开展其他业务。

And so like, I'm kind of limited, I think, to whatever I can do as kind of one at least kind of front person on this thing. So that's one big downside. The other I guess, there's a whole churning group thesis, right? That if you have a big audience that is loyal and dedicated to kind of this like one particular thing, then you should be able to build businesses all around that person. And like I said, like, I have zero time to think about building other businesses around not boring.

赞助模式非常出色，运作得非常好。但如果能用同样的影响力来销售自己的产品，那可能确实更好、潜力更大、股权价值更高等等。但我既没有能力也没有时间开发这类业务。这算是单人模式的另一个缺点。

And so the sponsorship model is like, phenomenal. And you know, it works really, really well. But sponsorship, if I could be using that same kind of microphone to sell my own products, that probably is actually better and higher upside and like more equity value and all of those things. And I don't have either the capabilities or the time to build out those types of things. I guess here's another downside with the one person model.

这类事情做得越多，核心业务就越被稀释，越让人觉得像个广告工厂。但如果我说'嘿，你们也该买Packy品牌的帽子'，他们可能会说'好吧，也许会买一顶'。

The more I do of that stuff, the more dilutes the core thing, the more it makes it seem like kind of a show factory like advertising is just kind of part of the model. But if I were like, hey, you guys should also buy packy branded hats, they'd be like, alright, maybe I'll buy a hat.

能出运动鞋吗？我绝对会炫耀'不无聊'运动鞋的。

Can we get some sneakers? I'd definitely pimp some not boring sneakers.

好吧，我们可以做'不无聊'运动鞋。这个可以。但有些事我可以直接对接那些现成的品牌定制公司。但到某个程度人们会说：'老兄，我们喜欢你是因为偶尔想读你的文章'。

Alright. We'll do some not boring sneakers. That we can do. But there are certain things where I could plug in also to kind of these off the shelf companies that let you launch your own brands and all of that. But at some point, people are like, dude, we like you because we like to read your stuff every once in a while.

别再分心搞这些副业了。所以我确实认为它的局限性在于，其他公司成立的目的就是打造核心产品然后在此基础上扩展，你很清楚能期待什么。我认为关键在于预期，而‘不无聊’的预期主要是关于内容，然后其他东西要无缝融入内容。我越是做一些看似勉强的事，人们就越会说，你知道吗？算了。

Chill out with building these other businesses on the side. And so I do think it's limited in that whereas other companies are set up expressly for the purpose of building their core product and then expanding on top of it, you know exactly what you can expect. I think it's all about expectations, and the expectation with not boring is that it's mainly about the content, then other things that like plug in very cleanly to that content. And the more I do things that like seem like a stretch, the more people are like, you know what? Never mind.

我们要去关注另一个只做内容的人。

We're gonna go read this other person who just does the content.

有趣的是，这与我给种子轮和A轮创始人的最常见建议完全相反——即在找到产品市场契合点之前，你是企业存在的唯一理由。只有你独特地发现了人们想要的产品并付诸实践，需要亲力亲为。而现在，阻碍企业发展的唯一因素就是你，因为你还在包揽一切，你需要停下来抽身，开始招聘等等。但在这里，这套理论完全不适用。

It's funny. It flies in the face of the most common advice I give seed and series a founders, which is until now, until product market fit, you were the only reason that the business could exist. You uniquely figured out the product that people wanted and willed it into existence and needed to do everything. And now, the only thing holding the business back is you because you still are doing all that stuff and you need to stop and pull yourself out and hire and, you know, that sort of thing. That is like exactly not true here.

你将永远处于第一阶段，我和David也是，因为我们不愿意围绕核心产品建立组织架构来取代自己，因为你们本身就是产品。

You will always be in that first phase, and David and I will too, because we're not willing to organization build around sort of pulling ourselves out of the core product because you are the product.

百分之百。无论好坏，对吧？作为产品本身，你肯定也获得了额外好处，我也是。你可能比许多你喜爱的产品的CEO更受关注，这给你带来了各种个人机遇。

A 100%. And for better or worse. Right? Like, that has other benefits for you, I'm sure as well, and for me as well that you are the product, you're probably more visible than CEOs of a lot of companies whose products you love. And that gives you all sorts of other personal opportunities.

但对业务本身而言，这意味着难以按可预测的方式扩展。也许我们都能找到扩展方法。我很喜欢《商业拆解》节目，比如The Best Crew团队。Patrick正在探索业务扩展，Harry通过20VC和一些数据业务也在尝试不同的扩展路径。

But for the business itself, it means that it is harder to kind of scale it out in a predictable way. Maybe we could both figure out how to scale these things out. I've been like, you know, I like business breakdowns a lot from the invest like, the best crew. And so, like, Patrick's kind of figuring out how to scale out the business. It looks like Harry with twenty BC and some of the data stuff that they're doing is figuring out how to scale out the business in different ways.

但这非常困难，至少对我来说需要暂停现有工作后退一步：好吧，接下来三个月我得减少内容产出，因为要组建团队。我知道招聘有多难，管理有多难，持续管理更是难上加难。所以即使招人并退后一步来搭建组织结构，也是极具风险的举动。

But it's really hard and it requires, like, at least for me, it would require a big pause and a step back where I was like, alright. I can't do as much content for the next three months because I need to build out a team, and I know how hard it is to hire. I know how hard it is to manage. I know how hard it is to manage on an ongoing basis. And so it would be a real risky move to even hire people in and take that kind of step back that you need to build the structure to build an organization on top.

这有点像走那种晨间简报的路线，你会觉得，实际上这里有一个品牌声音和固定格式。如果我们能正确雇佣那些能做不无聊事情的人，就像他们为《晨间简报》做的那样——现在大概是一个100人的团队在做这个吧？我不认为奥斯汀或亚历克斯还在亲自写通讯了。但它读起来和我五年前或四年前看到的依然很相似，所以这是成功的。不过这是一种完全不同的运作方式。

It's to kinda go that morning brew route where you're like, actually, there is a brand voice and a format here. And if we can hire correctly for people that can do the not boring thing, kinda like they did for the I mean, it's a what is it? A 100 person team now or something doing morning brew, and I don't think Austin, or Alex are actually writing the letter anymore. But it still feels like a pretty similar letter to what I was reading five years ago or four years ago, so that worked. It's a totally different way to go about it though.

而且你们可能比我做得更好，对吧？我觉得那个业务的伟大之处在于他们同时拥有亚历克斯和奥斯汀。所以你看，如果一个人专注于内容，另一个人就能专注于组织建设，轮流分工之类的。当然Acquired有点不同，因为你们俩都是节目的人格化代表，都出现在播客上。但对他们来说，能有这样的合作关系确实很棒——你看我现在就独自坐在房间里。

And you guys could probably do it better than I could, right? Like I think the great thing about that business is they had both Alex and Austin. So you know, if one person could focus on the content, then one person could focus on kind of building the organization and take turns and all that. Again, little bit different with Acquired because you're both the personalities and you're both kind of on on the podcast, but it is nice I think for them that they've had this partnership where, you know, I'm sitting in a room alone here.

但你墙上有机器人啊。

But you have robots on the wall.

我墙上有机器人。有我弟弟帮我编辑大部分文章，协助我思考商业层面的问题。普贾简直是圣人，除了全职工作还要照顾我们日渐长大的儿子。即便周日累得要死，她也会读我的草稿。所以我并非完全孤独，但我也不能像'嘿丹或普贾，你来写下一篇《不无聊》吧，我来考虑组织建设'这样。本和我经常讨论这个。

I have robots on the wall. I have my brother who edits the vast majority of my pieces and help me thinks helps me think through the business side. Puja is a saint and like, in addition to kind of like working a full time job and managing our growing boy, Also, we'll you know, when she's dead tired on Sunday, read drafts like, I'm not solely alone here, but I also can't be like, alright Dan Apooja, you write the next not boring while I think about building this organization. You know, Ben and I talk about this.

这很有趣。我思考这个问题很久了，显然这也是我们在Acquired选择的道路：核心事物的天花板在哪里？如果核心内容很棒且持续优质，你还需要其他东西吗？需要更多节目吗？需要更多内容吗？

It is interesting. Like, I've been thinking for a long time now and, you know, certainly this is the path we've taken at Acquired of, like, what is the ceiling to the core thing? Like, if the core thing is great and continues to be, do you need all the other stuff? Do you need more shows? Do you need more content?

或者说在互联网时代，单凭这个能否做大？当你加入资本要素后，它又变得极具扩展性，且与内容直接相关。这很有意思。

Or on the Internet, can it just get big? And then when you add the capital piece too, then that is very scalable and directly related to the content as well. So it's interesting.

我认为单凭这一件事就能很好地扩展。而且所有事物都在相互滋养——如果我投资的公司组合扩大，每次在通讯中提到某家公司时，由于读者群体增长，影响力也会更大。一切都相互促进着增长，我觉得这很棒。如果最终能变成每月只接一篇赞助文章而非两篇，让我偶尔能有个完整周末休息的话...

I think it can scale with this one thing pretty well. And, like, everything also kind of continues to feed off each other where if I have a bigger portfolio of companies, but each time I mention a company in a newsletter, it has a bigger impact because the audience has gotten bigger. It all kind of scales with each other, which I think is really nice. And I don't know. I mean, if this ends up being a thing where I do, you know, one sponsored post a month instead of two and get a little bit more time to, like, kinda take a weekend off every once in a while.

那样的话就太棒了。但你知道，未来五年内这份通讯有可能发展成百万用户级别的规模。光是想到这点就让我兴奋不已。

Like, that would be great. But, you know, there's a path to this being a million person newsletter at some point in the next five years. I would be very psyched about that.

从我现在看到的增长曲线来看，如果保持这个趋势，两年内就能实现。所以问题在于，这种每月20%的增长率能持续多久？你认为读者群体的饱和点在哪里？

From the graph I'm looking at, if it keeps this shape, it would be in the next two years. So that's the question is, how long can it continue on this 20% month over month growth? What do you think the saturation point of your audience is?

我是说，从图表上看增长并不像指数级，每周新增订阅者大约1000到2000人。但当基数从4万变成8万时，这个数字的意义就完全不同了。可能增长曲线最终会更接近线性而非指数，说不定我们正处在S曲线的平缓段——虽然我真心希望不是这样。

I mean, you know, it doesn't feel as exponential, the chart where like, it still grows a thousand to 2,000 people a week, the newsletter. But a thousand to 2,000 people a week is a lot different when you're at 40,000 versus 80,000. So like, maybe it does go a little bit more linear than exponential at some point. Maybe we are hitting the s part of the s curve. I certainly hope that's not the case.

说实话，如果真出现增长放缓，很可能是因为我变得懈怠。比如想着'现有读者规模不错，收益可观，维持现状就好'，特别在内容创作上不愿突破。但只要能持续输出优质内容，不断吸引新读者加入，同时维系现有读者群体，我相信增长就能持续。

I think probably the reason that that would happen is if I get really lazy on it, frankly. And I'm like, look, have a big audience, things are great, making money. This is awesome. I'm just gonna kinda keep doing what I'm doing and don't wanna mess it up on the content side specifically. But I think if I kind of keep pushing on the content side and keep attracting new readers who are interested and wanna learn while also kind of keeping a tether to the audience that's there already, then I think it can kind of continue to grow.

这就是为什么在内容方面，除了对'宪法刻度盘'概念的痴迷，我会选择要么写篇普通文章，要么就彻底投入——亲身参与事件并撰写报道。如果读者无法通过《不无聊》预见近期未来，或是这些预见缺乏平易近人的解释，这个专栏就会失去动力。如果过度预测未来变成胡编乱造，或者只是复述上周科技要闻，那就毫无价值。

And that's why I like on the content side, other than just being kind of obsessed with the idea of constitution dial, why I was like, alright, I could either write a normal not boring piece or I could like kind of go ganza on this and like actually join it and write about what's happening and like take part in this whole thing. And so like, I think where this ends up losing its steam is if people don't think that they can get a glimpse into the near future from reading Not Boring and glimpse into the near future that's explained in an approachable and not crazy sounding way. Like if I go too far into the future and I'm just making stuff up, then that's bad. But if I'm just like, hey, here's what happened last week. Here's your kind of like tech roundup, then that's not good.

我希望自己能持续做好的是：聚焦近期未来，虽不做最早发现者，但能告诉读者'现在值得关注这个，它看似疯狂但其实可行'。随着未来越来越光怪陆离，只要能帮助读者理解现状并减轻焦虑感，我相信就能持续成长。

I think like, what I will hopefully continue to do well at is looking into, like, the very near future, never being the earliest person on something, but, like, kind of being the person who can say, like, alright, this is actually probably worth taking a look at now, and here's actually, like, why it's not as wild as it seems, or why it is as wild as it seems, but it just might work. That's I think where I can hopefully kind of continue to grow is the future will continue to get crazier and crazier and crazier. And so if I can just like kind of help keep translating what's going on and make people feel a little more comfortable with it, then I think I'll be able to kind of continue to grow.

感觉你生活在未来3-6个月的可能性里，而我们只生活在未来1个月的现实里。不知道你是否这么认为，但每次读你的文章时我都在想：'我还没到达那个认知层面，但这篇文章会带我抵达'。

I feel like you live three to six months in the possible future, and we live one month into the probably future. I don't know if you think about it that way at all, but that's like whenever I'm reading your pieces, I'm like, oh, I'm not there yet. But I bet this will help me get there by reading it.

对我来说有趣的是，我一直在撰写这份充满技术乐观主义的简报，恰逢史上最疯狂的牛市，它不仅没有达到自身的增长瓶颈，反而愈演愈烈。所以只要这种势头持续，我的处境就相当不错。但你也知道，市场也可能放缓——即便遭遇两年熊市，我认为‘不无聊’依然能挺过来。我们会重整旗鼓继续成长，一切都会好转。只不过那两年将成为‘不无聊’非常有趣的时期，我得不断写文章告诉大家要坚持住别放弃希望——虽然这种论调很快就会显得老套。

The fun thing for me has been that I'm writing this, like, very tech optimistic newsletter in the greatest bull run ever that somehow instead of getting, you know, like hitting its own s curve point, like keeps getting wilder. And so, know, that keeps happening, then I'm in really good shape. But you know, it could also slow down and like not boring is still I think, you know, even if there's a two year bear market, we come out the other side and reload and continue to grow and things continue to get better and all of that. But like those two years are going to be a really interesting time in not boring where I'm like, alright, everybody just like, here's another piece talking about why we should hang on and not lose hope. Like, that will get old pretty quickly.

因此短期内最大的商业风险（无论是风投业务还是简报业务）可能就是人们会说‘受够了这种乐观主义’，毕竟眼下形势确实有些艰难。

And so that's probably actually the biggest risk to the business in the short term, both on the venture side and the newsletter side, is that people are like, enough of this optimism. Like, things are kind of tough right now.

好的。在结束历史事实部分进入权力话题前，我要重点说说上个月疯狂的数据——说到复利效应，这些全都发生在一个月内。我刚又看了你的推特，粉丝数从78,000暴涨到了106,500。

Okay. So just to highlight before we finish history and facts here and move into powers, the insane last month. Speaking of compounding, like, all this somehow happened in one month. And I'm just again looking at your Twitter. You went from 78,000 followers to a 106,500 followers.

你首次（接着第二次）亮相CNBC；与克里斯·迪克森合写的文章登上《经济学人》，向世界证明你不仅能以独特的Packy式文风写作——那种让我提前三到六个月看到未来的文风我超爱——还能驾驭《经济学人》的腔调。那篇文章读起来你会惊呼：这绝对是《经济学人》的手笔，完全不像是Packy和克里斯写的。

You made your first and then second appearance on CNBC. You, with Chris Dixon, wrote a piece that was published in The Economist and proved to the world that you can write in The Economist's voice, not just in the unique Packy voice that I love that brings me three to six months of the future today. And and it is a very different voice. I mean, you read that Economist piece and you're like, wow. This is written by The Economist, not by Packy and Chris.

当然说到克里斯·迪克森，你现在正与安德森·霍洛维茨基金合作。全世界包括Packy本人都被他们招致麾下。所以我想指出2021年10月中旬发生在你身上所有这些难以置信的复利效应成果：a）这种感觉如何？b）你在a16z具体负责什么？

And, of course, speaking of Chris Dixon, you're working with Andreessen Horowitz now. The whole world, including Packy, they've hired. So I wanna point out all the results of this crazy compounding that unbelievably happened to you in mid October to 2021? And a, what does that feel like? And b, what are you doing with a 16 z?

没错。其实最大的增长助推器可能是马里奥和我写的那篇关于Discord的文章。哦对，随后Discord的CEO在我推文评论区宣布要接入Web3功能，接着又宣布取消。这直接引爆了推特上最阴暗极端的骂战。

Yeah. So I think actually the biggest growth driver potentially was that Mario and I wrote this piece on Discord. Oh, yeah. And then Discord's CEO, in the replies to my tweet about the piece, announced that they were adding Web3 integrations, and then announced that they were not adding Web3 integrations. And so that brought out the deepest, darkest, worst parts of Twitter.

那些回复既疯狂又密集，但也带来了大量新增粉丝。这事与《经济学人》文章发表、以及随后宣布加入安德森顾问团队都发生在同一周。诸多事件叠加让推特数据曲线显得很夸张，但我觉得Discord事件是被低估的引爆点，挺微妙的。

The replies to that were fast and furious and crazy, but it also added, I think, bunch of followers. That happened the same week that The Economist piece came out and announced the advisory at Andreessen off the back of that. So just a bunch of things happened at the same time. That makes the Twitter graph look a little bit wild, but I think that was an underappreciated one. It's weird.

我每周都得掐自己一下确认这些事真的在发生。就像，哦，是啊。我也不知道。那是上周的事了。比如，我们这周在做什么

I have to pinch myself every week that this stuff is happening. Was like, Oh, yeah. I don't know. That was last week. Like, what are we doing this

你就像脑子里挑三拣四的。

You're like picky in the brain.

没错。征服世界。但我不认为它会像复利那样累积，下周会有更酷的事发生，再下周又有更酷的事。肯定会有起伏波动的。

Yeah. Take over the world. But I don't think it's compounding the same way that interest would where like, next week, even cooler things will happen. And then next week, even cooler things will happen. Like, there will certainly be ebbs and flows.

我们即将进入假期季，所有事情都会让我恐慌，因为我的数据图表会比平时平缓得多——实际上是在休假。所以可能整个计划会崩溃，我们会后悔进行这次谈话。但希望长期来看这些波动最终会趋向更高的平均值。至于a16z顾问角色，那真的很有趣。我觉得我们在使命和价值观上是一致的，就像克里斯说的，虽然有很多复杂情况，但整体趋势非常好非常积极。

We're going to go into the holiday season here where everything like I'm going get panicked because my graph looks a lot flatter than it would have otherwise, actually taking some time off. So maybe this whole thing falls apart and we regret having this conversation in the first place. But, you know, hopefully the ebbs and flows just kind of average higher over time. In terms of the a 16 z advisory, that's a really, you know, a really fun one. Think we're we're just kind of mission and values aligned, I think Chris said it, that there's a lot of complex stuff happening, and the overall kind of arc is really good and really positive.

但如果你无法解释正在发生的事及其对人们的实际好处，以及表面下的真相，大家就会错过并否定这一切。所以我认为顾问工作的核心是帮助他们投资的公司思考如何讲述故事，比如我和克里斯在《经济学人》写的文章。他们会介绍我认识那些被投资且看好的公司，当然不保证我会写它们或投资它们。但合作的主旨是我们都在努力解释现状，说明这为何可能是好事，潜在风险在哪里，以及它没看起来那么可怕。

But if you can't translate what's happening and why this is gonna be actually good for people, and actually what's happening beneath the surface here, everybody's just going to miss out and dismiss this whole thing. And so I think really the advisory there is working with some of the companies in their portfolio to think about how they tell their story, writing pieces like I wrote with Chris in The Economist. They'll introduce me to companies, you know, that they've invested and are excited about. And not in, you know, there's no guarantee that I have to write about them or anything like that, but maybe I invest in them, maybe I, you know, write about them. But I think, you know, the the main thrust of the partnership is that we're both out there just trying to, like, explain what is going on and why this can be, you know, a potentially good thing and where it can go wrong and why it's not as scary as it seems.

所以我觉得核心就是如此——这话听起来比我预想的更老套——但我们都在为这个正在发生的变革服务。最打动我的一点是，如你所暗示的，我在他们大规模招聘期间加入，当时兴奋得想立刻宣布，心想天啊。

And so I think it's really all about kind of that. We're both this is gonna sound way cornier than I wanted to, but both kind of just like working in service of this thing that's happening. And one of the things that I think really impressed me, like, I signed on, obviously, as you alluded to, in the middle of them hiring all of these people. And so I was like, so excited to announce it. I was like, oh, man.

所有人都离职了。我本来不知道这事。差点发条讽刺推文——不算讽刺，就是类似'我要加入a16z了'这种。后来参加了他们在加州的团建，明显能看出安德森霍洛维茨正全力投入资源，确保这场新兴运动获得成长所需的支持。

Everybody's out. Like, I don't know about that. And so I was like, gonna do a, like, snarky tweet. Not snarky, but, know, like, was gonna do a tweet that was kind of like, I'm joining a sixteen z two. And then I went out to the offside the team did out in California, and it was so clear that, like, this big team of people was there because Andreessen was just kind of throwing its resources behind making sure that this nascent movement kind of had the resources it needed to grow.

所以，你知道，那边有一群人在负责监管方面的工作，还有一群人在负责技术方面。他们拥有天才工程师——就像其他Web3协议和公司试图招聘的那样——这些工程师就在内部为投资组合公司工作。我知道我现在可能有点美化风险投资的服务模式了，他们这么做显然是有原因的。

And so there's, you know, bunch of people working on the regulatory side there. There's a bunch of people working on the technical side there. They have genius engineers who like other web three protocols and companies we're trying to hire who are just in house there working on behalf of portfolio companies. And I know that I'm like romanticizing the services model of venture capital right now, and there's obviously a reason that they're doing that.

我们为此做了一个两部分的系列节目。没错。

We did a two part series on it. Exactly.

我是说，如果这个行业和他们特定的公司表现非常好，对他们是有利的。但这真的感觉像是一群真正相信这件事的人，想要把管理费投入到实际发生的服务中，而不是一开始就被过度监管和人们的缺乏理解所扼杀。所以在那之后，我感到更加乐观，甚至更兴奋能与他们合作，尤其是在认识了更多团队成员之后。

I mean, like, it's good for them if the industry and their particular companies do really well. But it really feels like a group of people that just actually believes in this thing and wants to put the management fees to work in service of it actually happening and not getting kind of choked at the beginning by over regulation and by people's lack of understanding. And so I came out of that feeling a lot more optimistic and just even, like, more excited about working with them after kinda getting to meet more of the team.

酷。好吧，谢谢你告诉我们。我是说，我觉得很有趣的是，你加入公司后并没有完全独立地用另一笔资金进行投资。你有自己的通讯，保持完全独立，但我认为这是风险投资模式的一个聪明演变，比如，嘿，实际上是加密顾问。我不确定你的具体头衔是什么，但这很聪明。

Cool. Well, thanks for cluing us in. I mean, it's fascinating to me that, yeah, that it's not like you joined the firm and you are still investing completely separately out of a separate pool of capital. You have your own newsletter that staying totally separate, but that there's I think it's a smart evolution of the venture model to say, hey, actually, crypto adviser. I don't know exactly what your title is, but it's smart.

是的。我是说，我也和其他基金有过类似的对话，比如，嘿，你想来工作，成为这个基金的全职合伙人吗？不，就像我们过去几个小时讨论的那样，我现在做这件事非常开心，所以那种模式永远不会吸引我。你这是在抢风头

Yeah. I mean, I've had that other conversation with funds too, where it's like, hey, you wanna come work and, you know, be a full time partner at this fund? And no, like we've talked for the past couple of hours about how much fun I'm having doing this particular thing, so that would never be an attractive model. You're stealing the thunder

关于我们评分的大想法。

on our big idea for grading.

是的。听众们，我们会在评分环节讨论这个，因为我很好奇想深入探讨。所以暂时先保留这个想法。让我们谈谈力量。你有一个‘不无聊的飞轮’的概念，我想说这有点像你可以让Excel表格说任何话。

Yeah. Listeners, we're gonna talk about this in grading, because I I'm curious to dig into that no. So hold that thought for now. Let's do powers. You've got this concept of the not boring flywheel, which I wanna say it's kinda like you can make an Excel spreadsheet say anything.

你可以把飞轮图画在纸上，看起来总是很完美，但没人能复制亚马逊的飞轮。所以在真正命名这些力量之前，这里有个不无聊的飞轮，以受众为核心，向外延伸至创始人。还有赞助商。我们会在节目笔记中附上链接。这些就像是周一的拼图，真正滋养整个系统并反哺增长受众。

You can put a flywheel diagram down on paper and it will always look good, but no one has Amazon's flywheel. And so before actually naming the powers, you've got the not boring flywheel here that has audience at the core that feeds out into founders. There's sponsors. We'll link to this in the show notes. And they're sort of the Monday pieces that really feed it all and go back in and grow the audience.

这是你一年多前与杰克·辛格做的精彩访谈内容，我们在这里把它作为重要参考资料。

And that was from great interview you did with Jake Singer, like, year plus ago that we use as big resource here.

实际上，大概就在二月份左右。

Actually, right around February.

哦，哇。那需要更新了。

Oh, wow. So it needs to be updated.

很可能其实是那条百万美元推文的结果。我想就是那时候他决定说，好吧，我们该谈谈了。

It probably actually was a result of the million dollar tweet. I think that's when he was like, alright. We should talk.

我很好奇你会如何描述这个飞轮最强大的部分。比如，哪些相互强化的方面让你觉得它们紧密相连？

I'm curious how you would describe the most powerful aspect of the flywheel. Like, what is the thing where you are like, oh, these mutually reinforcing aspects are strongly tied?

我觉得就像我们之前讨论过的，把受众放在飞轮中心可能并不完全准确。如果我有一百万对创业之类完全不感兴趣的受众，这个飞轮就不会这么强大。我认为真正关键的是内容、特定受众群体和投资这三者之间的契合度。这三者相辅相成，因为它们都在互相滋养。这听起来像是个敷衍的答案，因为我基本上把整个飞轮都列举了一遍，但我确实不认为其中有哪个环节特别突出。

I think as we talked about a little bit before, audience at the center of the flywheel is maybe not exactly the thing. Like if I had a million person audience of people who didn't care about startups or whatever, like it wouldn't be kind of as powerful. I think it's really just kind of the alignment between the content, the particular people who are in the audience, and then the investing. Like those three just I think really work well together because they all kind of feed each other. That's a cop out answer where I think I pretty much just named the whole flywheel, but I I don't think there's any one particularly strong link.

我确实认为内容吸引了一类特定的观众群体，这类群体对公司而言更具价值，其中包括初创公司和运营公司的人士等，这一切形成了良性循环。但核心可能在于内容本身与风险投资业务高度契合，我认为这才是魔力所在。

I really think that it is the the content has attracted a certain type of audience member who's both more valuable to companies and who also include people who are starting companies and running companies and all of that, and it all just kind of feeds back into each other. But I think maybe core part is that the content itself is so aligned with the venture business. I think that's the magic.

在投资方面，你们与哪些类型的公司或创始人存在强产品市场契合度，哪些又属于弱契合？有没有遇到过对方表示'抱歉，由于某些原因本轮没有合适位置'的情况？

With what types of companies or founders do you have strong product market fit on the investment side versus weak? Where has it happened where someone's been like, sorry. There's not really space in this round for this reason.

或者你正在和某人讨论赞助事宜时

Or you're talking with somebody about sponsoring and then

对方突然表示拒绝。在赞助方面，归根结底是价格问题。如果这是门生意，我可能会在定价上更灵活些，毕竟我是核心决策者，不接深度赞助专题给自己放个假同样让我开心。只要我喜欢这家公司就愿意写他们，但价格上我会非常坚持。所以谈判破裂往往源于此，而非特定公司类型。

they're like, actually, no. On the sponsor side, really comes down to price, And I think if this were a business, I'd probably be more relaxed on pricing sometimes because it's me at the center of it and I'm equally happy not writing a sponsored deep dive and giving myself an extra week off. As long as I like the company, I'd like to write about them, but I'm gonna stand pretty firm on price. And so that's where that falls apart. It's not necessarily a particular type of company.

有趣的是，有些我会拒绝的公司其实是我认为值得投资的好企业。它们可能具备某些战略上的亮点，但对读者吸引力不足。过去我做过少量这类内容并从中吸取教训——虽然效果尚可（比如高客单价产品通过通讯获得50个注册用户就算巨大成功，投资回报率很棒），但可能只有这50人真正关心那个故事。所以我现在尽量避免这类情况。

What's really interesting is like, there are actually companies that I'll say no to that I think that I would invest in that I think are great businesses. Then And I think I like have something interesting strategically that like just maybe isn't interesting enough to the audience where like actually it would still perform. And I've done stuff like this a little bit in the past and have learned from that where it still does well because maybe they're high ACV product and if they get 50 people to sign up coming out of the newsletter, like that is a huge win. The ROI is fantastic and all of that, but maybe those 50 people are the only 50 people who actually cared about that particular story. So I try to do a little bit less of that.

在创始人方面，与其说是特定行业类型，不如说关键在于：没人关心我写的东西是否无聊。这就是为什么我对单纯强调受众规模很反感——如果有人被介绍时说'这是《不无聊》的Packy，拥有8.8万读者'，对方可能只会敷衍'哦，酷，你搞新闻通讯的？'

On the founder side, I don't think it's a particular type of industry as much as it really comes down to like, nobody gives a shit that I write not boring. And so that's why I'm like, I kinda bristle at the audience, like, size being the thing. Because if somebody comes in and they're introduced cold to me and someone's like, this is Packy from not boring and it's an 88,000 person audience. They're like, oh, cool. You read a newsletter?

我认为真正的分水岭在于：这个人是否真正阅读过《不无聊》并从我写的内容中获取过价值。这才是关键区别所在。

I think, like, the divide is did the person actually read Not Boring before and, like, really get value out of something that I've written or not? And I think that's actually where where the divide is.

说得太对了。否则就变成了一场交易，他们会想，你是要免费写我吗？我干嘛要在乎你有没有通讯录？

Such a good point. Because otherwise, it's transactional, and they're like, so are you gonna write about me for free? Why do I care that you have an a newsletter?

百分百同意。有时候创始人会这样问我，尤其是当介绍途径如此时。最近有位创始人发邮件问我，在我承诺并说明希望在分配方面做什么之后，他回复说‘太好了，你能提供最近五篇文章的打开率和你的受众规模吗？’我感觉这比我希望的更像交易，如果顺利的话这对双方都有好处。

A 100%. And, like, know, I'll get that sometimes from founders when that's kind of the introduction path where, like, I had a founder recently email me and ask, you know, after I said, you know, I I committed and said, here's what I'd, you know, love to do on the allocation side. He was like, great. And can you give me the open rates on your last five posts and like your audience size? And I was like, this feels more transactional than I want it to feel like this will be good for both of us if this works out.

是啊，我真的很不喜欢在推销时说‘这份通讯会如何改变你公司的轨迹’。我认为它对公司确实非常有帮助，但我不希望它变成‘好吧，因为你打开率45%，订阅者8.8万，我们给你7.5万美元的分配’，我虽然算过账，但这感觉不对。更重要的是，我是否与这位创始人理念一致并对这个故事感到兴奋？

Yeah. I really don't like when I'm on a pitch being like, here's how the newsletter will like this will change your company's trajectory. Like, I think it can be really, really helpful for companies, and I don't want it to be this transactional thing where it's like, alright, we'll give you $75,000 in allocation because you have a 45% open rate and 88,000 subscribers, and I've done the math, but that doesn't feel right. It's more like, am I aligned with this founder and want it excited about the story?

换句话说，受众规模并不重要，因为那是投资后创始人或公司将能触及的范围。关键在于，受众中合适类型的人越多，就越有可能有人读过你写的东西，这样的介绍是温暖且受欢迎的，而不是‘你是谁’。

Put another way, the size of the audience is not important because that is reach that a founder or company will have access to after you invest. It's because the larger the audience sizes of the right types of people, the more likely it is that someone has read something you've written and that introduction is warm and appreciated rather than who are you.

这种心理转变几乎是自动的。如果你已经是‘Not Boring’的粉丝，你就会想‘哦，我懂了’。对吧？像我这样的人会读‘Not Boring’，我想让更多同类型的人看到我。

And that mental leap is, like, automatic. If you're already a Not Boring fan, then you're like, oh, I I get it. Right? Like, people like me read Not Boring. I wanna get in front of more people in my orbit.

这很有道理。

This makes sense.

另一种描述方式是，我不认为说服创始人在5万或8.8万读者时给我分配变得更容易了。如果他们是读者，他们大概能理解；如果不是，他们就不懂。在赞助方面则不同，那里更像有个等式，受众越大，人们越愿意付更多钱，这完全合理。但在创始人这边，关键问题确实是‘你读不读Not Boring？’

The other way to describe that is I don't think it's gotten any easier convincing founders to give me allocation at 50,000 readers or 88,000 readers. Like, if they're a reader, then they kinda get it. And if they're not, then, you know, they don't on the sponsorship side, it's different. Like, there's more of a an equation there, and people are willing to pay more with the bigger audience, which makes total sense. But I do think on the founder side, that's really the binary is do you read not boring or not?

是的。这很合理。完全合理。好的。关于‘力量’部分。

Yeah. It makes sense. Makes total sense. Okay. Powers.

七个让事情不无聊的力量？

Seven powers for not boring?

对，就是这个。

Yes. This

这会很有趣。我大胆猜测一下，我认为不会是规模经济。

is gonna be fun. I'm going out on a limb here. I think it's not gonna be scale economies.

我知道。对于大家来说，我不明白这怎么会是你们第一次接触‘七种力量’，因为你们要么听过《Acquired》播客，要么读过《Not Boring》才来这里的。但简而言之，真正的问题是：是什么让这个企业能够持续获得差异化回报？也就是在可持续的基础上，年复一年比其最接近的竞争对手更赚钱。这挺有意思的。

I know. For folks, I don't know how this could possibly be your first exposure to Seven Powers because you either have listened to Acquired or read Not Boring coming into this. But briefly, the real question is what thing enables this business to achieve persistent differential returns? Sort of more profitable than their closest competitor on a sustainable basis for years and years and years in the future. So it's kind of interesting.

我在准备这期节目时首先想到的是，汉密尔顿·赫尔默指出，实际上上市公司股东并非短期导向，而是长期导向。这就是为什么当你调整下个季度的业绩指引时，估值可能变动数十亿甚至上百亿美元——因为人们是在用未来29又四分之三年的时间尺度来评估企业的发展轨迹。所以思考‘Not Boring’的未来价值很有趣，因为它实际上比你在一个拥有持久组织和产品市场契合度的上市公司里预测的要短期得多，因为它太依赖Packy了。我知道这还没提到具体的力量，我们也该谈谈那个。

The first thing that I was thinking about when I was prepping for this episode is Hamilton Helmer makes the point that actually public company shareholders are not short term oriented. They're long term oriented. And that's why when you change your guidance for the next quarter, the valuation can change by billions and billions and billions of dollars because people are accounting for the next twenty nine and three quarters years after next quarter in the way that they think about the trajectory of the business. And so it's interesting thinking about the future value of not boring because it's actually much more near term than you would forecast in a public company with a durable organization and product market fit because it's so packy dependent. And I know that's not naming a power, and I think we should do that too.

但这个观察很有意思，或许这就是为什么媒体公司、小型组织和家族企业的估值倍数通常较低。

But it's an interesting observation and probably why, you know, media companies and small organizations and family run businesses get lower multiples.

我认为这是对的。我不想融资，因为那样我就有了老板，而我不认为我会得到让我愿意出卖部分自我的评价。

I think that's right. I don't wanna raise money because then I'd have bosses, and I don't think I'd get evaluation that I'd be happy to sell part of myself for.

是啊。那么，大卫，你觉得哪个方面最强？

Yeah. Well, David, where do you think the strongest one is?

在看完整个节目之前我还没想过这一点，但我认为你做的事情与传统媒体公司相比，至少存在很强的反定位元素。

I hadn't thought about this before going through the whole episode, but I think there's a strong element of counter positioning here with what you're doing, at least relative to traditional media companies.

没错，尤其在新闻领域。实际上，在风投方面也是。

Yeah. Certainly on the journalism side. Actually, and on the venture side.

风投方面绝对是。我觉得这里可能存在网络经济的元素，就像你刚才谈到的飞轮效应和读者基础。也就是说，目标受众中阅读的人越多，接受Not Boring Capital的投资、赞助Not Boring，或者干脆继续阅读Not Boring就会变得越有影响力，因为你的圈子里有更多人也在阅读它。

Totally on the venture side. I think there may be some element of network economies here, kinda like what you were just talking about with the flywheel and, you know, being a read. Like, the more people in your target audiences who are readers, the more powerful taking an investment from Not Boring Capital or sponsoring Not Boring or frankly, just continuing to read not boring becomes as more people in your circle are reading it.

我觉得这可能是对的，但我不想过分归功于此。我知道，网络经济和规模效益之间肯定有区别。我也不会称之为规模经济，虽然希望它会变得更好。我认为这是数据网络效应之类的东西，可能确实存在，有时候人们可能拥有它，但可能就像你说的，网络效应只是假装存在的网络效应。实际上我不确定我是否拥有这种效应——比如是否意味着因为读者更多，所以我能写更多有趣的公司，更多不同类型的公司希望我讲述它们的故事，或者受众群体在扩大，我与人们的对话更有趣，从而产生更有趣的想法——也许确实存在，但这绝对不是Facebook级别的网络经济，后者明确显示每新增一个用户对其认识的人都有明显好处。

I think that's probably right, but I don't wanna give myself too much credit on it. And I know, like, you know, there's definitely a difference between network economies and some sort of benefits to scale. I wouldn't call it scale economies either where hopefully it gets better. I think this is data network effects or something where maybe it's there and like, kind of sometimes like, maybe people have it, but probably like you say, there's a network effects just like pretend like their network effects. And I actually don't know if I, if I have them, like if it means that I'm able to write about more interesting companies because there are more readers and some more different types of companies want me to tell their story and all of that, or you know, the audience is getting bigger and I have more interesting conversations with people, so I have more interesting ideas like then maybe that is there, but it's certainly not Facebook level network economies where it's very clear that one extra person coming on is really good for the people who know that person, etcetera.

嗯，网络效应的强度是一个因素。不，你确实没有Facebook那么强的网络效应，但我认为它确实存在。比如，本·里德的Not Boring对我很有价值。我们会讨论Not Boring。

Well, there's a factor of strength of network effects. And, like, no, you're not Facebook's strength network, but I do think it's there. Like, it is valuable to me that Ben Reed's not boring. We talk about not boring.

是的，不过很薄弱。比如，你明显没有一个社群。你的推特回复里存在一个伪社群，但你并没有以真正具有网络价值的方式组织起这个社群。我认为这是个机会。

Yeah. It's weak though. Like, you notably don't have a community. There's a pseudo community that exists in your Twitter replies, but, like, you haven't organized the community in a way that actually has network value. I'd say that's an opportunity.

也许现在还不够格，但确实是个机会。

Now maybe one that doesn't meet the bar, but an opportunity.

我觉得你说得完全正确。可能是因为'无聊俱乐部'的缘故，我确实在回避再次担任社群管理者的角色。但我确实认为推特现在是这类社群存在的地方，而且绝对存在机会。或许这就是DAO或其他形式介入的时机，甚至未来某个时候'无聊代币'会发挥作用，那时就能获得加密领域内置的网络效应。但目前来看，这方面确实不强。

I think that's a 100% right. I've definitely I think probably because of Not Boring Club, shied away from trying to, like, be a community manager again. But I I do think Twitter is kind of where that exists now, but I think there are absolutely opportunities. And maybe that's where, you know, a DAO or something comes in or even, you know, where a Not Boring Token at some point down the line comes into play where then, you know, you get all the network effects that come built in with crypto. But for now, I don't think that it's particularly strong.

我同意这相当薄弱。

I agree it's pretty weak.

我想提出一点，汉密尔顿可能会因为我称之为'Paki的垄断资源'而骂我。所以更准确地说应该是流程掌控力——你无法写出一份文档让别人接手你的工作，即复制你创造的产品。我认为这本质上就是流程掌控力，因为你无法真正记录下你创造产品的过程。我听你尝试解释过几次，每次说法都有些不同。

There's one that I wanna bring up where Hamilton would probably yell at me for calling it the cornered resource of Paki. So I guess it's probably more process power, but you could not write a document such that you could hand it to someone else and they could do your job. Like, that they could create the product that you create. And I think that's definitionally process power, that you can't actually write down the process of creating the product that you create. And I've heard you try to explain it a few times, and it's always a little bit different.

你永远无法确切描述灵感闪现的固定模式，让你产生绝妙点子。看起来你就像钻进地下室，上网冲浪，然后魔法就发生了——虽然这个过程可能需要重复几次。但我觉得连你自己都无法真正说清楚产品诞生的具体流程。

And you can never really articulate the consistent way that lightning strikes you, such that you have a great idea. And it seems like you go into your basement, you surf the Internet, and magic happens, and you might have to start that process a few times. But I don't think even you can really articulate the process by which the product comes out.

这个观点非常犀利。我尝试解释过很多次，这也是我在人群演讲时最先被问到的问题之一。但我从来给不出好答案，因为确实不存在标准答案。

That's an incredibly good point. I've tried to explain this many times. It's one of the first questions that I get from people if I go talk to a group of people, and I never have a good answer for it because there isn't a good answer for it.

确实。这很有趣。我们也经常遇到这种情况。比如，你们的工作流程是怎样的？你会说，我可以机械地告诉你，但这听起来可能不太像。

Totally. It's funny. We get it a lot too. Like, what's your process? You're like, well, I can tell you mechanically, but it's not gonna sound like.

嗯，本打开TextEdit，里面有一个包含无数字体的文档，因为它已经克隆自250集节目。那个TextEdit文档加上大卫的Notion，与我们实际制作一集节目的流程几乎毫无关系。

Well, Ben opens up TextEdit, and he has a document that has a zillion fonts in it because it's been cloned from 250 episodes. And that TextEdit document plus David's Notion has almost nothing to do with what our actual process is to create an episode.

我是说，这就是美妙之处。对吧？我认为对于Acquired、Not Bored这类优质内容业务来说，这就是为什么我不想扩大规模，不得不写品牌指南或风格指南，甚至《经济学人》也有他们的指南，你应该能融入其中，听起来像品牌的声音。我不想那样做。

I mean, that's the beauty. Right? I think for acquired, for not boring, for like good content businesses, this is why I don't want to scale it and have to write like a brand guideline or the style guide or even The Economist has their guide where you should be able to kind of plug into that thing and kind of sound like the brand voice. I don't wanna do that.

好的。那么为《经济学人》撰稿的过程是怎样的？比如，从你写初稿到最终成品的转变是怎样的？

Okay. So what was that process like writing for The Economist? Like, what was the transition from you wrote

初稿到最终成品？相当接近。是的，它会交给他们的编辑，但有趣的是，他们会事先发给你他们的指南，告诉你需要避免的事项。比如，其中一条是不要使用‘越来越’这个词，然后我意识到我在写作中经常用这个词。但他们提前告诉你这些，让你心中有数，所以成品尽可能保留了你写的内容。

a draft to final piece? It was pretty close. Like, yeah, it goes to their editors, but the interesting thing is that they send you their guide upfront on kind of the things to avoid. And so, like, one of those things is to not use the word increasingly, which I then realized that I do all of the time in my writing. But they give you those things upfront so that you come in kind of aware, and so it's as much of what you've written as it can possibly be.

然后显然，我认为通常情况下，编辑会进行修改。但我确实努力在写的东西里捕捉《经济学人》的风格。

And then obviously, I think just normally, like, an editor, they go for it. But I definitely tried to kind of, you know, catch The Economist style in the thing that we wrote.

好了。搞定权力部分了吗？

Alright. Done with powers?

是的。我认为关键在于处理能力。说到底，这是一门创意产业，这一点毋庸置疑。

Yeah. I'm with I think it's process power. It's like, at the end of the day, it's creative business. For sure.

现在正是感谢我们节目的好朋友ServiceNow的好时机。我们曾向听众讲述过ServiceNow惊人的创业故事，以及他们如何成为过去十年表现最佳的公司之一，但有些听众对ServiceNow实际业务仍有疑问。今天，我们就来解答这个问题。

Now is a great time to thank good friend of the show, ServiceNow. We have talked to listeners about ServiceNow's amazing origin story and how they've been one of the best performing companies the last decade, but we've gotten some questions from listeners about what ServiceNow actually does. So today, we are gonna answer that question.

首先，最近媒体经常用一句话来形容ServiceNow——'企业的AI操作系统'。具体来说，ServiceNow二十二年前成立时专注于自动化，将纸质文件转化为软件工作流，最初服务于企业内部的IT部门。随着时间推移，他们在这个平台上不断扩展，处理更强大复杂的任务。

Well, to start, a phrase that has been used often here recently in the press is that ServiceNow is the, quote, unquote, AI operating system for the enterprise. But to make that more concrete, ServiceNow started twenty two years ago focused simply on automation. They turned physical paperwork into software workflows, initially for the IT department within enterprises. That was it. And over time, they built on this platform going to more powerful and complex tasks.

他们的服务从IT部门扩展到人力资源、财务、客户服务、现场运营等部门。在过去二十年里，ServiceNow完成了连接企业各个角落、实现自动化所需的所有繁琐基础工作。

They were expanding from serving just IT to other departments like HR, finance, customer service, field operations, and more. And in the process over the last two decades, ServiceNow has laid all the tedious groundwork necessary to connect every corner of the enterprise and enable automation to happen.

当AI时代来临，本质上AI就是高度复杂的任务自动化。而谁已经搭建好了支持这种自动化的企业级平台和连接架构？正是ServiceNow。所以回答'ServiceNow做什么'这个问题时，他们说'连接并赋能每个部门'是名副其实的。

So when AI arrived, well, AI kinda just by definition is massively sophisticated task automation. And who had already built the platform and the connective tissue with enterprises to enable that automation? ServiceNow. So to answer the question, what does ServiceNow do today? We mean it when they say they connect and power every department.

IT和HR用它管理全公司的人员、设备和软件许可；客户服务部门用它检测支付失败并路由到内部正确的处理团队；供应链部门用它进行产能规划，整合其他部门数据确保协同一致。不再需要在不同系统间反复输入相同数据。最近ServiceNow还推出了AI代理，任何岗位的员工都能创建AI代理处理繁琐事务，让人专注于宏观工作。

IT and HR use it to manage people, devices, software licenses across the company. Customer service uses ServiceNow for things like detecting payment failures and routing to the right team or process internally to solve it. Or the supply chain org uses it for capacity planning, integrating with data and plans from other departments to ensure that everybody's on the same page. No more swivel chairing between apps to enter the same data multiple times in different places. And just recently, ServiceNow launched AI agents so that anyone working in any job can spin up an AI agent to handle the tedious stuff, freeing up humans for bigger picture work.

ServiceNow去年入选《财富》全球最受赞赏公司榜单和《快公司》最佳创新者工作场所，正是源于这种愿景。若您想在业务各环节利用ServiceNow的规模与速度优势，请访问servicenow.com/acquired，只需说是本和大卫推荐的即可。

ServiceNow was named to Fortune's world's most admired companies list last year and Fast Company's best workplace for innovators last year. And it's because of this vision. If you wanna take advantage of the scale and speed of ServiceNow in every corner of your business, go to servicenow.com/acquired and just tell them that Ben and David sent you.

谢谢，ServiceNow。好吧。那么，Packy，我一直在思考这个问题。你应该去风险投资公司工作吗？而且不具体提哪家机构，因为那样会让讨论变得复杂。

Thanks, ServiceNow. Alright. So, Packy, I was thinking about this. Should you go work at a venture firm? And without naming a venture firm, because then it gets harder to talk about.

假设你要去一家规模庞大的风投公司工作，他们管理的基金超过十亿美元。考虑到你迅速积累的受众群体、建立的社群关系，以及你在Web3领域的前瞻视野，你会成为普通合伙人。假设他们提供的条件包括——虽然我不清楚具体分成比例——但就说在全新成立的数十亿（至少十亿）美元基金里获得两位数百分点的收益分成。这样你就能获得相当可观的经济回报，不过收益可能要在七年后才能兑现。同时你还能领到不错的固定薪资。

Let's say you were to go work at a big, big venture capital firm where a fund is like a billion dollars plus. And let's say to reflect the very quick audience that you've sort of built this relationship and community you've cultivated, and, you know, the way that you're seeing into a very important future in Web three, you would become a general partner and the offer would be for, like, a big let's call it I don't know what carry is, big firm, but call it double digit percentage of carry in a brand new multibillion dollar fund or at least billion dollar fund. So you're getting, like, serious economics. But the returns are probably like seven and plus years out in the future. And you make a pretty good salary.

固定薪资大概能达到你现在Not Boring收入的一半。这就引出一个有趣的抉择：你是否愿意把大部分收益再推迟五到七年？是否愿意削减当前正处于转折点的事业？还是坚持现有道路，期待现在构建的事业虽然风险更高，但最终可能超越成为大机构合伙人的最大收益？我这样权衡利弊的思考方式合理吗？

Like you probably make, I don't know, half of what not boring is baking just in salary. So you have this sort of interesting question of like, do you wanna delay most of your upside another five, seven plus years? And do you wanna like cut down on something that is sort of at an inflection point right now? Or do you wanna stay the course and hope that what you're building now has way more risk, but what you're building can eclipse even what the greatest upside would be from becoming a general partner at a big firm? Am I thinking about that sort of right in the set of trade offs?

我认为你对利弊权衡的考量是准确的。棘手之处在于——虽然薛定谔的猫理论不完全适用，但或许你能理解我的意思——一旦我入职某家机构，就会立即丧失部分价值（比如X%）。即便我现在会接赞助内容，但那种独立发声的特质显然会消失。所有文字产出都要经过法务团队、合规部门等层层审核。

Think that you're thinking about it right in the set of trade offs. I think the tricky part is that and Schrodinger's cat is not right here, but maybe you'll understand the right version of what I'm saying is that as soon as I go in house somewhere, I lose half of my value or x percent of my value as soon as I go in house somewhere. And that is kind of one even though, you know, I do do sponsored posts and all of that. There is like this independent voice that I have that obviously goes away. Everything that I write would go through a legal team, the compliance team, and all of those types of things.

很可能无法保持现在这样的创作节奏——比如在文章发布前30分钟甚至最后一分钟还在做最终修改。因此内容会失去某种鲜活特质。所以我觉得需要增加时间维度考量：什么时候做这个决定才合适？或许要等到我的发展曲线进入稳定期，当我的影响力足够大，人们会默认我的专业度——即便实际上我每周都在即兴发挥。比如未来订阅者达到50万时，人们就会自动认为我言之有物。

Probably wouldn't be able to even do it at the cadence or, you know, even the schedule that I do now where it's like, I'm making my last kind of edit or writing my last sentence 30 before the piece goes out or even a minute before the piece goes out. So I think it would lose a little bit of that flavor. And so I think probably, you know, you need to add like a time dimension on this, which is when does it make sense to do this? And there's probably, like, when I'm deeply in that s curve, if I've, like, gotten big enough that, like, somehow just because I'm backing before my people, like, now think that I'm smart where, like, now I kinda need to prove that that I can add value every week. Like, maybe at some point in the future when there's half a million subscribers, people will just assume that I know what I'm talking about even though I don't and I'm just making it up every week.

到那时这个选择对双方可能都有意义：对我来说指数级增长空间已有限，对基金而言我的价值也不会在入职瞬间大幅缩水。但现阶段转型会限制我的发展上限和选择空间，基金方也可能觉得物非所值。有趣的是，听你讲述时我突然想到...

Then maybe the trade makes sense both for me because there's not that exponential upside and for the fund because I don't lose all of my value value as soon as I set foot in the door of that fund. But I think for the time being, it would be upside limiting for me and option limiting for me and it would be, you know, the fund would not, I don't think get what it paid for. It's funny. I'm thinking as you're saying

在我看来，你加入风投机构的情形几乎完全等同于亚马逊收购Kiva Systems。这家仓库机器人公司当时拥有包括亚马逊、Target、沃尔玛在内的众多客户，价值巨大。直到某天亚马逊决定：好吧，我们买下它。

that you doing this, joining a venture firm would to my mind be almost exactly like Amazon buying Kiva Systems. Kiva Systems robotic warehouse company, they had lots of clients. I think, like, maybe Target was a client, Walmart, like, lots of clients, including Amazon. Lots of value. And then at a certain point, Amazon was like, okay.

对我们来说收购你们更有价值，对你们而言卖给亚马逊也比继续经营更有意义——尽管我们会关停你们90%的业务，但最终价值会更高。

It's worth more to us to buy you, and it's worth more to you to sell to us at Amazon then continue and we're gonna shut down 90% of your business, but the ultimate value is gonna be higher.

我认为这可能是对的。所以现在合理的做法或许是，这不仅仅是像拥有全科医生那么简单。其战略价值在于阻止其他公司雇佣我，或者当你们缺乏Web3业务时，需要快速追赶。坦白说，我觉得有更专业的人选，那些技术更过硬的人。需要我和一些比我更深入这个领域的技术人员合作，但这或许能帮助你们在落后领域快速取得进展。

I think that's probably right. And so maybe, you know, where it would make sense right now is, like, if there is it's more than just, you know, kind of like having a GP. It's their strategic value in another firm not hiring me or in maybe you don't have a web three practice, but like you need to play catch up. I still think there are better people, frankly, who are, like, way more technical. It'd have to be me and some technical people who are, like, kind of deeper in the space than me, but, like, maybe it helps you get a quicker leg up into an an area where you feel that you're behind.

但我完全同意你的观点，亚马逊收购Kiva不仅基于其营收和客户名单——这些都会消失——他们这么做是为了阻止竞争对手获得这些资源，并自主开发相关技术。

But I think you're absolutely right that, like, Amazon was not just making that decision based on Kiva's revenue and client roster because that all goes away. They're making it to keep that away from other people and to do something themselves.

这里出现了有趣的博弈论现象：你似乎很愿意公开表示这个选择缺乏吸引力且不合逻辑，这让我戴着职业风投的帽子思考——既然你不会加入其他公司，那我似乎也没必要进行收购了。

There's this funny, like, game theory thing happening here where it seems like you're willing to be reasonably public about the idea that, like, it's not that attractive, and it doesn't make sense to go join, which then makes me with my professional venture capitalist hat on going, well, I guess I don't need to do a takeout acquisition here because he's not gonna go join anywhere else

或者说这更让我觉得：该死。如果我要把博弈论推演到底——既然他迟早会这么做，那我是否现在就该开出超高报价，确保他未来不会转投别处？

Or it makes me more like, shoot. If I'm gonna gave theory this all the way out, in fact, he's gonna do it at some point, then do I actually need to make the over the top offer now to make sure that he doesn't go anywhere else in the future?

其实我对Up Boring的发展路径一直很公开透明。如果真有人提出重大收购要约，我会回来告诉大家具体细节。

Well, I've been public about kind of everything in in Up Boring's Path. So if this does happen, if people start making big offers, I'll come back on and and let you know what

那些要约的内容。好吧。但在我看来，这场疯狂危机中——毕竟这是我们的节目，评分权在我们手里。必要时你可以插话。

those offers look like. Okay. So to me though, I think the wild crisis where, you know, it's our show. We get to grade you. You can chime in if you have to.

我还是觉得，你看，我在这一集里扮演的是乐观派帕基。对我来说问题在于，如果桌上有这样的offer，真的很难拒绝。对吧？那可是巨大的经济利益，而且本可能还低估了你每年从管理数十亿美元资金中获得的薪资。

I still think, you know, look, I'm I'm feeling I'm the I'm packy on this episode. I'm the optimist. The question to me, if you had that offer on the table, it'd be really hard to turn down. Right? Like, that's a lot of economics, and Ben's probably underselling the amount of salary you'd make every year from like, the management fees on multibillion dollars.

那可是很大一笔钱。

It's a lot of money.

没错。我本想塑造一个稻草人论点，不只是说'想要生活品质就选不无聊，想要现在和未来都赚大钱就去加入机构'。实际上这无关生活品质，抱歉。

Yeah. I was trying to create this straw man that wasn't just like, well, if you want lifestyle, you do not boring. And if you want a whole bunch of cash now and a whole bunch of cash in the future, then you go join the firm. It's actually not lifestyle. I'm sorry.

让我重新表述，生活品质会

Let me really restate that. Lifestyle would

在那个选择里反而更好。关键是控制权。

be better actually in that one too. It's control.

对。如果你想要现在掌控权，或者想要生活品质加现在和未来的财富，就去加入风投机构。但我的问题是：你能在'不无聊资本'里也管理数十亿资金吗？这是未来某天要面对的问题。

Yeah. If you want control now or you want lifestyle and cash now and cash in the future, go join a venture firm. But here's my question. Can you also manage billions of capital in not boring capital? That's the question someday.

这问题真有意思。因为我不断告诉自己'不能'对吧？我们这群人之前其实通过文字和语音讨论过。目前答案显然是否定的。

It's such an interesting question. Because I I keep telling myself, no. Right? And we've actually had this conversation over text and voice with this group of people before. Right now, the answer is clearly no.

比如，如果我建立了基础设施并且规模不断扩大，能够雇佣一支比我聪明得多的杰出团队围绕在我身边，那么‘Not Boring’是否有可能成为一个孵化出十亿美元基金的平台？但这会彻底改变策略。你无法用后续支票部署十亿美元的资金。

Like, if I built out infrastructure and keeps getting bigger and I was able to hire, like, a really phenomenal team of people who are much smarter than me, around me, would Not Boring be a platform from which you could launch a billion dollar fund potentially. It changes the strategy completely though. You can't deploy a billion dollars in follow checks.

你不能只是稍微介入一下。是的。

You can't just slide in a little. Yeah.

没错。你必须能投资所有哪怕勉强合理的公司。这根本行不通。所以我必须彻底改变策略，不再保持友好姿态，而是不得不与那些拥有聪明团队的大型知名老牌机构正面竞争。因此我认为这也是一个限制因素。

Exactly. You'd have to be able to invest in like every even at all reasonable company. It just wouldn't work. And so I'd have to change the strategy totally where it's not friendly and you'd have to go head to head with these big reputable established firms with teams full of smart people. And so that I think is also a limiting factor.

话虽如此，乔什、洛基那群人已经把个人资本家的模式发展成了更大的基金，他们正在竞争中赢得交易。所以这是可行的。只是这种截然不同的策略我不确定自己是否擅长

That said, you know, Josh and Locky and, like, that group of people has turned kind of a sole capitalist thing into a bigger fund, and they're competing and winning deals. And so it's doable. It is just a very different strategy that I don't know if I'd be good

或者不擅长。安德森本身就是个例子。安德森的故事就是这样，对吧？马克和本曾是超级天使投资人。

at or not. Well, Andreessen itself. The Andreessen story was that. Right? Like, Mark and Ben were super angels.

他们和所有人打交道，在Loud Cloud经历后几乎囊括了硅谷除Benchmark外的所有人。然后他们就想，或许我们可以把这个变成一家机构，

They played dice with everybody. They had everybody in the valley except maybe Benchmark after the loud cloud experience. And then they were like, well, I think we can turn this into a firm,

然后他们做到了。他们确实比我聪明那么一点。

and they did. They're a little smarter than I am.

嗯，这与成为超级天使投资人不同，但并不意味着不可能。

Well, it's a different thing than being a super angel, but it doesn't mean it's not possible.

听众朋友们，请持续关注以揭晓答案。

Listeners, stay tuned to find out.

因为我不清楚你是'不无聊'公司的主要还是唯一股东，某种程度上你可以自行决定。你会想，如果这会让我的生活变得更糟，而我又不需要赚更多钱，我为什么要这么做？

As the I don't know if you're the primary or the sole shareholder of not boring, you also kinda just get to pick. You're like, well, if this will make my life worse and I don't need to make more money, why would I do it?

我的意思是，我认为关键在于不要贪婪。是的，贪婪的表现就是雇佣更多人，降低赞助帖的标准，甚至是常规文章中广告主的标准。只要我不贪婪，这个模式就能运作；一旦贪婪，就会失效。这其实是个非常清晰的二元选择，也许这意味着我在某些方面过于规避风险，但我对现状非常满意，我知道贪婪会毁掉这一切。

There's I mean, I think a lot of this is don't get greedy. Like, that Yeah. I think getting greedy and that is hiring more people, that is lowering the bar on who I'd write sponsored posts on or even who the advertisers are on a normal piece. Like, this works if I don't get greedy, and this stops working if I get greedy. And so it's like a pretty actually clear binary there, and maybe that means I'm being too risk averse on some things, but I'm very happy with kind of the way things are going now, and I know that I can mess it up by getting too greedy.

合理的回答。我们接受这个解释。

Fair answer. We'll accept it.

你们想进行专项讨论吗？好的，开始吧。大卫，你先来。

You guys wanna do carve outs? Yeah. Let's do it. Alright. David, you first.

好的。作为新晋爸爸，我的专项建议很应景——这可能预示着未来会有很多育儿经验分享。有些人在我们去医院分娩前就告诉过我们，但我当时没在意，现在真希望听了。所以如果你是父母就懂我在说什么，如果不是，将来你可能会遇到这种情况：宝宝出生后需要被襁褓包裹对吧？

Okay. My carve out fitting for my status as new dad. This might be portending a lot of parenting carve outs to come, but some people had told us this before we went to the hospital to give birth and I didn't pay attention and I wish I had. So if you're a parent you know what I'm talking about, if you're not this may happen to you someday. Baby comes out and then like babies need to be swaddled right?

医院里的护士们就像用普通毯子一样，她们拿起毯子把宝宝放进去，折几下就说‘看，就这么简单’。简直了，哦对，太简单了，我也能行。

And the nurses in the hospital, they just like a regular blanket and they take it and they put the baby in the blanket and they do some folds and they're like this is how you do it. It's so easy. Like, oh, yeah. That's so easy. I can do that.

这就像折一张纸似的，完全没问题。然后护士们离开房间，结果宝宝就从襁褓里钻出来了，你又得重新包裹。

That's just like folding a, you know, sheet of paper. No problem. And then the nurses leave the room. And then you're like, the baby comes out of the swaddle. You gotta re swaddle the baby.

我当时想‘我明明包好了啊’，结果她们一弄，哇，她们怎么做到的？简直是魔法！新手爸妈千万别尝试用普通毯子裹婴儿。

Like, I got it just like and they're like, woah. How did they do that? That was magic. You can't do it. New parents, do not try and swaddle your baby in a regular blanket.

去买专业的新生儿魔术贴襁褓巾吧，带拉链的那种。这能省去多少糟心事啊，看在上帝份上记得带去医院。

Get some dedicated baby blanket swaddles with Velcro and zippers. It will save you so much heartache and bring them to the hospital for God's sakes.

这是我的特别建议。附议。

That's my carve out. Seconded.

天啊，David的特别建议真是与时俱进。不过确实是好建议，我得记下来。说起来准备这次的特辑时很有意思——

Boy, David's carve outs have really changed. Totally. It's great advice, though. You know, I'll take a note. So it's funny in prepping for carve outs for this.

通常我能选出五六个备选话题，都是些稀奇古怪的阅读内容或观看的东西。虽然我在看《继承之战》，但已经讨论过了。现在所有阅读和收听的内容要么是为本期准备，要么是为下两期（不剧透）。所以我要推荐个可能过于自夸的内容——昨天我们的帖子登上了Hacker News热门榜。

Normally, have like five or six I can choose from that I'm reading that are off the wall stuff or different things I'm watching. I'm watching Succession, but I've already carved that out. Everything that I'm reading or listening to right now is either prep for this episode or our next two episodes, which I won't spoil. So I'm gonna do something that is way too much talking my own book, but I think it's an awesome thing to read. And we were top few posts on Hacker News yesterday.

显然，围绕这个话题还有其他热度。我们团队的资深工程师Dave Peck在Pioneer Square Labs发表了一篇题为《工程师对Web3及其可能性的无炒作观察》的文章。我参与了一点协助，我们的目标其实是整合工程团队在工作室中的所有探索成果——这些人整个职业生涯都不在加密领域工作——来探讨这些技术真正的技术优势是什么，应该构建什么。虽然有很多关于构建的讨论，但我们不太理解为何要构建那种分布式系统。

So clearly, there's other sort of heat around it. There's a Pioneer Square Labs piece by Dave Peck, who's a veteran engineer on our team called An Engineer's Hype Free Observations on Web three and Its Possibilities. And I helped a little bit in this, and our goal was really to, like, take all the spelunking that our engineering team has done in the studio. And this is people who have worked their whole careers not in crypto, and explore what actually are the technical merits of these technologies, what should be built. Is there a lot of discussion around building, but doesn't actually make a lot of sense to us why you would build that distributed?

并尝试写出一篇平衡客观的评述：技术能做到什么，做不到什么。我们试图忽略Web3的一些文化元素，更侧重分析视角。当然，你难免会加入一些文化元素，因为它本身就是一场文化运动。但我对最终成果感到非常自豪。

And try and write like a balanced honest take on like, here's what the tech can do. Here's what the tech can't do. And, you know, we're gonna try and ignore some of the cultural elements of Web three and just do it a little bit more analytically. And of course, you can't help but throw in some cultural elements because it's a cultural movement. But I'm really proud of how it came out.

欢迎所有反馈，我们会在节目备注里放上链接。

I welcome all feedback, and we'll put a link in the show notes.

这次我要推荐西雅图相关的。上次我们聊天时，我可能推荐过一本科幻书。最近我读了很多科幻作品，因为在写作时整天接触现实题材，需要让大脑放松。前几天我刚读完一本书，就搜索了'2021最佳科幻'。

So I'm gonna keep it in Seattle for mine. I think the last time that we talked, maybe I I recommended a sci fi book. I've been reading a lot of sci fi. I think it's just if I'm spending so much time in real stuff when I'm writing, it's nice to turn my brain off. The other day, I finished a book, I googled best sci fi 2021.

结果跳出这本书，被描述为'村上春树遇上《头号玩家》'。村上春树是我最爱的作家，《头号玩家》可能不是史上文笔最好的书，但它确实启发了当下人们讨论的许多概念。这本书叫《兔子》，是个关于拯救世界的全球游戏的惊悚故事，玩家通过追踪一系列看似巧合却可能别有深意的事件来参与游戏。

And this one book came up, and it was described as Haruki Murakami meets Ready Player One. And Haruki Murakami is my favorite author. Ready Player One, maybe not the best written book of all time, but it certainly inspired a lot of the things that people are talking about right now. So this book is called Rabbits. It's this thriller about this kind of global game that takes place to save the world, and you play it by following a bunch of these coincidences that seem like coincidences, but maybe they aren't.

最终，参与并赢得'兔子'游戏就能重新平衡宇宙秩序。虽然可能不是我读过文笔最好的书——听说结局不太理想，我还没读到那里——但确实让人手不释卷，娱乐性很强。虽不及村上春树的水平，但带着村上式的氛围。

And ultimately, playing and winning rabbits is how you kind of, like, reset balance in the universe. It's, you know, again, maybe not the best written book that I've ever read. I've heard the ending isn't great. I haven't gotten there yet, But it's been a really entertaining, I can't put it down kind of read. And it has Murakami ish vibes if it's not quite as good as Murakami.

哦，我得找来看看。

Oh, I'm gonna have to check this out.

而且我学到了很多关于西雅图的事情，这让我感觉离本更近了。

And I'm learning a lot about Seattle, which is making me feel closer to Ben.

随时欢迎你来，我的朋友。

You're welcome anytime, my friend.

哦，西雅图真是个很棒的科幻城市，虽然和西雅图的联系若即若离，但科幻和科幻书籍太棒了。我超级兴奋。11月30日，可能在这期节目播出之后，但在我们录制时，《苍穹浩瀚》的最后一本书终于要出版了。哇，我太激动了。

Oh, Seattle's such a great sci fi tenuous Seattle connection, but also sci fi and sci fi books. I am so hype. November 30, which will be probably after this comes out, but before as we're recording it, the last book of The Expanse is finally coming out. Oh, wow. Oh, I'm so hyped.

今天有人向我推荐了《苍穹浩瀚》。我一本都没读过，所以刚买了第一本。

Someone recommended The Expanse to me today. I've never read any of them, so I just I bought book one.

天啊，你一定要读。这是最棒的，太好看了。

Oh my god. You gotta read it. It's the best. It's so good.

你看过剧吗？

Have you watched the show?

没有。有人建议我先看书再看剧。

No. I've been told to read the books first and then watch the show.

我能理解。虽然没读过原著，但剧集的前两季，甚至第三季都堪称精彩，可以说是我看过最棒的科幻剧之一。

I could see. Having not read any of the books, at least the first two, maybe three seasons of the show were excellent. Like, some of the best sci fi TV I've ever watched.

我正在重读前作来迎接最终卷。这个系列总共会有九本书，目前已出版八本。前两本简直惊艳绝伦。

I'm rereading to get ready for the final book. So there's gonna be nine books total. Eight have already come out. The ninth is coming out. The first two, amazing.

精彩绝伦。第三本也相当不错，四五六七本虽然稍逊但仍值得一读。我首次通读全系列后，现在重读了一二本，正在重读第八本，准备紧接着读第九本。

So great. And then I would say three through three is pretty good too. Four, five, six, and seven are like they're still really good. Like, read them through the first time. I reread one and two, and then I'm rereading eight, and then I'm gonna go right into nine.

你读过《赤红风暴》三部曲吗？没有，我得去读。你刚才的话让我想起——通常我是个乐天派，但听到有人说'喜欢一二本讨厌第三本'这类评价时...

Have you read Red Rising, the Red Rising trilogy? No. I need to. So just what you said reminded me, like, normally, because again, like, I'm a happy go lucky optimist kind of guy, when people say that where they're like, I liked one and two. I didn't like three.

我酷爱第四本却厌恶第五本——我的大脑处理不了这种微妙差异。但《赤红风暴》第三部之后简直像换了物种写的：前三部惊艳，第四部却糟透了，这是我近年少数弃读的书之一。

I loved four. I hated five. I don't have that kind of nuance in my brain. But Red Rising, it feels like it was written by, like, not only a different person, but a different species almost after book three. Like, books one, two, and three were so good, and book four was an abomination, and it's one of the few books that I've stopped in the past few years.

哇。这个系列总共有多少本？我说不上来...你直接就弃读了？

Wow. Yeah. How many books total are in the series? I couldn't tell you. You just stopped.

直接弃读。哇，有意思。好吧，我得去了解一下。

Stopped. Wow. Interesting. Okay. I'll have to check it out.

《苍穹浩瀚》完结后，你绝对应该读一读的第一至第三部。

One through three that you should definitely read once The Expanse is over.

很棒。不过，如果你只看电视剧版的《苍穹浩瀚》，可能不知道它其实有两位作者。詹姆斯·S·A·科里是这两位合作作家的笔名，他们曾是乔治·R·R·马丁的助手。

Great. Well, The Expanse is, if you only watch the TV show, you might not know it. There's two authors. So James s a Corey is a pen name of the two authors who collaborate. They are George RR Martin's assistants.

不会吧。

No way.

所以《苍穹浩瀚》就是太空版的《权力的游戏》。

So The Expanse is Game of Thrones in space.

哦，我从来没意识到这一点。

Oh, I never realized that.

是啊，真的很棒。好了，现在我

Yeah. It's really good. Alright. Well, now I

得去读原著了。

have to go read the books.

我也是。

Me too.

太棒了。帕基，我们真的非常感谢你能来。

Wild. Well, Packy, we can't thank you enough for being here.

谢谢你们，我是说，这真是梦想成真。太有趣了。

Thank you for I mean, this was a dream come true. This is so much fun.

这对我们来说是一期非常独特的《Acquired》节目。明确地说，不是特辑。我们想特别强调，这就像我们剖析《纽约时报》、标准石油或亚马逊那样，是在剖析一家公司的历史和战略。

It's a very unique Acquired episode for us. Notably, not a special. We wanna be very intentional that like, this is profiling the history and strategy of a company the way that we would the New York Times or Standard Oil or Amazon. And

这家公司恰好是

The company just happens to be

一个18岁的年轻人。

one person at 18 old.

这太不可思议了。

It's surreal.

在我们接近尾声之际，我想告诉大家，真的，你们现在就应该去订阅Public Acquired LP节目，无论你在哪里收听播客。但值得一提的是，将剧集转为两周后对付费订阅者独家开放，之后全部内容公开给新订阅用户的策略，完全是受到你的启发，Packy。我的意思是，我们意识到面对如此聪明、高价值的听众群体，注意力才是稀缺资源，这让我们明白应该调整有限合伙人项目的运作方式，让它真正成为有限合伙人社区，并享有内容的早期独家访问权。在加密领域，两周简直像永恒，所以这两周特别有价值，尤其是当我们涉及更多加密内容时。是的，这很大程度上是受你启发的。

I also as we drift toward our closing notes here, you know, I was gonna tell folks, seriously, you should go subscribe to the public acquired LP show wherever you get your podcasts now. But it's worth pointing out, the strategy to shift to make episodes and the whole back catalog public to listeners on a new feed after two weeks of being just for the paid subscribers is totally inspired by you, Packy. I mean, I think the realization that with such a smart, valuable audience that attention is the scarce resource, I think that part of us realizing, oh, we should change the way that the limited partner program works and really make it just the limited partner community with some early exclusive access to this content. And actually in crypto, I guess two weeks is forever, so that two weeks is valuable, especially as we do more crypto stuff. But, yeah, that was really largely inspired by you.

所以也要为此感谢你。

So thanks for that too.

如果我对世界最大的贡献是让更多优质内容在互联网上免费传播，那我非常乐意接受这样的遗产。

If my biggest contribution to the world is making more great content free on the internet, I am very psyched with that legacy.

太棒了。那么Paki，听众们在哪里可以在网上找到你或Not Boring？

Awesome. Well, Paki, where can listeners find you or Not Boring on the internet?

Not Boring的网站是notboring.co。我还有一个制作粗糙的播客，你可以在任何播客平台搜索Not Boring Podcast找到。我们会帮你升级的，也会帮我自己升级的。

So Not Boring is at notboring.co. I have a poorly produced podcast that you can find by searching Not Boring Podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. We're gonna get you upgraded. We're gonna get me upgraded.

下次我们再聊这个的时候，你就不会说‘制作粗糙’了。

Next time we do this, you're not gonna be saying poorly produced.

其实也没那么糟啦，这就是我理解的Not Boring的收听体验。

It's not that Like, that is how I read not boring is listening.

确实如此。是的，我是说，这些内容都没有过度加工，我觉得这样很好。或者你可以在Twitter上关注packym，p a c k y m。

That's true. Yeah. Mean, none of it is overly produced, which I think is good. Or Twitter is at packym, p a c k y m.

太棒了。听众朋友们，我们下次再见。

Awesome. And listeners, we'll catch you next time.

下次见。拜拜。

See you next time. Bye.