20VC：General Catalyst首席执行官Hemant Taneja谈风险投资的未来：香奈儿与沃尔玛之争 | 将GC资产管理规模扩展至400亿美元的经验 | 14轮投资向Stripe注资超50亿美元 | 以600亿美元估值向Anthropic投资数亿美元

我们在风险投资领域的抱负是成为全球最优秀的种子基金公司。风险投资无法同时实现规模扩张与业绩提升，我对此深信不疑。资金增多并不意味着会出现更多像帕特里克·科里森、萨姆·奥尔特曼这样能打造标志性企业的创业者。我曾错失Stripe的A轮融资机会。

Our aspirations in venture capital is to be the best seed firm in the world. Venture capital can't scale and performance at the same time. I deeply believe that. Just because we have more money doesn't mean there are more Patrick Hollisons, Sam Altmans that are gonna go build iconic companies. I lost a series a of Stripe.

我也错过了Samsara和Snap的A轮融资。那种'三倍三倍两倍两倍'的增长模式绝对已成过去。从1到3到9再到27，或者1到5到9再到27——无论具体数字如何——这样的增长曲线毫无吸引力。你必须实现1到15到20再到100的跃升。

I lost a series a of Samsara. I lost a series a of Snap. Triple triple double double is definitely dead. Going from one to three to nine to 27 is not interesting, or one to five to nine to 27 is not whatever the math is, not interesting. You gotta go, like, one to 15 to 20 to a 100.

您正在收听由我哈里·斯特宾斯主持的《20 VC》节目。今天这期节目让我无比兴奋，我们邀请到了General Catalyst的CEO兼领导者海蒙特·塔内贾。过去十年间，海蒙特将GC发展成管理资产超400亿美元的顶级风投平台，同时也是最具影响力的早期投资人之一，主导了对Stripe、Snap、Gusto、Samsara、Grammarly和Canva等明星企业的投资。

You are listening to 20 VC with me, Harry Stebbings. Now I'm so excited for the show today. Today, we welcome Haymont Taneja, CEO and leader of General Catalyst. Now Haymont has scaled GC over the last decade into one of the largest platforms in venture with over 40,000,000,000 in assets under management. He's also been one of the most influential investors leading early investments in Stripe, Snap, Gusto, Samsara, Grammarly, and Canva to name a few.

他还在Livongo与Teladoc创纪录的185亿美元数字医疗并购案中发挥了关键作用。本期节目涵盖从未来劳动力到地缘政治再到风险投资前景的广阔话题，海蒙特的坦诚分享让录制过程精彩绝伦。您可以在YouTube搜索'20 VC'观看，期待听到您的反馈。

He also played an incredible role in Livongo's 18 and a half billion dollar merger with Teladoc, one of the largest digital health deals in history. This show is incredibly wide ranging with everything from the future of labor to geopolitics to the future of venture capital. I loved doing this show. Haymont was so open, and it was just fantastic. You can check it out on YouTube by searching for 20 VC, and I cannot wait to hear your thoughts.

在进入正片前，我想说：虽然热爱团队协作制作节目的过程，但追踪分散在数十个平台的项目数据实在令人头疼。因此我们选用Coda——这个服务全球5万团队的All-in-one协作平台，兼具文档灵活性与表格结构化，搭载革命性的Coda Brain智能系统，极大提升团队创造效率。

But before we dive into the show's stay, I love seeing the team come together to make this show happen. What I don't love is trying to keep track of all the information, the data, and the projects that we're working on across dozens of platforms, products, and tools. That's why we use Coda, the all in one collaborative workspace that's helped 50,000 teams all over the world get on the same page. Offering flexibility of docs with the structure of spreadsheets, Coda facilitates deeper teamwork and quicker creativity. And their turnkey AI solution, the intelligence of Coda Brain, is a game changer.

依托Grammarly技术，Coda正开启AI时代生产力变革的新篇章。无论初创公司需要敏捷管理，还是企业寻求高效协同，Coda都能适配工作方式，无缝集成Salesforce、Jira、Asana、Figma等数百种工具。立即访问coda.i0/20vc，初创团队可免费获得六个月高级版服务。

Powered by Grammarly, Coda is entering a new phase of innovation and expansion aiming to redefine productivity for the AI era. Whether you're a start up looking to organize the chaos while staying nimble or an enterprise organization looking for better alignment, Coda matches your working style. Its seamless work space connects to hundreds of your favorite tools, including Salesforce, Jira, Asana, and Figma, helping your teams transform their rituals and do more faster. Head over to coda.i0/20vc right now and get six months off the team plan for startups for free. That's coda, c0da,.i0/20vc, and get six months off the team plan for free, coda.i0/20vc.

当Coda确保团队协同无间时，Radix则让您的初创品牌同样锋芒毕露。科技创业者们注意：当理想域名.com被占用或天价出售时，不必再妥协使用奇怪拼写——现在专为科技创始人打造的.techdomains顶级域名终于问世。

And while coda keeps your team aligned, Radix makes sure your startup's name is just as sharp. This one's for all you tech founders out there. You finally come up with the perfect name for your startup, then you check the.com and, damn, it's taken, parked, unused, or priced like rent in Palo Alto. So you settle with extra letters, weird spellings, whatever it takes. But, hey, you don't have to compromise because now there's finally a domain for tech founders like you, .techdomains.

在.tech域名上获取你真正想要的初创公司名称，无需妥协。更重要的是，当你使用.tech时，仅通过域名就能向客户和投资者传递你在打造科技产品的信号。这难道不酷吗？如果你已想好名字，立即在GoDaddy等可信平台上搜索.tech域名，或访问get.tech/20vc抢注。

Get the startup name you actually want on .tech. No compromises. What's more, when you use .tech, you signal to your customers and investors that you're building tech with just your domain name. Isn't that cool? So if you've got a name in mind, search for it now with .tech on a trusted platform like GoDaddy or visit get.tech/20vc to grab it.

你已通过Radix锁定名称，现在该让基金架构同样稳固。如果你在听20VC，就知道我们标准极高。AngelList正是顶级风投基金使用的现代平台——超过40%顶尖捐赠基金和银行是其LP。客户包括前五风投机构、20VC，平台资产规模现已达1710亿美元。

You've got the name locked down with Radix. Now it's time to get the fund structure just as solid. If you're listening to 20, you know we have a really freaking high bar. Well, AngelList is the modern platform used by best in class venture funds, where over 40% of top endowments and banks are LPs. Their customers include a top five venture firm, 20 VC, and they now have, check this out, a $171,000,000,000 of assets on platform.

他们将一体化软件平台与敏捷的专属服务团队结合。有位经理盛赞'AngelList像我们基金的延伸'，另一位说'它让我彻底安心——细节把控、闪电响应和团队的主人翁精神，让我完全无需操心后台运营'。所以若你正在筹建新基金，别犯傻，直接用AngelList。

They combine an all in one software platform with a dedicated service team that moves as fast as you do. One manager said this awesome quote, AngelList feels like an extension of my fund. Another said, AngelList gives me total peace of mind, The attention to detail, lightning fast response time, and just real sense of ownership from the team are exactly what I need to stop worrying about back office ops. So if you're starting a new fund, don't be a moron. Just use AngelList.

他们太出色了。访问angellist.com/20vc了解更多。现在你已抵达目的地。Hemant，你能来真是太好了。上次见面还是七年前。

They're incredible. Head over to angellist.com/20vc to learn more. You have now arrived at your destination. Hemant, it is so good to have you here. Last time, it was seven years ago.

当时不是线下。兄弟，我期待这次见面太久了。

It wasn't in person. I've been so looking forward to this, dude.

七年过去了。上次见面时我更年轻，你也更瘦。现在你健身有型不戴眼镜，而我戴着眼镜就在这儿。

It has been seven years. Last time I was younger, and you were a little skinnier. You've gotten fit, and you have no glasses, and I have my glasses right here.

兄弟，我以前瘦多了。那会儿还没开始蛋白粉狂吃呢。说正事——过去十年你打造了风投界最具标志性的机构之一，你认为自己是风险投资人还是CEO？

Dude, I was much skinnier. I think this was before I fell into a protein It's good. My question to you is you have built now in the last ten years one of the most defining firms that we have in venture. Do you consider yourself a venture capitalist, or do you consider yourself a CEO?

哈利，这是个很好的问题。我同时担任CEO和董事总经理的职务是有深思熟虑的原因的——General Catalyst本质上是一家企业，但若剥离风险投资的核心，它就不复存在。我和其他合伙人一样是董事总经理兼合伙人，但同时我也是CEO。这种双重身份正是我们行业打造标志性机构所需的特质。

Harry, that's a great question. I carry the title of CEO and managing director for a very intentional reason, which is General Catalyst is a business, but it wouldn't be a business if it wasn't venture capital at its core. I am a managing director and a partner just like everybody else in our partnership, but I'm also the CEO. And that's the duality that it's gonna take to build an iconic institution in our industry.

你认为GC仍然是一家风投公司吗？

Do you think GC is still a VC firm?

GC本质上绝对是风投公司。不仅如此，我们的抱负是成为像你们这样顶尖的种子基金。这确实是我们的目标，因为与创始人建立早期关系并获得信任，才是打造重要企业的关键所在。

GC is very much at the core of VC firm. Not only that, I mean, our aspiration is that we wanna be one of the best seed firms like you. That truly is our aspiration because the earliest relationship with founders and that trust is the key to actually doing the best work in building the companies that matter.

考虑到你们管理着250亿美元的总资产规模，却要为一个2亿美元的项目Zeed投入同等精力，这在现实中可行吗？

When you look at total AUM, can you realistically put the hours in and justify that commitment to Zeed when it's a $200,000,000 vehicle in a $25,000,000,000 pool?

从文化层面讲，风投公司规模扩大后确实会遇到这种难题。在GC，我们强调的是对企业的所有权和关系，而非投资金额大小。当我们调整思维定式后，发现这种理念只有在种子阶段才能实现。回顾过去两年，我们引入珍妮特和La Familia、尤里和Wayfinder、尼拉吉和Venture Highway等团队，就是为确保核心业务始终保持着与二十BC同等强度的种子投资专注力。

Culturally, this gets hard for VC firms as they scale. At GC, the thing we talk about is focus on the ownership and the relationship with the company versus the sizes of check that you put in. And when you reorient yourself to think that way, we get that only at seed. If you think about the last two years, you know, bringing on Jeanette and La Familia, Yuri and Wayfinder, and Niraj and Venture Highway, we've tried to really make sure at our core, we remain very committed to doing the seed work with the same intensity and rigor that you do at twenty BC.

噢，我们这儿可没什么专注力。就像蒙着眼扔飞镖似的。

Oh, zero rigor here. Oh, no. We're we're just, like, blindfolded throwing dots.

我可没说很多专注力，我说的是同等专注力。

I didn't say a lot of rigor. Said the same rigor.

哦，好的。太棒了。我刚才还觉得挺难受的

Oh, okay. Fantastic. I was feeling bad

某种程度上这确实是个真诚的评价。我们在内部讨论时，始终将早期风险投资视为核心业务。显然，我们希望依托这个核心在全球产生更大影响。但如果我们做不好早期投资，就会失去存在的价值。所以我们对此如履薄冰。

for a bit of It really it really like, it's a genuine comment. Like, we we internally talk about early stage venture capital as a core. And, obviously, we wanna leverage our core to have greater impact in the world. But if we don't do early stage investing well, we will lose the right to exist. So we're paranoid about that.

你担心风投行业的转型吗？道格·莱昂说过，我们正从高利润的小众圈子转向低利润的同质化产业。你认同这个观点吗？

Do you worry about the transition of venture? Doug Leone said that we've moved from a high margin boutique community to a low margin commoditized industry. Do you agree with that?

如果把风投创新看作技术规模化带来的效应，那么绝大多数创新都集中在三个维度：规模、领域和地域——扩大基金规模，布局不同地区，涉足不同领域。但现实是，我们投资的企业在社会中的角色正变得极其复杂。这个行业的创新过去更关注如何配置更多资金并尽可能保留回报，而真正应该思考的是：如何重构我们对创业者的价值主张，帮助他们建立最伟大的企业？当你用后者的视角思考时，就必须进行创新。

If you think about the innovation in venture as a role of technology has scaled, all the innovation for the most part ends up being on the three axes, state, sector, and geography. Make the funds bigger, put them in different geos, put them in different sectors. Well the reality is that role of the companies that we're building is becoming far far more sophisticated in society. The innovation in industry was much more focused on how do we deploy more dollars and try to keep as much of the return as possible, Where the reality should be, how do we retool our proposition for founders so they can build the biggest companies possible? So when you think with that second lens, you have to innovate.

你必须突破那种单纯的基金组建思维。正是这种突破才能让我们摆脱「从高利润精品小基金走向低利润规模化大基金」的路径依赖。当前行业困境正是因为我们用局限的方式看待创新，而非从根本上思考如何为创业者重塑价值主张。

You have to think broader than just that sort of fund formation mindset. That is what allows you to break from, hey, going from high margin boutique, so smaller funds, better returns, to low margin scale, which is bigger funds, lower returns. That's only happening because we're thinking about innovation in a constrained way in this industry versus being first principled about how do we transform our proposition for founders.

你提到规模越大回报越低的观点。那么你从根本上不认同这个前提吗？

You said that kind of bigger funds, lower returns. Do you disagree with that as a premise then?

不，我坚信风险投资无法同时实现规模扩张和业绩提升。原因很简单：资金变多不意味着会出现更多帕特里克·科里森（或你喜欢的任何创始人，比如萨姆·奥尔特曼）来打造标杆企业。某种程度上，我们其实是在争夺那些天生就会成就伟业的创业者——这是场零和游戏。

No. I actually have a strong belief that venture capital can't scale and performance at the same time. I deeply believe that. And the reason is because just because we have more money doesn't mean there are more Patrick Hollisons or pick your favorite founder, Sam Altmans that are gonna go build iconic companies. So we're actually, in some ways, fighting the zero sum game of founders that are naturally, you know, going and doing great things.

所以这并不一定会因为资金增加而线性扩展。但如果我们能创造更多工具来扩大创始人规模，那么我们实际上可以制造出比自然存在于幂律分布中更多的异常值。我们的思维方式是如何真正扩大对创始人的价值主张，从而让幂律上出现更多公司？这与'我们是否有足够资本获取幂律上所有机会'是截然不同的思考路径。

So that's not necessarily gonna scale because we have more money. But if we can create more tools to have more founders at the scale, then we can actually manufacture more outliers than the ones that naturally exist on the power law. Our mindset is how do we actually expand the proposition to founders so that they can be more companies on the power law? Is a very different way to think about it than do we have enough capital to get everything that's on the power law.

Hemant，如果你们接受更大规模基金带来的较低回报率，你们如何向有限合伙人解释？当你们为早期风投基金和更大规模基金募资时，是否面对的是完全不同的LP群体？因为我常听到播客里说，他们现在主要向满足10%回报的主权基金募资，这似乎已成行业趋势。

If you accept lower performance with bigger funds respectfully, Hemant, what do you tell LPs? When you go out and fundraise for early stage venture funds and much larger funds, Is it just a different LP class? Because I'm sure you hear the podcast and the shows, and it's like, oh, they're just pitching sovereigns who just are happy with 10%, and so it's graduating.

重申我们核心定位仍是早期风投，我实际上拒绝参与低回报业务。我们的做法是——如果观察我们的管理总资产，我们明确表示不会扩大风投基金规模。我们要将风投基金保持在能创造顶级回报的规模，对我们而言至少要实现募集资本的四到五倍回报，这是自下而上构建的。在风投领域能做到这点吗？此外我们设立了创造力和客户价值基金，专注于为创始人提供其他价值主张和资本解决方案，帮助他们更有效进行并购、投资销售和营销，但绝不扩大风投基金本身规模，因为那会稀释回报率。

Going back to saying that we wanna remain early stage venture at our core, I actually reject being in a business that has lower performance. So what we have done is if you look at our overall assets under management, we've basically said we're not gonna make our venture funds bigger. What we're going to do is actually keep the size of venture fund where we think it can be to create elite performance, which to us is you gotta at least deliver four to five x funds on the capital that you raise and sort of build bottom up. Can you do that, you know, in venture? And then we have creation and customer value fund, which are focused on other value propositions, other capital solutions for founders so they can do m and a more effectively, they can invest in sales and marketing more effectively, but don't scale the venture fund itself because that'll degrade performance.

这就是我们为创始人设计资本架构的方式。

That is the way we have architected our capital that we provide to founders.

考虑到你们当前资金规模，虽然我很认同'要专注种子期并尽早建立关系'的理念，但客观来说，难道不是直接参与Cliner轮，在Anthropic估值1830亿美元时投入1亿美元，用大额支票押注后期阶段并顺势而为，才是更优选择吗？

When you think about where you intersect with them in the journey, as much as I love the, hey, We absolutely wanna be focused on seed and build that relationship as early as possible. When you have the capital supply that you have today, arguably, it's a much better proposition to just do a cliner and put a 100,000,000 into Anthropic at a $183,000,000,000 and play the large check at late stage and actually ride that wave?

我不这么认为。你真觉得不行？你看，我们最佳回报都来自早期投资Stripe、Andoril这类公司，或是创建Kayak、Livongo和Komir等企业。

I don't think so. You don't think so? I I mean, look. Our best returns have come from seeding companies like Stripe and Andoril or creating companies like Kayak, Livongo, and Komir and others.

Livongo的表现简直疯狂。

Livongo is insane.

确实如此。这对我们来说是个巨大的成果，而且，你知道，这是我们在办公室里一步步构建起来的。

It was. It was a great outcome for us, and, you know, that's something we built in our offices.

GC从Livongo那里赚了多少？

How much did GC make from Livongo?

几十亿吧。

A few billion.

那个基金规模有多大？

How big was the fund?

Livongo同时存在于两支基金中。它让其中一支基金大约翻了三四倍，而另一支基金的回报率可能接近一倍。

So Livongo sat in two funds. It shorted one of the funds approximately three or four x, and it returned one of the other funds maybe close to one x.

这是GC做过的最成功的投资吗？

Is that the best performing investment GC have made?

我认为这个头衔目前还是属于Stripe。我们从2010年就开始投资Stripe了。这对我们来说是个重要项目。我更想强调的是，我们痴迷于要么让公司在GC孵化，要么参与种子轮投资。如果做不到，对于那些标志性企业，我们也愿意在成长阶段投资它们。

I think you would have to give that to Stripe still. We've been investing in Stripe since 2010. That's a big position for us. My point more is, for us, we obsess over either that the companies are getting incubated at GC or we're investing in the seed round. If we don't, we wanna be the iconic companies, we will invest in them at growth stage as well.

对我来说，这关乎于相信那些你认为会长期复利增长的公司。以Stripe为例，我们在2010年投资了它，过去十五年间我累计投资了14次，让你有个概念。明白吗？这是我们核心理念之一：当你认定某件事物将长期复利时，就要坚定地成为公司的支持者。

And that to me is about believing in the companies that you think will compound for a long time. So, like, take Stripe as an example. We invested in 2010, and I've invested in Stripe 14 times in the last fifteen years, just to give you a sense. Okay? That's one of our core philosophies that when you think something's going to be compounding for a long time, be strong sort of supporters of the company along the way.

我们投资了Helsink。珍妮特早期就参与了种子轮，之后他们每轮融资我们都跟投。Androl也是如此，我们参与了种子轮，并跟进了后续所有融资轮次。我认为成为这些标志性公司的长期伙伴，正是我们构建资本基础的意义所在。

We invested in Helsink. You know, Jeanette has seeded that, if you remember, before, and we've invested that in all the rounds that they've raised since then. If you look at Androl, same thing. We seeded that, and we invested in every round that they've raised since then. So I think being part of these iconic companies and supporting them along the way is the reason to have the capital base.

如果错过种子轮，我们会尽早介入，然后动用平台全部资源持续支持他们——我们整个平台的价值主张就是全力协助这些创业者。

If we miss them at seed, we wanna catch them as early as possible and then continue to help them with everything we got, our entire proposition as a platform to, you support these founders and help them all the

以持久的方式。卡斯，你们在如此规模下，是否会先规划重要行业及其中的公司，然后决定无论以何种方式都必须布局？这就是你们划分市场和资本注入的策略吗？

way with endurance. Kas, when you're at your scale, do you map out the industries that matter, the companies in them, and go, we have to have a check-in these regardless of entry? Is that how you kind of map markets and capital injection?

我的经营之道在于把握机缘与主动性的平衡。未来重要的行业往往难以预判——我永远记得当年保罗·格雷厄姆让我看Coinbase种子轮时，我心想'比特币ATM？这算什么？'完全没意识到这个行业的潜力。

The business for me is about sort of getting serendipity and intentionality right. So you definitely won't know the industries that will become important in the future. I'll never forget that one of my big misses when Paul Graham asked me to look at the seed round of Coinbase, and I said to myself, a Bitcoin ATM? What is that? Had no idea what this industry was about to become.

这个失误至今让我懊悔。在种子阶段，应该专注于支持杰出创始人，而非过度纠结回报预期，这本质上是我们文化基因的体现。

Like, it still haunts me. At the seed, being very much focused on just backing the great founders and not over contextualizing what the returns are, and this is really culturally what

你见过布莱恩吗？觉得他是否令人惊艳？

Did you meet with Brian? Yeah. Did you think he was amazing?

他太不可思议了。

He is amazing.

所以这纯粹是因为你认为可以

So it was purely the idea that you could

当时是我的小脑袋超前思考了这个世界。我的观点是，你绝对应该加入种子轮，而不是局限于行业，也就是说我们要支持创始人，不管我们对世界的看法如何。然后我认为现实是，如果你退一步看这个世界，思考正在发生的结构性变化，我们称之为全球韧性的主题——每个地区都在关注国防、能源、工业、医疗、金融服务，如何从主权角度增强韧性——这确实会影响行业，会影响企业的构建方式。所以我们审视时会问：在当前世界格局重塑和行业变革的背景下，我们是否投资了正确的公司？

It was my my my little brain got ahead of sort of thinking about the world. And so my point was, you definitely wanna add the seed, not be industry focused, to say we're gonna back founders regardless of our view of the world. Then I think the reality is if you think if you take a step back in the world and you think about the tectonic shifts that are happening, the theme that we call global resilience, that every region is focusing on defense, energy, industrials, health, financial services, how to be resilient from a sovereign perspective, that does have impact on industries. That does have impact on how business is gonna get built. So we do look at it saying, are we in the right companies in the context of how the world is reshifting in the context of industries?

举个例子，我认为我们是唯一在美国、欧洲和印度都投资了国防核心企业的机构。我们投资了Anduril、Helsing，还有印度一家叫Rafael的公司。每个地区都需要建立自己的人工智能威慑解决方案，并希望本土产业从韧性角度崛起。所以我们要确保支持这个主题。我认为最终要做的就是拥抱偶然性，保持谦逊——这些创始人会以我们无法理解的方式引领世界，同时在明确存在重大宏观转变的领域，我们可以通过更具主题性的视角来布局某些行业。

So as an example, I'll tell you, I think we're the only firm that's invested in a defense prime in US, Europe, and India. We did Androle, we did you know, invested in Helsing, and we invested in a company called Rafi in India. Well, each of these regions needs to create its own AI deterrent solutions, and they wanna see indigenous industries emerge, you know, from a resilience perspective. So we should make sure we're backing that theme. So I think it ends up being be seren embrace serendipity, be humble, that these founders are gonna take us in the world in a way that we just don't understand, and then be intentional where we think there are large macro shifts happening so that we can play certain sectors with a bit more of a thematic lens.

你认为当前最重大却未被充分讨论的宏观转变是什么？

What do you think is the most significant macro shift today that not enough people are talking about?

当前最重大却未被充分讨论的宏观转变是关于就业的思考。我走遍全球，我们真正关注的是如何帮助政府思考转型。我们认为任何国家的转型都包含四部分：一是如何运用人工智能实现威慑？

The most significant macro shift today that not enough people are talking about is thinking about jobs. I have gone around the world. You know, we have a real focus on understanding how to help governments think about transformations. And the transformation of any country, we think, is in four parts. One is how do you apply AI to deterrence?

因为没有和平就没有资本主义。如果没有资本主义，商业就无法成为变革载体。所以需要和平。需要思考医疗转型——我们刚经历疫情，目睹其影响且仍在承受后果。需要加速人工智能在商业中的扩散，因为这最终将决定行业竞争力。

Because without peace, you don't have capitalism. And if there's no capitalism, then business can't really be a change vector. So you need peace. You need to think about transforming health care, cause we just came out of a pandemic and we saw what it can do and we're still reeling from it. You need to accelerate diffusion of AI into business, cause that's ultimately what's gonna lead to your industries being competitive.

当你把这些都做对后，还必须考虑就业问题，因为需要进行大规模的技能重塑。人们开始口头重视这件事，但尚未真正影响到民众。我们早前讨论过这个问题。我们正在对许多服务型企业实施AI转型，即所谓的AI整合，我亲眼目睹了这一过程。我看到了随着AI被采用以提高全球白领工作效率时，就业市场将发生的变化。

And then if you get all that right, you have to think about jobs, cause there is immense reskilling that needs to happen. People are starting to give lip service to it, but it hasn't hit the people yet. We were talking about this earlier. We have a lot of these AI transformations we're doing with these service businesses, these AI roll ups as they're called, and I'm seeing this. I'm seeing what's gonna happen to jobs as AI gets adopted to bring efficiency and productivity to these white collar jobs all around the world.

你观察到了什么？因为MIT的研究结果令人沮丧，显示实际上95%的工作几乎不受影响。我读完报告后心想，天啊，这真让人泄气。那么你看到了哪些现象？

What are you seeing there? Because the MIT study was discouraging, and it's like 95% actually doesn't actually have much impact. And I read them, I'm like, god, this is a bit of a downer. So what are you seeing?

好的。我认为MIT研究确实有其价值，原因如下：当考虑用AI改造企业时，实际上需要做好四件事。首先是准备好数据基础设施，使企业技术能够适配AI。数据准备度至关重要，基础设施准备度同样关键。

Okay. I do think there is merit to the MIT study for the following reason. When you think about transforming an enterprise with AI, you actually have to do four things correctly. First is you have to get your data infrastructure ready so that your technology your company can adopt AI. Your data readiness is huge, infrastructure readiness is huge.

其次是需要理解企业业务的模型。必须在你的商业机密和业务背景下训练这些模型。第三是要考虑劳动力转型，因为未来人类将与AI协同工作。部分人类将管理AI代理，部分AI代理将管理人类。想象组织结构图需要如何改变。

Second is you need models that understand your business. You have to train these models in the context of your secret sauce, your business. Third is you need think about a workforce transformation, because now you're gonna have humans and you're gonna have AI working next to each other. Some humans are gonna manage AI agents, some AI agents are gonna manage humans. Imagine how the org charts have to change.

第四，要让这一切运转起来，高层必须展现勇气。CEO们需要真正推动变革。因此，一家公司要同时落实这四方面，才能让AI应用超越单纯测试OpenAI或Anthropic模型的阶段，真正引发商业变革，这是极其困难的。这就是为什么这些尝试会碰壁，也是MIT研究传递出当前信号的原因。过去四十年里，企业但凡想获得劳动力套利优势，就会将核心业务外包或剥离。

And the fourth, for all this to work, you actually need courage at the top. The CEOs need to really get behind it to drive it. So the idea that all four of these things are happening in a company to make the adoption of AI go from beyond just prototyping a OpenAI or an Anthropic model to really creating change in your business is very difficult. That's why these things are hitting a wall, but that's why this MIT study is giving you the signal that it's giving you. One place where businesses already outsourced and let go of core operations was wherever they wanted to get labor arbitrage over the last forty years.

所以我们关于AI整合的核心论点是：所有为劳动力优势而离岸的业务，都将为AI生产力而回归本土。这正是我们观察到大量案例的领域。例如我们收购了菲律宾的呼叫中心——在我们旗下Crescendo公司的3000名员工，随着全面AI化，坐席数量将发生巨大变化。我向团队提出的第一个问题就是：这些菲律宾员工未来做什么？涉及多少人？

So our whole thesis around AI roll ups was everywhere you offshored for labor benefit, you're gonna onshore for AI productivity. That's where we're seeing a lot of this. So we bought call centers, I'll give you an example, we bought a call center in Philippines, 3,000 employees in one of our companies called Crescendo. It's gonna have a huge change in the set count, it's gonna go on by quite a bit as this fully gets AI enabled. My first question to the team was, well, what are those people gonna do in Philippines, and how many are there?

每个依靠离岸劳动力建立中产阶级的国家，我们该如何真正帮助他们重新培训这些人员，使其在AI时代更具竞争力？这才是当前讨论严重不足的议题。

So every country that built their middle class off of offshore labor, how do we really help them think about reskilling those people to be more successful in the world of AI? This is what's not being talked about enough.

你认为这是个十二到十八个月的问题，还是实际上五到十年的问题？我总是拿比尔·盖茨的话回应。我们往往高估一年的变化，却低估十年的变革。

Do you think this is a twelve or an eighteen month problem or actually a five to ten year problem? I always give back to the Bill Gates. We underestimate, you know, the we overestimate a year, underestimate 10.

AI在企业中的普及会是十二到十八个月内快速完成，还是需要五到十年？我认为这是个五年周期的问题。这么说是因为回顾这些公司的构建逻辑——我们必须组建团队，获取能验证进展的客户群体，然后才能加速增长。只有经过数年积累，才能真正撼动行业格局（虽然这本身不是问题）。技术扩散自有其客观规律，所以不会立竿见影，但五年其实也不算漫长。

Is this adoption of AI into businesses gonna be fast over twelve to eighteen months or five to ten years? I would say this is a five year problem. And I say that because if you go back and think about the physics with which these companies are getting built, the companies we're building, you have to put these teams together, and they have to go get some customers they can demonstrate progress on, then they have to start accelerating growth. Only after a few years of that do you start to make a dent in the industry, not that it becomes a problem. And so just the diffusion has of technology has its own physics, so it's not immediate, but I but five years is also not a long time.

我看到的是，这些企业中将有足够多的公司在不同领域取得成功，并实质性地冲击就业市场。分享个有趣的案例：某顶级咨询公司CEO告诉我，他们有个大客户提出要求——'我们现在有5万员工，请制定五年计划让我们发展到10万规模，但其中只有1万是人类，其余全是AI代理。'这虽具挑衅性，但反映出他们正在思考：若要实现这种架构，路径该如何设计？

And so what I'm seeing is that these companies, enough of them are gonna start being successful in these different areas, and they're gonna start impacting jobs in a material way. I'll give you a really interesting anecdote that the CEO of one of the large consulting companies told me. One of their big clients came to them and said, we have 50,000 employees today, Draw up a plan for us that in five years, we are a 100,000 employees, but only 10,000 of them are humans. The rest are AI agents. This is to be provocative, but they're sort of saying, if that was gonna be our plan, how do we get there?

这就是人们当前的思考维度。当然未来五年不会真变成这样。但我们的组织架构在未来十到十五年内可能发生如此剧变吗？这个概率绝非可以忽视的。

This is the kind of stuff people are thinking about. Now it's not gonna happen in the next five years. But our organization's going to potentially change that much over the next ten to fifteen years? It's a nontrivial probability that can happen.

这位CEO和商业领袖的思维非常前瞻。各国政府在多大程度上为这种可能五年内发生的劳动力变革做好了认知和资源准备？

That's a very forward thinking CEO and business leader. To what extent are governments prepared, thinking, and equipped for this labor change that could be there within a five year period?

我认为远远不够。人们还在纠结'每小时产出'的定义和扩散速度，甚至没充分考虑技能重塑。关于这个话题，我想留给你一个值得玩味的思考：今天我们身处伦敦——

I think not enough. I think people are still grappling with what does the hourly mean, how fast is it gonna diffuse. They're not even thinking enough about rescaling. I'll leave you with sort of one interesting thought on this particular topic. We're in London today.

想象十年后，若每个护士、律师、会计师都变成美国某家公司的AI代理，这将掏空本地大量劳动生产力并转移给美企或中企。关键点在于：服务业可能重蹈制造业全球化的覆辙。正如让娜特在其'欧洲冠军计划'中强调的，各地区需要思考如何在AI转型中保持本土生产力活力——不仅要让企业更盈利，更要确保生产力增益留在本国经济体内。

Okay? Imagine if every nurse and every lawyer and every accountant that works in London becomes a AI agent of some company in The United States in the next ten years. You're gonna hollow out a lot of your labor productivity and give it to a US company or a Chinese company. What I would my point is more about, like, it could actually hollow out the service sector just like we hollowed out manufacturing jobs for globalization before. Getting every region to think about this, this is actually a point that know Jeanette makes with her European Champions Initiative a lot, which is how do you retain productivity onshore in these countries so that while you do the AI transformation, you're maintaining vibrancy not only because your business has gotten more profitable, but also because you're capturing the productivity gains onshore as well.

各国政府在规划人工智能转型的下一阶段时，需要认真考虑这个问题。

The governments need to think about this as they are architecting this sort of next phase of their transformation with AI.

你认为哪个政府最令人印象深刻，哪个又最糟糕？

Which government do you think is most impressive and which is most screwed?

我觉得新加坡政府非常出色。我最近去了那里，在新加坡国庆日活动上发言，当地政治人物的思想深度令我叹服。必须说，希腊总理也令人印象深刻，他正在思考如何务实部署这项技术。我还与萨默尔总理会面过。

I find folks in Singapore to be very impressive. I recently went there, and I spoke at their National Singapore Day, and I was just blown away by the depth of thought that the politicians there have done. I have to tell you, prime minister of Greece is very impressive. He's thinking about how do we really be pragmatic in deploying this. I've met with prime minister Sarmer here.

我知道本周也会有一些关于人工智能的公告发布，所以他们在采取行动。但我没看到足够的全局思考。当我和各国元首讨论AI普及和就业问题时，得到的回答往往是：如果冲击真的那么大，社会自然会减缓其发展。硅谷可以出现单人估值十亿的公司，但不可能让整个世界都变成这样而人们却无工可做。

I know there is some announcements being happening this week as well around AI, so I know they're making some moves. But I don't see enough of the, hey. Let's think comprehensively about this. The answer I usually get when I talk to heads of states about diffusion of AI and this jobs issue that we just talked about is they have belief that if it's gonna be that disruptive, that society will just slow it down. You you just can't have a world where I know in Silicon Valley, we covered a billion dollar employee with a company with a single employee, but you just can't have a world where that's what business looks like and people have no work.

因此在某个时刻，商业与社会的相互作用会迫使局面趋于稳定。这似乎是各国政府目前的思考逻辑。

And so at some point, the interplay of business and society will sort of force it to be a more stable scenario. That's what the governments are sort of I taking think

确实如此。不过亚当·斯密的看不见的手理论会告诉你相反的情况。

that's true. I think Adam Smith's invisible hand would tell you otherwise.

我认为市场力量远比这强大。我同意你的观点。但他们似乎有种自我安慰——我们还有时间解决这个问题。可除非我们更主动应对，否则时间根本不够。

I think market forces are way stronger than that. I agree with you. But I'm thinking that's a little bit of what they take comfort in is that we have time to figure this out, and I don't think we have time unless we're a lot more intentional about it.

我强烈反感政府干预。我可以说是个彻头彻尾的自由市场主义者。你也是这样吗？

I vehemently dislike government intervention. I'm, like, as free market maximalist as possible. Is that the same for you?

我认为如果资本主义运转失灵，社会就无法进步。但我确实觉得资本主义是一种特权。回想过去十五到二十年，全球民族主义抬头，很大程度上是因为社交媒体击中了核心问题——科技生产力带来的红利并未真正惠及社会大众。它催生了多家市值数万亿美元的企业，但我们的创新生态系统实际获取了多少？社会又真正受益多少？其实只占很小比例。

I think you can't make progress if capitalism is not working. But I do think capitalism is a privilege. If you think about what happened in the last fifteen, twenty years, a lot of the nationalism all around the world is because social media essentially struck a chord with the core issue that all the technology productivity didn't really get passed on properly to everybody in society. It created multiple, multi trillion dollar companies, but our own innovation ecosystem, how much did that capture, and how much did society really capture? Actually, a small percentage.

我们回顾时会感叹风险投资在过去十五年的蓬勃发展。但若将创业创造的总价值与全球经济总量相比，不过是沧海一粟。那么，我们是否真的在打造一个充满机遇、能让资本主义充分发挥作用的世界？必须确保守护这种可能性。在这方面，我认为政府确实需要发挥作用。

We look back and say, wow, venture capital, there's been a real boon in the last fifteen years. But when you look at the overall value creating venture compared to the max seven, it's noise. And so are you really creating a world where there's opportunity and capitalism can kind of do its thing? You have to make sure you protect that. That part of it, do think government has a play role in.

除此之外，必须坚持自由市场导向。让基层创新——像你我这样的普通人所做的事——自由塑造未来。这才是我们希望看到的景象。

Beyond that, you gotta be very free markets oriented. Let bottoms up innovation, stuff that you and I do, let it go create the future. I mean, that's what you wanna see.

你是否担忧日益加剧的财富不平等？虽然这在很多方面对我们有利。但展望未来十年，我看到财富正加速向极少数网络集中，这让我深感忧虑。

Do you worry about the ever increasing inequality of wealth? It plays in our favor in a lot of ways. But I look at so much of the next ten years, and I just see the concentration of wealth to very small networks, and I get very worried.

我确实担忧这点。我们能否建立既追求最大利润、最大规模，又具备包容性的企业？这是我经常思考的问题。过去五年是个关键节点：疫情肆虐，战争导致美国将俄罗斯踢出SWIFT系统，金融基础设施遭到质疑——

I am worried about that. The whole idea of can we build these companies that can focus on being the most profitable, the biggest, but also in a way that they're inclusive, that's something that I think a lot about. There's this moment. If you think about the last five years, pandemic, we had a situation where because of wars, we actually US kicked Russia out of Swift. So financial infrastructure got questioned.

能源危机全面爆发，资本主义社会核心支柱的每个环节都开始崩塌，这些问题在过去几年集中显现。而人工智能恰在此时作为解决方案出现。现在我们面临的选择是：构建让价值集中于极少数人的商业模式，还是以普惠思维让全民受益？这正是我们在塑造未来企业时需要做出的抉择。

Every part of our energy crisis happened. Every part of our core pillars of society where capitalism maybe is starting to break, all sort of manifested over the last few years. And then AI comes along as an answer to all this. So now the choice we have to make is are we gonna build these business in a way that the value accrues to very, very few, or can we actually do it with a mindset of abundance where everybody benefits? And that's a choice that we have in the way we set up the companies of the future.

我确实担心，如果这不是一种富足的心态，那么从长远来看是不可持续的。未来十年我们不会觉得你我会赚很多钱。我们的基金表现会很好，合作伙伴也会获得丰厚回报，但我们在另一端创造了什么？我认为这正是我们需要深思的问题。

And I do worry that if it's not a mindset of abundance, then that's not sustainable in the very long term. We won't feel that in the next ten years that you and I will make a lot of money. Our funds will do great, and our our partners will generate great returns, but what do we create on the other side? And I think that's the thing that we have to think hard about.

但这真的是一个选择吗？比如想想你投资的OpenAI和Anthropic（我知道你是Anthropic的投资者）。当我们思考它们创造的价值时，这些回报将流向极少数人。我们集中回报和财富是一种选择吗？

Is it actually a choice, though? If we think about, say, your OpenAI is your Anthropix, you know, know you're an investor in Anthropix. You know, when we think about the value that they generate, those returns will go to a very small handful of people. Is it a choice that we're concentrating the returns and wealth?

我将AI创新分为两部分来看。一是各地区都在努力成为核心基础设施的领导者，我们正在竞相追赶。但最终不会有很多赢家。就像云计算领域没有太多巨头一样，真正能规模化并可能超越这些云公司的AI模型企业也不会太多。

I think about innovation in AI in two parts. One is every region's trying to figure out how to become leaders in core infrastructure, and and we're racing to it. And there's not gonna be many. But there weren't that many clouds. There's not gonna be that many AI model companies that actually become at scale and potentially be even bigger than what these cloud companies became.

我认为按当前趋势发展很可能会这样。但上层建筑会如何？我们正在构建怎样的生态系统？它如何与各领域消费者互动？医疗保健会变成什么样？

I think that's current course and speed. That's probably what's gonna happen. But what happens on top? What's the ecosystem we're building and how it interplays with consumers across the board? What happens to health care?

教育会如何演变？我们如何看待这些问题？是否存在公平竞争环境，从而能在上层建立一个充满活力、多元化的生态系统？这是我经常思考的。例如，医疗领域的'亚马逊'会是一个由众多公司组成的弹性生态系统，还是会出现某家垄断医疗行业的公司？

What happens to education? How are we thinking about those things? Is there a level playing field so there can be a vibrant, diverse ecosystem that gets built on top? That's what I think a lot about. So for example, is the Amazon of healthcare gonna be an ecosystem, lots of companies, and sort of a more resilient system, or it's gonna be like some company that comes along and they just controls healthcare?

后者对我们不利。那么我们如何为初创企业和创始人创造公平竞争环境，让机会能遍地开花转化为成功企业，而不是集中在少数人手中？我认为政策必须创造条件，为多数人而非少数人提供机会。这就是政府在技术领域可以发挥的作用。

The latter is not good for us. And so how do we create a level playing field for start ups for founders so that opportunity can manifest into new successful businesses everywhere versus there's gonna be a few concentrated ones? I think that to me is the place where policy has to create conditions where it allows for opportunity for many as opposed to opportunity for a few. That's the role governments can play, you know, when it comes to technology.

我一直公开表达对英国工党政府及其施政效果的担忧。英国正以全球最快的速度流失百万富翁，这很可怕。你对特朗普领导下的美国未来更乐观吗？

I've been very public on my concerns around the labor government in The UK and what it's done for The UK so far. It's the fastest access of millionaires out of any country. It's terrifying. Are you more bullish on the future of the states with the Trump administration or not?

我的信念是美国处于非常有利的位置。我们拥有能源、人工智能、最大的市场以及最庞大的创业生态系统。

My belief is that US is very well positioned. We have energy. We have AI. We have the largest market. We have the largest entrepreneurial ecosystem.

从很多方面来看，我们的优势都很明显。短期来看，某些方面我们甚至正在加深护城河。如果我们真正聚焦于让所有人投资美国，创造更多资本等等。当我们投资公司时，无论是在欧洲还是美国，我总认为：首先需要赢得本土市场，然后成为全球领导者。而如今我对美国的担忧主要是——世界对美国公司的接纳意愿如何？是否愿意让它们成为全球领袖？

In a lot of ways, we're very well positioned. And I think in the short term, in some ways, we're actually increasing our moats. If we really focus on everyone investing in The US and creating, you know, more capital and whatnot. When we fund companies, whether it's in Europe or in US, I always think about it as, hey, you need to go win your market, and then you need to become a global leader. And the thing I worry about in The US today is mostly what is the sentiment and the appetite of the world to embrace companies coming out of The US and let them be global leaders?

我认为这正是需要努力的方向，因为我们正通过关税等手段进行商业贸易的重构。但美国曾是多方面世界秩序的维护者，当我们打破这种秩序时，与欧洲国家的关系将如何发展？美国公司成为全球领导者的优势还剩多少？这才是真正考验的时刻。在我们的生态系统中，当我们讨论所投资的公司和创始人时，核心问题是：在摩擦加剧的背景下，他们如何成为全球领袖？这在我看来将是重大挑战。

And I think that's where there's gonna be work to do because we're doing this one time reshift with tariffs and everything on, hey, need to realign commerce and trade, but we were also the keeper of the world order in a lot of ways. And as we are disrupting that, what is the relationship gonna be with European countries, and how well positioned would the American companies be to be global leaders? That's the place where I think rubber meets the road. In our ecosystem, we're talking about sort of companies funded in our world, founders, How will they become global leaders, given that there'll be more friction? That to me is the place where, you know, there'll be some challenges.

如今在伦敦漫步时——就像我每周陪母亲散步那样——公交车身和站台全是安德鲁·厄尔的广告海报。我总发给马特·格雷汉看，感谢他用这些看起来极具英伦风情的美式海报装点伦敦。

When you walk around London now, as I do with my mother every weekend, all we see is Andrew Earl posters on the sides of buses and on the sides of bus stops. I always send it to Matt Graham, like, thank you decorating London with American posters, which actually look incredibly British and wonderful.

顺便说，我很喜欢你和你母亲的互动帖。你打破'人生90%与父母相处时光都在18岁前'观念的那篇帖子，观点深刻令人赞叹。

By the way, I loved your post with your mom. I think that's a great thing that you do. I enjoyed your last post about breaking the idea of 90% of your time you spend with your parents is before 18. That was an amazing, insightful comment.

人们竟对此习以为常令我震惊——这明明是可以改变的。但说到全球领导者的问题，竞争是无法回避的因素。当你在不同地域扶持领军企业时，安德鲁尔就会与赫尔辛基狭路相逢。

I find it incredible that people just accept that. It's like, you can change that. I really appreciate that. But when we go to that, you know, when people become global leaders, the element that's inserted is competition. Because when you back multiple geographic leaders, suddenly, Andrewil comes into Helsink's path.

非竞争性投资的时代是否终结？当达到你们这样的规模时，是否必须接受将在同一领域与多个被投企业共存？

Is the age of not having competitive investments over? And when you're at your scale, do you just have to embrace that you're gonna be in multiple players in the same space?

看，我认为当我们投资这些公司时，总希望看到它们能成为各自市场的领导者。我们对Helsing充满信心——凭借其使命、执行力、资金与人才优势，它理应成为欧洲防务领域占据绝对份额的企业。Adderall在美国正实现着同样的目标。

Look. I think when we invest in these companies, we always wanna see that they will be the leaders in their own market. We have a lot of confidence. Helsing, with this mission, its execution, its access to capital, talent, should be the company that gets disproportionate share of defense in Europe. Adderall is doing that in US.

我们投资的印度公司Rafi也将如此。之后它们还应具备全球生态系统的竞争力。此外，我认为合作模式可能需要创新——我们从未真正革新过合作关系，总是沿用那些陈旧的比喻。关键在于，这些公司能否思考建立新型合作？

We think this company, Rafi, is gonna do that in India that we invested in. And then they should go and be competitive in the global ecosystem. If also, I actually think maybe there's a new innovation in partnerships. We have not innovated partnerships ever. It's it's sort of the same boring old metaphors, and the question is, could these companies all think about engaging?

虽然尚未发生，但能否构建具有特殊优势的韧性生态系统？它们可以依托所处生态位相互借力，共同扩大全球份额。因此我特别关注：一方面我们因全球韧性需求造成了结构性通胀，另一方面更想知道——这个阶段成为市场领袖的规则是否会改变？

It's not what's happening yet, but are there these resilient ecosystems that get created where they have special advantages because of where they sit in which ecosystems, and they can leverage each other to gain more global share as well. So I'm sort of very keen to see while on one side, we've created some structured inflation because of the need for global resilience. On the other side, I am curious, is the playbook gonna change in how you become market leaders in this next phase?

你提到地缘层面像是基础设施竞赛。当前常有'中美AI争霸战'的论调，你认同这种AI竞赛的说法吗？这场竞赛是否存在终点？

You mentioned kind of on the geo side, it's like this race for infrastructure. And I find there's this often rhetoric that's like, hey. It's China versus The US, and it's the war for AI. Do you agree with that race for AI? Is there a destination?

会有赢家吗？赢家意味着什么？

Is there a winner? What does that mean?

我们认为世界已确处两极格局。尽管近期关税风波和各地区关系紧张，但美欧印在核心价值观上高度一致。我相信最终AI将在共同价值观下发展，而中国体系则不同。所谓竞赛，在我看来只是哪种AI更优的问题——资本主义将推动技术采用。比如中国DeepSeek等开源模型...

The way we see it, we are in a bipolar world for sure. Despite all the recent turbulences around tariffs and relationship between the different regions, US, Europe, India, very aligned in terms of core values, and I do think it's gonna settle down to be a place where, you know, AI gets developed with a common set of values. I think the Chinese system is different. And the race to me is only in the context of which AI is better because capitalism will force the adoption. I think about DeepSeek and the open source models that have come about out of China.

正因其优越性被美国用户采用。真正的焦点在于：最终哪种AI胜出？目前中美在AI领域实力相当，仅有数月差距。我甚至认为后发者往往具备'站在巨人肩上'的优势。

People are using them in The US because they're better. Now the question is, which AI ends up and there's not much difference between that. I think China and US are very comparable in what they are in AI today. There's a few months lead here and there. I'd even argue there's always a second mover advantage to people building on top.

因此我认为它们相当具有可比性。关键在于看到西方AI基础设施在企业中获得市场份额并更加普及。同样重要的是确保计算生产力能在各区域本地被捕获，而不是从许多地方流向单一公司或国家，因为这会造成失衡。在AI创造上，我们需要保持包容和富足的心态。但就美国与中国公司之间的竞争态势而言，这是否是我们需要担忧的问题？

So I think they're pretty comparable. It is important that you see AI infrastructure in the West gain market share in businesses and be more pervasive. It's equally important to make sure it's done in a way that the compute productivity is captured onshore in each of the geos, so it doesn't leak from a lot of the places to sort of a single company or a single country because that creates imbalance. You wanna be inclusive and abundant in your mindset with AI creation. But is the competitive dynamic something we need to worry about in terms of companies coming out of US versus China?

是的。这很大程度上决定了价值所在，以及我们在全球竞争中的能力。

Yeah. That's driving a lot of where the value is gonna be, what our ability to compete globally.

关于后发优势这个非常有趣的因素，您主要认为这只是因为蒸馏技术以及我们看到的DeepSea作为后来者所能获得的益处吗？

In terms of second mover advantage, really interesting element. Do you primarily believe that just because distillation and the benefits that we saw DeepSea can have as a result of being second?

你可以在不同应用场景中看到这一点。以客户支持为例，当新模型发布时，如果你在ChatGPT-3时代就开始构建公司，相较于从GPT-4或GPT-5起步，你会有更多工具可用。因此，基于GPT-4比GPT-5早一年进入市场所建立的先发优势，可能远不如从GPT-5起步所获得的技术优势——因为更强的模型让你能更快决策和行动，就像获得了某种不公平的优势。问题是，你是否会重构已有成果并倒退一步？实际上你已具备良好势头。现实情况是，每个新模型都会催生更优秀的公司，而后入场的模型公司反而能因技术获得某些优势。

You're seeing this in different use cases. Take customer support, for example. When new models come out, if you started building your company when you were in the chat g g three era versus four versus five, you just have more tools at your disposal. So the go to market advantage you may have created in a year having started on g p t four versus five might be anemic compared to the technology advantage that you have if you start in the g p t five or the choices you make and how fast you can move because the models are stronger because it's like you're getting this put in force, the unfair advantage, and you know, are you really gonna sort of re architect everything you did and take a step back or not because you actually have good momentum. So what's happening is that the good and greater companies getting created with each new model and the model companies that start later end up having some advantages because of technology.

核心问题在于：尽管技术债务过去需要十年编程而非一年来积累，你能否不被其拖累？能否真正克服这些并确保自己在新兴技术栈中保持优势？我认为这就是后发公司在不同垂直领域理论上可能拥有的优势。

And the question is, can you not be bogged down by technical debt even though technical debt used to be on the order of a decade of coding, not a year of coding. Can you actually overcome that and make sure you remain well positioned on the new sort of technology stacks or not? That's the advantage that I think second mover companies could theoretically have in these different verticals.

您提到模型从Face到Face的演变过程。Anthropic是您的重要投资对象，能否谈谈您最初投资该公司的切入点及当时的核心论点？

You mentioned kind of the evolution of models there from face to face. Anthropic is a big position for you. Can you talk to me about your first entry point into the company and the thesis that you had on first entry?

听着。我们投资Anthropic还不到一年，是在其600亿美元估值轮次进入的。当时我们看到其在编程领域的应用场景正成为区分他们的关键。这些模型开始显现差异化。当然每家公司都想全面发展，但在我看来OpenAI通过ChatGPT更像消费级公司——虽然他们也有企业级野心，比如Codex等产品。

Look. We invested in Anthropic only, you know, less than a year ago at the $60,000,000,000 round where we saw that the use case around coding was becoming an interesting application that was gonna distinguish them. These models started to become distinguished. Obviously, everybody wants to do everything, but OpenAI is, to me, is more of a consumer company with ChadGPT. I know they have enterprise ambitions, codex, etcetera.

我明白了。Anthropic某种程度上成为了云端世界中的应用程序公司，以编码为用例，我们看到了非常好的增长势头。那是我们第一次真正思考：我们是在押注这些估值极高、烧钱极快、稀释严重的公司，指望它们实现某种抽象的通用人工智能目标，还是它们真的能成为可持续的业务？因此，从风险调整的角度看，我认为那轮融资值得关注——作为研究企业投资决策的人，我想说：哪些人是靠运气，哪些人真正做出了英明的判断？

I get it. And Anthropic kinda became an apps company in the cloud world with, you know, with coding as a use case, and we're showing really good traction. That was the time for the first time we felt, are we really betting on these companies with tremendous valuations, tremendous burns, tremendous dilution towards some abstract AGI goal, or they're actually gonna be businesses. So I actually think risk adjusted, that was the round that was interesting to do as somebody who studies investment decisions in companies to say, where did people get lucky and where did they actually make a great call?

为什么你认为那轮融资是最佳时机？

Why do you think that was the round that was the best?

因为那时能吸引企业并建立合作关系的用例变得非常清晰且具备可扩展性，事实也证明了这点。我们投资时他们的营收是多少？那是去年年底。如果我没记错的话，应该不到十亿美元。而他们公开表示要将规模扩大到九倍。

Because that's when the use case that was gonna draw them in and build a relationship with the enterprises became very clear and could scale, and it has. We when we invested What was their revenues? It was at the end of last year. So it was I I think it was under a billion, if I recall. And they're gonna they publicly said that they're gonna grow nine times that.

这超出了我们的预测模型。他们的表现远超预期，这太棒了。他们是个了不起的团队，非常注重价值观，执行力极强。

That's not the forecast we modeled. I mean, they've done way better than we thought, which is amazing. It's an incredible team, very values oriented, very execution focused.

你们在60美元价位投入了多少？

How much do you put in at 60?

我们投了几亿美元。

We put in a few 100,000,000.

几亿美元。然后你们又在1.8美元价位追加了几亿？

Few 100,000,000. And then you do another few 100,000,000 at $1.80?

我想你会的。顺便说一句，我其实想和你争论

I think you would. By the way, I would actually argue

你提到的五倍超额认购。确实是超额认购。

with you five that is oversubscribed. Oversubscribed.

Anthropic这轮融资，从倍数角度来看可能是我今年完成的估值最便宜的一轮。哪家公司能以20倍年经常性收入融资？现在所有公司都在以50到100倍ARR的估值融资，规模比那些融资企业大十倍左右。所以从风险调整后收益看——我得谨慎使用这个词，因为模型里所有参数的持久性都极不确定——在这批项目中，我会说这是你能拿到的最佳定价轮次。

Anthropic, this round, probably was the cheapest round I got done this year on a multiples basis. Which company was raising capital at 20 times ARR? They're all raising capital at 50 to a 100 times ARR at a scale that's like 10 times bigger than any of those companies that are raising capital. So like risk adjusted, if you think about it, and I should say risk adjusted carefully because durability of everything in the models is highly unclear. So in that cohort, I would say that was the best price round you could have done.

超额认购五倍我毫不意外。老兄，这可是风险调整后的结果。

I'm not surprised it was 5x oversubscribed. Dude, risk adjusted.

去他的。那套标准几年前就过时了。没错，欢迎来到疯狂时代。

Fuck it. That that went out of the window years ago. That's right. Welcome to lunch.

我早餐就吃风险，所以我挺你。

I eat risk for breakfast, so I'm with you.

这就是最合适的标题。当你展望未来时，你会再投几亿美元进下一轮吗？

That that is the caption for it. When you look then out, do you put another few $100,000,000 into the next round?

这取决于业务表现及其扩张方式。但涉及增长时，必须高度关注实际经济基本面——收入、利润率、盈利能力和规模。这些领域的市场规模是无限的。全球开发者薪资规模达5000亿美元，而白领职位总量可能接近10万亿美元，如果我的估算基本正确的话。

Depends on how the business does, and depends on how they're expanding. But when you get into growth, you have to be very fundamental focused on actual economics, revenues, margins, profitability, scale. This market size for these things is endless. $500,000,000,000 of payroll is developers in the world. Probably, I think about 10,000,000,000,000 of like white collar jobs, if I have that generally correct.

这是个极其庞大的市场，而你们天然具备优势，有望成为两三家主导企业之一。若你认同这点，这家公司还有10到20倍的成长空间，即便当前估值也已合理。只要保持这种发展轨迹，当然应该投资——谁会拒绝这样的机会呢？

It's an insanely large market and you're naturally well positioned to be one of two or three players that's gonna go capture it. So if you believe that, this company could be 10 to 20 times bigger from here and is well priced even at this valuation. If it keeps on that trajectory, of course, you would want to invest. Who would not want to invest?

没错。但你也得看看这张惊人的图表数据。不知道你是否看过昨天那个展示OpenAI价值分配的饼图...大约1%的份额，我记得是50亿左右。

Yes. But you also then look at the information to this incredible chart. I don't know if you saw this pie chart yesterday with OpenAI's distributions or kind of Yeah. With the value generated. And 1%, I think it's, like, 5,000,000,000 Yeah.

都归早期投资者所有。看着这个数据时我不禁感叹：干得漂亮，创始团队！这是风险投资向创始人及团队成员最大规模的财富转移。

Is to early investors. Yeah. And you look at that and I thought, my word. Well done, founders and team. This is the greatest transfer of wealth from venture capitalists to founders and team members.

看看现在发放的基于股票的员工薪酬，这堪称史上最大财富转移。但考虑到这些企业的股权稀释和现金消耗速度，这真的是笔好投资吗？

When you look at the employee stock based comp that's going out now, this is the greatest transfer of wealth ever. Is it actually a great investment when you look at the dilutive nature and cash burn of these businesses?

关于OpenAI，我关注过早期融资。Sam确实是个非凡人物——我曾公开说过，这家伙能扭曲现实，他也确实改变了世界。只是我始终无法理解其架构设计。

Well, I think OpenAI, I saw that early round. You know, Sam's a force of nature and I've said this publicly. I mean, the guy can bend reality and he has. He's changed the world. I just couldn't get my arms around the structure.

如果这些数字准确（我不完全确定），以50亿估值计算，当初2亿美元在十亿美元轮仅产生25倍回报。我们最好的企业如Livongo、Circle、Stripe等，首轮回报都是数百倍而非25倍。所以我同意你的观点，股权稀释造成巨大损失，原因有二：其一是这种架构导致非营利部门需要分得份额。

If those numbers are correct, I don't know if they're entirely correct. You would say at 5,000,000,000, the $200,000,000 at the billion dollar round only generated 25 x. Our best companies like Livongo and Circle and others, know, Stripe and others, our first rounds were not 25x, they were hundreds of x in terms of returns. So I agree with you, dilution took a huge toll here, but for two reasons. One is because that structure led to hint nonprofit needs to be given a share.

其次是实现这一切所需的计算资源。微软是首个提供这种计算能力的公司，他们拥有很大的影响力。这对微软来说是一笔好买卖。他们获得了巨额回报，因为没有这些，公司根本不可能存在。所以我认为这更多是关于谁真正承担了风险的时间顺序，某种程度上是资本调整后的风险考量。

And the second is the compute that was needed to make this happen. The first one to provide that compute was Microsoft and they had a lot of leverage. That was a good deal for Microsoft. They made a huge amount of return because without that, this was also there was never gonna be a company. So I think it's just the sequencing of who really took the risk, sort of risk adjusted with capital.

微软可能在很多方面承担了更多风险，他们也确实受益了。因此股权稀释很大程度上也源于这种动态关系。

Microsoft maybe took more risk in a lot of ways, and they did benefit. And then there was so the dilution comes from a lot of that dynamic as well.

你如何分析与微软的这种关系？说到Anthropic，微软现在已公开表示其大部分套件实际上都在使用Anthropic的技术。你如何看待这种合作关系？

How do you analyze that relationship with Microsoft? Because speaking of Anthropic, you know, Microsoft has now openly said for the majority of the suite that actually are using Anthropic. Yeah. How do you analyze that relationship?

我认为这段关系——如果你还记得当时的情况——所有人都称赞萨提亚（微软CEO）的决策非常高明。这本质上是一种购买创新的方式，就像生物科技公司常做的那样。对吧？就像制药公司做的那样。

Well, I think that relationship was if you remember when that was done, everybody said Satya was brilliant. Like, that was an incredible way to essentially buy innovations. It's like what biotechs do. Right? And, like and pharma companies do.

通过收购AI领域的创新，因为内部研发可能效率不足，这给了他们成为领先AI公司的光环效应，也为Azure打开了入口。由于OpenAI的存在，Azure获得了巨大的牵引力，微软因此在云计算行业获得了更多市场份额。对微软来说这是笔惊人的投资。但这种投资关系能持久吗？不能。

Bought innovation in AI because the internal efforts maybe weren't as as productive and gave them the halo effect to be the leading AI company, gave them an entry with Azure. Azure has had a huge draft because of OpenAI as well, and, you know, they have really gained market share in the cloud industry as a result. So that was an amazing investment for Microsoft. Is that an enduring investment? No.

显然现在双方已产生分歧，因为两家公司的雄心产生了碰撞，所以他们需要更多选择。他们希望Anthropic也能参与进来。这只是正常的商业思维，我理解。当初下这个赌注对微软极具价值。

Obviously, now they've gone at odds with each other because there's an ambition that collides between the two companies, and so they wanna have more choice. They wanna have Anthropic at the table as well. That's just normal, good business thinking. I get it. Taking that bet was hugely valuable for Microsoft.

顺便说，如果你看看回报率，他们投入200亿美元，获得的投资回报倍数也是最高的。所以无论从财务角度还是战略意义上，这都是笔极其成功的投资。

And if you look at the return, by the way, if they put in 20,000,000,000, they're the ones who have the highest multiple return as well. So it was a great investment on a financial basis and way more on a strategic basis.

作为Anthropic的持有者，当你听到Sam谈论需要花费数千亿美元时，又看到他与Oracle的交易——双方都需要高度杠杆化才能各自承担这笔资金——你会感到担忧吗？

As an Anthropic holder, do you worry when you see Sam talk about, we're gonna need to spend hundreds of billions, and then you see his deal with Oracle where both of them are gonna need to be levered up to the hills to be able to finance it on both of their sides.

听着，永远别赌Sam会输。但我觉得他同时在太多领域发力了——手机、数据中心、基础设施等等。而Anthropic更像是家专注产品导向的公司。

Look. Never bet against Sam, but I feel like he's doing a lot of things, and he's doing it in every single dimension. Right? The phone, the data center, the infrastructure, and all that. I think Anthropic is a much more focused kind a product oriented company.

他们达到当前规模所需的融资更少。我认为他们的企业业务规模可能已经或即将超越OpenAI。资本是杠杆，但不是唯一杠杆。执行力才是关键——Mistral的Arthur让我们深刻认识到：算力也可能被大量浪费。专注的团队带着明确议程往往能更高效地达成目标，Anthropic正是这样精准选择赛道并做到极致。

They have not taken as much money to get here. And to this size as well, I think their enterprise business, I'd argue, will be bigger than OpenAI if it already isn't already. Capital is a lever, but it's not the only lever. I think execution matters, and one of the things I've learned, and Arthur at Mistral really taught us about this, which is you can waste a lot of compute too. So I think a more focused team with a focused agenda, you can probably get there much more effectively, and I think Anthropic seems to be doing that, being targeted in the best they're picking and doing them really, really well.

我坚信他们的领导层正成长为卓越的企业建造者。想想Dario，几年前还在主导研究，如今在商业决策、社会影响、规模扩张等方面展现的战略眼光——每个阶段的产品发布都取得惊人回报。正因如此，从投资回报倍数来看，他们的投资者最终可能比OpenAI早期投资者获益更多——在这个考量项目持久性的世界里，他们的投资回报率趋势确实更优。

I'm a big believer that that leadership is really maturing to be excellent company builders. I mean, Dario, just think about that person a few years ago running research, and the kinds of choices he's made and the kinds of choices both in business and for society and how they've scaled and the bets they've made and how well they've paid off every step of the way to think the products they've launched. It's like really impressive. And and that's why the investors there will probably end up doing on a multiple basis better than again, you know, in a world of, like, what's durable, what's not. Like, they're trending to be maybe they'll do better in their MOI than the early investors would in OpenAI, if that math is correct, the one that you were referring to.

关键在于增长总有极限。10亿到90亿的跨越已经疯狂，但明年呢？27亿？保持三倍增长固然好，但增速终将放缓，届时核心业务的底色就会显现。我真正担忧的是当前生态系统实在太糟糕了。

The hard thing is that growth is great until it's not great. And at some point, it does reduce and reduce, and 1,000,000,000 goes to 9,000,000,000, which is insane. I mean, nuts, nuts numbers.

前所未见。

Never seen it before.

明年会是多少？270亿？能保持三倍增长当然好，但增速终会回落，那时支撑全局的核心业务就会面临考验。当前生态系统的问题才是我最担心的。

And what is it next year? 27? We should be three x, which would be great still. But at some point, growth does reduce, and then there's the core business that sits beneath it. The thing that I worry about is our ecosystem today is so bad.

嘿，能打断一下吗？假设是27。我不知道他们公布的具体数字是多少，而且他们实际表现总是比宣称的要好。但假设是27。

Hey. Can you just interrupt for a second? Let's say it's '27. I don't know what the numbers they have shared, and they've always done better than they've said, by the way, too. But let's say it's '27.

你又不是Anthropic的首席财务官。这不是剧透预警。

You're not also Anthropic's CFO. Not not a spoiler alert.

对，对，对。我得谨慎点。但如果你想想，这个业务从今年的9增长到27，还要实现200%的增长，这增长幅度非常惊人。

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I gotta caution. And but if you think about it, that business, which will still grow 200% to go from, let's say, let's say, nine's number this year and '27, that's tremendous growth.

你随便乘以一个倍数，那都是一家非常有价值的公司。想想科技行业对这种增长率的估值倍数。那真的是一家极具价值的公司。市场空间还很大，即使达到那个规模，他们仍能保持良好的增长。不需要这么疯狂的增长，但他们只按今年年度经常性收入的20倍来定价。

And you put any multiple on that, that is a very valuable company. Think about tech technology multiples on that kind of a growth. That's a really valuable company. Significant headroom because the market size is so large even from there that they can maintain good growth. It doesn't have to be this crazy growth, but they only price it at 20 times this year's ARR.

所以20乘以27。

So twenty twenty times 27.

20乘以27是多少？

If you What are 20 times 27?

同样的倍数，在公开市场上可能得到550左右？我的意思是，到明年年底，那会是家市值半万亿美元的公司。我不是说一定会达到，但如果他们实现了目标数字，我看不出为什么不会。根据公开市场的可比公司估值，这些公司就会被这样定价。

The same multiple, you know, which you could get in public markets with Five fifty? Something like that. My point is that so that's half a trillion dollar company, like, by the end of next year. I'm not saying that's where it's gonna be, but if they hit their numbers, I don't see why that won't happen. Just from what I'm just saying public market comps, like that's what those things are gonna be valued

确实。我完全同意。如今利润率已经不重要了吗？

at. I completely agree. Does margin not matter anymore today?

利润率绝对重要。实际上我认为这是他们做得好的另一个方面。现实情况是，当你考虑编码领域的投资回报率时，你是在做实际工作。编码代理本质上是对工程师的替代，对吧？

Margin matters absolutely. And I actually think that's another place where they've done a good job. The reality is that when you think about the ROI in the coding space, you're doing the work. Coding agent is essentially a replacement of engineering. Right?

从初级工程师到高级工程师，即使是初级工程师年薪也有8万到10万美元。所以你在定价方面其实有相当大的主动权。如果你真的在做这类工作，利润率不会成为问题。对Entarkly来说利润率已经不成问题了。

You start with low end sort of engine junior engineers to more senior engineers. Even a junior engineer makes 80 to a $100 a year. So your pricing power there is actually pretty significant. And if you're truly doing that kind of work, margins are not gonna be an issue. And margins already are not an issue for Entarkly.

他们掌控得很好。在业务建设方面一直保持着高度自律。

They have a good command. They've been very disciplined about how they've they've built their business.

当你纵观整个竞争格局时——有Codex，还有你们的Cognitions、Cursors，以及在更低端更消费者层面的Lovables、Ratplets等——你会担心竞争态势吗？

Do you worry about the competitive nature of the landscape when you look across at codex, but then you've also got your cognitions, and then you've also got your cursors, and then you've got your kind of on the lower, more consumer, and your your lovables, your ratplets. Great.

让我们回到云计算领域。你可以用同样的逻辑看待云计算：它们会被商品化。每个地区可能有三家大型电信公司，大概也会有三朵大云，很可能会有三个主流AI模型。

I'll take you back to the clouds. You could use the same logic in the clouds to be like, hey. They're gonna get commoditized. You'll have three, probably three big telcos in every geo. There's probably three big clouds, probably three big AI models.

我只是根据经验这样说。看看云计算公司的利润率，大概在70%左右。我确实认为这些公司都能很好地构建规模化利润率结构，因为它们有太多增值方式来维持利润率，而且它们都在各自专精的领域朝这个方向发展。

And just, you know, I'm just sort of empirically saying that. Think about the margins that the cloud companies have. They're like seventies. I do think these companies will all figure out the margin structure really well and at scale because there's so many different ways they can add value to hold on to that margin, and they're all kinda getting specialized into, like, different areas where they are gonna be doing that.

确实存在，但真正的云服务提供商只有三家。是的。当我们审视当前众多的选择时，就...

There are, but there's only three cloud providers, really. Yeah. And when we look at the plethora now that we have in terms of

现在是这样。但我认为这个数量会缩减，不是所有玩家都能存活。那么你认为...

Today. Today. But I think that's gonna shrink. I don't think everybody's gonna make it. And then So you think

这些产品会经历真正的市场萎缩吗？

there's gonna be a real shrinkage in those products?

我认为最终每个地区会保留几家全球性企业和几家本土企业。这大概就是AI领域的发展方向——不是所有参与者都能存活。还有许多获得融资的不同架构模型，我们且看它们的发展。

I think you'll have a couple global ones and a couple of sovereign ones in every geo. That probably is what'll end up sort of happening in in AI in my view. Not everybody's gonna make it. You have a lot of other models that have been funded, different approaches as well. We'll see what happens to those.

是否会出现新的架构？但数量不会太多。想想这个市场的规模——你提到劳动力市场，这其实是AI市场。

Is there like a new architecture that emerges? But it's not gonna be that many. But think about the size of the market. You're talking about the labor market. It's the AI market.

所以你认为这个天文数字成立？十万亿美元的劳动力GDP蛋糕待分，如果我们能拿下两万亿，游戏就开始了。

So you buy that massive sum, hey. There's a $10,000,000,000,000 labor debt GDP up for grabs, and if we capture 2,000,000,000,000 of that, game on.

我看不出有什么不可能。技术必将比人类更高效地完成企业大部分工作，正如你之前所说，市场力量会推动我们到达那个阶段——更便宜、更快速、更优质，还能赋予企业更大优势。这正是我们将要踏上的发展路径。

I don't see why not. I don't see why technology is not gonna do most of that work we do in companies better than humans do, which going back to your earlier point, market forces will take us there then. It'll be cheaper, it'll be faster, it'll be better, and it'll give the businesses more leverage. So I think that's a real trend we're gonna head down the path of.

经济正处在AI热潮的浪尖上，或者说不是热潮，而是AI的势头浪潮，因为其中很多并非虚火。当你观察股东价值积累的集中度时，目前几乎完全依赖于最多七家公司。你是否担心我们会遇到减速带？当AI列车遇到减速带时，鉴于全球对其依赖程度如此之高，是否意味着世界会崩溃？或者你认为这根本不会发生，因为我们正处于如此迅猛的上升期？

The economy is so on the AI hype wave, or not hype wave, but, like, AI momentum wave, because a lot of it's not hype. And when you look at the concentration of, like, shareholder value accumulation, it's just solely predicated on max seven pretty much at this point. Do you worry that we hit a speed bump? And when we hit a speed bump in the AI train I mean, literally, the world kind of crashes given how much is predicated on that, or do you think that just won't happen because we are on such an exponential upswing?

我不认为这会是一个让我们螺旋式下降的减速带。简单来说，随着每个新模型及其能力的出现，白领工作中可被替代的部分——你提到的那个10万亿规模——已经可以实现。减速带不会逆转这一趋势。我脑海中有一个画面：我们正逐步将越来越多的劳动内容交给比我们更优秀的AI处理，随着时间的推移，大部分工作将由AI完成，等到机器人技术成熟时，所有工作都将如此。在这个背景下，很多事情其实已经可以实现了。

I don't think it's gonna be that it's a speed bump that spirals us down. For So the simple reason that with every new model with its capabilities, there's a certain amount of that content of white collar jobs, the 10,000,000,000,000 that you mentioned, that is now doable. And what the speed bump's not gonna reverse that. So I think I have this sort of visual in my mind where we're kind of cumulatively taking more and more of the labor content and AI is better than us and more and more of it, and over time it's gonna be most of it, and when robotics comes, it'll be all of it. And so in that context, you know, a lot can already be done.

我们拥有能源和算力来支撑这一切。真正的前沿问题是：我们将如何运用这些技术？我认为这里可能会出现减速带。可能的减速带包括架构无法扩展，或者需要那些正在开发的、非语言导向的新型世界模型架构。因此前沿进展可能会放缓，但劳动力向生产力转化的进程不会停滞，因为从经济学角度看，这种转变的驱动力实在太强大了。

We have the energy, we have the compute to be able to support that. The question is, the really frontier stuff, what are we gonna do with that? And I think you could see speed bumps here. The speed bump could be that the architecture doesn't scale, that you need these world models to take on or some of the new architectures people are developing that are non language oriented that could maybe would be needed. So I think the frontier could slow, but I don't think this transition of labor or melting of labor into productivity is necessarily gonna slow because the economics are way too compelling for that to not happen in my view.

你提到了某些方面的地理赢家，提到了阿拉先生。我很欣赏亚瑟，对他评价极高。

You mentioned the geo winners in some respects. You mentioned Mr. Alla. I love Arthur. I think the world of him.

作为自豪的欧洲人，我必须直言不讳——很多人感觉已经被时代抛下了。你认为主权问题足以让阿拉先生成为赢家吗？

I'm obviously a proud European. A lot of people are going, It feels like they've been left behind, calling a spade a spade. Do you think sovereignty is enough of a reason for Mr. Al to be a winner?

这是个很好的问题。珍妮特在董事会任职，我们经常讨论这个话题。我们与亚瑟也多次共进晚餐深入交流。我看着这家公司，见证着亚瑟从科学家成长为CEO的历程。别忘了，这只是一家成立两年的公司。

It's a great question. So, you know, Jeanette's on the board there, and we talk a lot about it. We've had many conversations and and meals with Arthur about this as well. I look at that company, and I see Arthur's growth from a scientist to a CEO. And remember, it's a it's a two year old company.

而且

And Do

想听个有趣的故事吗？是的，我是通过让·查尔斯在阿兰那里认识他的。

you wanna hear a funny story? Yeah. I got introduced to him by Jean Charles at Alain.

好啊，当然想听。

Yeah. Sure.

而且我是他见过的第一个风投。他在巴黎公园长椅上和我视频通话，我说，老兄，我直说吧，从没见过这么糟糕的路演。你可是在和募资之王山姆·奥特曼竞争，这不会有好结果的。现在看他路演的样子，我简直想说，见鬼了。

And I was the first VC he ever met. And he took a video call with me on a park bench in Paris, and I said, dude, I'm gonna give it to you straight. I've never had such a bad pitch, and you are competing against Sam Altman, the mother of all fundraisers. This is not gonna end well. And now I see him pitching, and I'm like, well, fuck.

他变了。

He changed.

他确实变了。但关键就在这里——不仅是融资能力，他始终专注于用严谨的方法构建模型。虽然曾受算力和资金限制而落后，但现在看来已经迎头赶上。据我所知，他们的模型现在又重回第一梯队了。

He changed. But I think this is the point. Not only in his ability to aggregate capital, he stayed focused on doing really disciplined work in the way to build models. And I think they were compute constrained and capital constrained, so they fell behind, but think they've caught up. Like, everything I hear now is that their models are now again sort of there as they're investing.

他掌握了资本聚合之道，你也看到了。他还明白客户关系必须更商业化，不能指望'酒香不怕巷子深'。所以尽管曾有过担忧，我现在看好他们的发展——他和团队正在成长，学习如何在这个竞争激烈的世界里生存。

He's figured out how to aggregate capital. I mean, you saw that. He's also figured out that his relationship with customers needs to be a lot more commercial than if you build it, they will come. And so I I am bullish on what they will do even though I was anxious about it because he and his team are growing up. I think they're learning how to be in this competitive world.

顺便说，如果没有OpenAI和Anthropic这两家公司存在，你会说他们是全球发展最快、成就最惊人、估值和进展最迅猛的初创企业。只是被这两头资本与产品飞轮并进的巨兽压制着，所以才显得有趣。实际上我认为他们会建立相当有竞争力的业务，欧洲乃至全球企业都对开源方案很有兴趣——还有谁像他们这样真正致力于企业级开源呢？

And if and by the way, there were no if there were two companies not existing in this world, OpenAI and Anthropic, you said this is the hottest startup in the world in terms of how fast they're scaling and what they've accomplished and their valuation and progress. It's just you have the overhang of these two monsters that the flywheel going with capital and products and so on, And that's why we say it's interesting. I actually think they'll build a pretty compelling business. I see a lot of interest from companies in Europe, but all over the world that want an open source player. Like, who else is truly dedicated to open source that is doing it in the way that enterprises care?

这不是Meta。他们不是一家企业公司。在西方，今天这确实是一场无效审判。

It's not meta. They're not an enterprise company. In the West, it's really mistrial today.

你能给我列举几个以主权为成功首要驱动力的案例吗？

Can you name to me success stories where sovereignty was the number one driver of their success?

美国所有国防巨头都是基于主权建立的。我们曾是国防开支的最大分配者，洛克希德·马丁、雷神和波音很大程度上就是如此。主权还决定了它们向哪些国家销售产品以及现在的销售内容，因为国务院会介入，但这一切都是由主权决定的。我认为人工智能就是如此具有战略意义的技术。

All The US defense primes were built off of sovereignty. We were the biggest allocator of spend in defense, and that's what Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and Boeing, that's a lot of what it was. And then sovereignty also dictated who and which countries they sold to and what now because the state department gets involved, but, like, it was all dictated by that. I think AI is that strategic a technology.

营收增长现在还重要吗？你知道，我们刚刚邀请了Macraor的创始人上节目。是的。

Does revenue growth matter anymore? You know, we just had the founders of Macraor on the show. Yes.

我们领投了他们的种子轮。

We we led the seed there.

我做到了

I did

干得漂亮。是的。

an amazing job. Yeah.

十七个月内从1增长到5亿。

1 to 500,000,000 in seventeen months.

难以置信。

Unbelievable.

干得好。为你感到兴奋。但这还重要吗？因为每周都有新公司从101增长到500。

Well done. Thrilled for you. Does it matter anymore, though? Because every week, there's a new one to 101 to 500.

我内心对此的对话是：当然重要，但常态已经改变。当我们做Samsara和Gusto这类公司时，它们都是三倍三倍增长，对吧？如果你看这些公司会说，等等，从1到3到9到27并不有趣，或者1到5到9到27，不管数学怎么算，都不够有趣。你得像1到15到20到100这样增长，而且它们都以收入为基础，比五年前我们认为最有趣的那些公司更有意思。这说明价值正集中在少数公司手中。

The internal conversation I had about this was, of course, it matters, but the normal has changed. When we did Samsara and Gusto and some of these companies that were like, yeah, triple triple, there you go, triple triple double double, right? If you look at these companies and say, wait a minute, going from one to three to nine to 27 is not interesting, or one to five to nine to 27 is not, whatever the math is, not interesting. You gotta go like one to 15 to 20 to a 100, and they're all on a revenue basis more interesting than the stuff we thought was the most interesting five years ago. That speaks to the way value concentrates in the hands of a few companies.

这说明底层技术具有极高的杠杆效应，当你真正做对产品时，它们能强力推动公司快速增长。这就是正在发生的事情。持久性是个问题。未知的是，我们从未在如此大规模下还能理所当然地认为持久性不成问题。而今天我们都在纠结什么问题？

That speaks to the fact that these technologies underneath are so high leverage that they're potent in making these companies grow fast when you actually get a product right. That's what's going on. Durability is a question. Like the thing that's unknown is, you know, we never had so much scale without kind of just taking durability for granted. And what's the question that we all grapple with today?

Lovable是一家了不起的公司，Anton做得非常出色。它会持续存在吗？Markkuur也是一家了不起的公司。那些持怀疑态度的人就是这么说的。而相信它的人，比如我们，对Merkur有着极大的信心。

Lovable is an amazing company, Anton's done a great job. Is that gonna be around? Markkuur is an amazing company. The people that are naysayers, that's what they say. The people that believe in it, like, you know, we have a huge conviction in Merkur.

我们认为，我们有自己的理论。所以大家都在某种程度上纠结这个问题，各自持有理论，有人会走运。我确实认为，这些快速增长的公司中有些最终也不会长久存在。

We think this you know, we have our own thesis. So it's sort of everybody's kind of grappling with this and we all have our theories and people will get lucky. And I do think some of these companies that grow really fast in this will also not be around.

真有趣。我和Scale的罗里·奥德里斯科尔是很好的朋友，我认为他是最

So funny. I'm very good friends with Rory O'Driscoll from Scale, who I think is one of

具

the most

战略眼光但

brilliantly strategic but

她是SaaS领域的元老级人物。

She's SaaS OG.

没错。我从他身上学到很多。他说，在AI时代，市场进入策略已经彻底改变——粗暴地说，只要你冲进市场，成为房间里声音最大的那个，抢占用户心智，然后兑现承诺就行。Harvey和Abridge就是绝佳案例。

Yeah. Exactly. And I learned from him a lot. And he said, like, the go to market's fundamentally changed in the world of AI, where bluntly, it's a case if you just go into a market, scream the loudest in the room, gain mindshare, and deliver from there. Your Harvey's, your Abridges are great examples of that.

你认同吗？所以，如果

Do you agree with that? So, you know, if

你看Harvey或投资了Legora和Yudia的机构如何占领法律科技市场。他们不只是嗓门最大。我认为AI带来的关键变化是——每个行业、每个国家的CEO首次都在思考如何应用这项技术。云计算时代可没这种盛况。

you look at Harvey or who invested in Legora and Yudia, take the legal space. It's not just that they screamed the loudest and they wanted. I think the interesting thing that has happened with AI, I wanna go back to sort of one important observation, which is for the first time, every CEO in every industry, in every country is thinking about what do I do with this technology. Never happened before. Cloud wasn't like that.

当然，个人电脑最初并非如此，互联网也不是这样。人们都在想，这东西能用来做什么？对吧？于是突然间，每个部门都有人早早冒出来，四处奔走，与客户产生了共鸣。

Certainly, PCs weren't like that. Internet wasn't like that. Everybody's like, what do I do with this? Right? So all of a sudden in every department, people popped up early and they got to go around and there was resonance with the customers.

最早期的公司并没有那么多布道式的宣传。大家只是想要参与其中。这就是为什么这些公司能迅速获得初始动力，但我想回到我的第二行动者优势这个话题。后来我创立的某些公司有机会退后一步思考，意识到现在有了更好的技术，我们认为价值主张需要更完善。在Zaikai的初期扩散确实非常快，但实际部署阶段，正如我之前提到的，人们会困惑——我们到底该怎么用这东西？

There wasn't as much evangelism for the earliest companies. Everybody just wanted to engage. So that's why these companies got initial momentum so fast, but then I wanna go back to my second mover advantage. But some of the ones that I've started after had a chance to take a step back and be like, oh wait, there's a better technology now and I think we've learned the proposition needs to be better. The initial diffusion in the Zaikai was really fast, but the actual deployment, to my earlier points, were like, you know, people are like, well, how do we really use this?

这正是现在新一代公司更精于此道的地方。那些早期行动者的优势是否真的能在某些公司中确立？我认为仍有待观察。

And that's where now this next generation of companies that are coming out just more sophisticated at that. Is the early mover advantage in some of those companies really gonna take hold or not? I think it remains TBD.

那么以今天的眼光看，'三倍三倍两倍两倍'的增长模式已经消亡了吗？

So when you look today, is triple triple double double dead?

'三倍三倍两倍两倍'绝对过时了。我明确告诉投资者们，别拿这套说辞来找我。

Triple triple double double is definitely dead. I I tell our investors, don't bring that to me. What do

你如何对待现有的这批SaaS公司？我希望你持有它们，因为我确实持有——这些都是优质企业。

you do with the generation of SaaS companies you have? I I hope you have it because I have it. They're good companies.

它们确实是好公司。强调一下，这些是优质企业，具有持久生命力，会长期存在。这里我要特别认可Pranav和我们团队的洞察力——他指出风投现在不喜欢这类公司，因为它们只有20%的增长，不够爆发式，没人愿意投资。但这些公司凝聚着创始人的毕生心血。

They're good companies. By the they're good companies, they're durable companies, they're gonna be around. And this is actually an observation I give Pranav and our team a lot of credit. He sort of said, hey, these companies, venture capital doesn't like them anymore because they grow 20% and they're not hyper growths, nobody wants to fund them. But there are some founders' lives work.

如果你为他们提供替代方式来坚持和扩展，他们就会这么做。他们会创造价值，只是需要更长时间。这正是我们确保客户价值基金也支持这类创始人的原因。我们当然希望支持风投中增长最快的公司，也包括那些基本面良好、在不投资销售和营销时仍能盈利的企业，并为他们提供资本来扩展销售和营销。这就是客户价值策略的作用，它完全专注于那些值得坚持和复利的创始人，因为他们的公司优秀，客户喜爱，他们正在成长，只是不在风口浪尖上。

And if you give them alternate ways to endure and scale, they will. And they will create value, it'll just take longer. And that's where we actually have also made sure our customer value fund supports those types of founders as well. We obviously wanna support the fastest growing companies in venture, also the ones that are fundamentally good businesses that are profitable if they were not investing in sales and marketing, and give them capital to scale their sales and marketing. That's what customer value strategy does, and it's entirely focused on those founders deserve to endure and compound because their companies are good, their customers like them, they're they're growing, they're just not in the zeitgeist.

我从未在工作中感到如此多的不确定性。我试图理解，这几乎像新冠疫情时期，我们突然出现了这些高度短暂的类别，比如，它们是会保留下来，让我们整天在家用Peloton锻炼，还是我们会回到健身房？你不知道哪些市场会持久强劲，哪些不会，我觉得现在就是这种情况。你在投资中是否曾感到如此不确定？你会给我什么建议？

I've never felt so much uncertainty in what I do. I am trying to understand, it almost feels like COVID, where we had these highly transient categories that were created, it's like, do they remain and we actually just do exercises at home all day on pelotons, or do we go back to gyms? You didn't know what would be enduring strong markets and not, and I feel that is the case here. Have you ever felt such uncertainty in investing? And what would you advise me?

我会给你和我们在GC遵循的相同建议。这是极度模糊的时期。因此，我们支持创始人所做的一切，你所做的一切，比如你向我展示的许多支持创始人的酷炫方式，让他们兴奋起来。我们为支持创始人创造的所有产品和解决方案。问题是，这一切的最终目的是什么？

I'll give you the same advice that we follow here at GC. This is peak ambiguity. And so everything we do to support founders, everything you do, you know, you were showing me a lot of your cool ways of supporting founders, get them excited. All the products and the solutions we have created to support the founders. The question is to what end?

我认为，在一个充满模糊性的世界中，拥有一套你真正相信的长期原则，是你唯一可以依靠的。应对模糊性的方法就是拥有一个真正的方向。在美国，我们有一个巨大的运动，旨在改变后疫情时代的医疗保健。因此，我们在医疗保健领域所做的一切，都会回到这个问题：这个决定会让医疗保健变得更主动、更经济、更可及吗？在欧洲，Jeanette的工作很大程度上是关于欧洲在人工智能领域的韧性。

And I think having a true sense of long term set of principles that you believe in, in a world of ambiguity, that's all you can lean on. The way you navigate ambiguity is by having with having a true north. In The US, we have this enormous movement towards transforming health care post pandemic. And and so everything we do in health care, we go back to saying, is this decision gonna make it proactive, affordable, accessible, or not? In Europe, the work that Jeanette is doing is very much about Europe's resilience with AI.

因此，我们所做的一切，我们都会审视并问：这会增强这里的经济韧性吗？无论是投资决策、关系决策还是合作伙伴决策。拥有这样一种方向感，让你与价值观保持一致，是你唯一可以依靠的。不确定性如此之多，这非常困难。

So everything we do, we sort of look at it and say, is this gonna make the economy here more resilient? And sort of this investment decision or this relationship decision or this partnership decision or not. And sort of having that kind of a sense of where you're going so you're directionally aligned with your values is the only thing you can lean on. And there's so much uncertainty. It's so difficult.

我为在这个时代学习的投资者感到难过，因为判断你的决策是对是错的信号，在某种程度上根本不存在。你只能依靠这种强劲的收入增长，但没有持久性，然后你还有

I feel bad for investors that are learning in this era because the signals to determine if your decisions were right or wrong, you in some ways have none. You have this again, you have this great revenue growth to lean on, but no durability, and then you have

然后你还有出色的利润结构。

And then you have great margin structures.

所以这就像你必须以价值观为导向。你必须清楚自己真正想要实现什么。在GC，我们说要与人们建立深厚的关系，建立持久的公司，我们这样做是为了改变全球的行业。那么这带来了什么？它让我们的创始人能够接触到人才、政策智慧、分销渠道以及差异化的资本。

So it's like you have to be values oriented. You have to have a sense for what am I really trying to do. At GC, we say we build deep relationships with people, we build enduring companies, and we're doing that to transform industries across the world. And and what does that do? It gives our founders access to talent, access to policy sophistication, access to distribution, and access to differentiated capital.

如果我们为创始人提供所有这些，并且我们有一套价值观来引领这些行业，我想我们会做得很好。我们试图对此保持信心，我也希望每个人都思考这一点，因为我确实认为我们正在构建未来。这是一个令人惊叹的时代。我们将塑造这个社会未来可能一百年的面貌。我的意思是，这种转变就像一百五十年前电力的出现一样重大。

If we give founders all of that and we have a set of values with which we wanna march down these industries, I think we'll be okay. We're trying to take faith in that and I I I would sort of have everybody think about that because I do think we are building the future. It's an amazing time. We will shape what this society is gonna look like for probably a hundred years. I mean, this shift is as big as what electricity was, you know, hundred hundred fifty years ago.

我们有能力塑造它，但我认为我们必须做出这些决定。你希望它是什么样子？我认为在我们做出短期决策时，在我们应对FOMO（害怕错过）时，在我们考虑如何扩展业务、如何支持创始人、选择做哪些事和不做哪些事时，这种意图性应该始终在我们脑海中，因为机会远比我们任何人能做的要多。我们需要一个真正的方向指引。

We get to shape it, but I think we we have to make those decisions. What do you want this to look like? And I think that intentionality should always be in the back of our minds as we make the short term decisions, as we deal with FOMO, as we deal with how are we scaling our business, how are we supporting our founders, what are the kinds of things we choose to do and not to do, because there's way more opportunity than anyone of us can do. We need a true north.

你不断提到市场的指数级规模或我们面对的疯狂市场规模。这让我想到巴菲特或芒格的一句话：以合理的价格买入一家优秀的公司，远胜过以极好的价格买入一家不错的公司。如果市场是万亿美元规模，对价格敏感还有意义吗？

You continuously mentioned the exponential market size or the insane market size that we have. It makes me think of a it's either a Buffett or a Munger quote that it's better to buy a great business at a good price than a good business at a great price. Is there any point in being price sensitive if markets are a trillion dollars?

你知道，我的合伙人乔尔·卡特勒常说，价格只会痛一次。就像买一个古驰包，价格只会痛一次，但你永远不会后悔。

You know, one of my partners, Joel Cutler, used to say price only hurts once. It's like buying a Gucci bag. Price only hurts once, but then you'll never regret it.

太真实了。每当我看到我母亲拎着香奈儿包，我就会想起它造成的经济窟窿。好吧，好吧，

Stop true. Whenever I see my mother with a Chanel bag, I'm reminded of the dent it caused. Well well,

我认为这个俏皮的评论里其实有智慧，首先，我们什么时候真正把握准过价格？我从事这行二十五年了，我们见过所有模型。我还没见过哪个投资者——至少在我们公司——能像他们预期的那样精准定价。通常情况更糟，而我们赚到钱的时候都是因为结果比预期好。

I think I think there's actually wisdom in that comment even though it's a cheeky comment, which is, first of all, when did we ever get price right? I have been doing this for twenty five years. We've seen all these models. I am yet to see some investor, at least in our firm, ever nail price in the way they thought it was gonna be. Usually worse than that, and we make all the money when it's better than what we thought.

所以如果钱都是靠比预期更好的方式赚来的，比如利用价格作为筛选标准，投资者用价格作为拒绝的理由，因为他们无法在其他方面建立信心，这只会让他们显得务实。当有人说‘我喜欢这家公司，但不喜欢它的价格’时，我会非常恼火。我就想，那你其实并不确定是否真的喜欢这家公司。你只是在自我安慰，试图表现得像个价格纪律严明的投资者，因为你并未真正理解这家公司的潜力，看不到它未来会怎样。如果它注定伟大，那么

So if it's if money's all made in what's better than we thought, like, using price to pass, investors use price as a reason to pass because they couldn't gain conviction elsewhere, and this just makes them sound pragmatic. I get very ticked off when somebody says, I love this company, but I don't like the price. I'm just like, well then, you don't know if you love this company. You're just taking solace and trying to be like him, a price disciplined investor, because you didn't really understand the potential of this company to see what it's actually gonna be. If it's gonna be destined for greatness, then

就大胆投入。如果是家上限有限的公司呢？好吧，让我给你分析一下。有些数据——我现编的。

jump in. What about if it's a capped upside company? Okay. Let me just walk you through this. There's a data I'm just making this up.

一家提供超级有趣数据的公司，你会想，好吧，这生意不错，我很容易看到20亿到40亿美元的结果，无论是被战略收购还是上市，而我以8000万美元的估值进入。这是赚大钱的好机会。早期投资可能有25倍回报，投1000万美元几乎能收回整个基金。很棒。

Super interesting data providing company, and you're like, okay. But this is a good business, and I can easily see a 2 to $4,000,000,000 outcome here either to a strategic or as a public company, and I'm getting in at 80,000,000 pre. That's a great way to make a lot of money. It's a potential 25 x on an early stage check, and in a $10,000,000 check, I can return my fund almost. Great.

但如果估值是1.4亿美元，和8000万就大不相同了。倍数关系。

But if it's $1.40, it's very different to 80. The multiples.

百分百正确。但我们说这些时指的是‘上限有限的公司’。什么意思？当我投资Stripe时，所有我咨询的新支付领域的人都说，这是小众市场。你为什么要做这个？

A 100% right. But we say these things as a capped upside company. What does that mean? When my next investor in Stripe, all the guys that I called at new payments were like, this is a niche thing. Like, why are you doing it?

不骗你。我当时就想，我就是不想听专家们对他们所在行业的看法。市场也会扩张。所以这行需要的谦逊还包括明白我们无法预知未来。如果真是上限有限，那你本就不该参与。

I kid you not. I was like, you know, I just don't wanna listen to the experts about what they think their industries is or is going to be. Markets expand also. So the humility in this business also is just understanding we don't know what's gonna happen in the future. If it's truly a captive site, then you shouldn't be doing it anyways.

这不是价格问题。我们从事的是试图建立和支持能成为持久、非常庞大的企业。这像是前提条件。我觉得人们陷入困境，要么因为他们的公司完全平庸，连20亿到40亿美元都不值，要么公司其实很棒，但你不愿放开想象，因为你不愿相信世界未来的模样。

It's not a price question. Like, we're in the business of trying to build and back companies that can become, you know, enduring very, very large businesses. That's like a precondition. I feel like people get stuck either because their companies are just completely mediocre, and they're not even gonna be worth 2 to 4,000,000,000, or they're actually great, and you're not willing to stretch because you're not willing to believe what the world's gonna look like.

我总想起彼得·蒂尔最大的投资失误，就是没有参与Facebook的下一轮融资。

I always think of Peter Thiel's biggest investing mistake, which was not doing the next round in Facebook.

是啊。

Yeah.

你有没有过这样的经历——事后回想时才发现，某家公司的后续轮次其实应该跟投？

When did you not do the next round in a company that with the benefit of hindsight, you're like, oh, I should have done?

我的失误多得说不完，但可以举个最近的例子。有家现在估值百亿的公司，我特意打电话恭喜领投的GC投资人：'你这笔投资能赚十亿以上，但同时也是个蠢货——因为你放弃了再赚十亿的机会。为什么？'

I I don't think we have time for all my mistakes, but I'll I'll give you a very recent example. We have a company that's, you know, a Decacorn now and actually called the investor who led it at GC saying, congratulations. You're gonna make over a billion dollars on this investment, and you're an idiot because you you gave up not making the second billion. You gave up making the second billion. Why?

因为你没有加注。重大失误往往发生在这里。明白吗？就像我之前提到的Stripe，我前后投了14次——这才是正确做法。

Because you didn't double down. That is where you can get a lot of it wrong. Right? I mentioned earlier in Stripe, I've invested 14 times. That's what it takes.

对于顶尖企业，你就该持续加码。这才是扩大资金规模的真正意义——不是为了薄利多销，而是为了能全力押注最好的项目。超额回报永远来自你最看好的企业。

If you're the best companies, you really should be buying into them constantly. In fact, that's the reason to scale capital. The reason to scale capital isn't to be a low margin business. It's because you wanna have capital to pull the very best ones and really lean into them. That's ultimately where you drive you return your best businesses.

这需要勇气、信念和对市场变革的判断力。你担心资金过于集中吗？我投资过约200家公司，但过去25年60-70%的回报来自其中10家。资本集中才是创造超额收益的途径。

And that requires courage, conviction, belief in how markets are gonna change. Do you worry about capital concentration limits? I have invested in I don't know the exact number. Probably over 200 companies, and sixty, seventy percent is, 10 companies over twenty five years. Capital concentration is the way you drive return.

哪个单一项目你必须押对。

Which single You just gotta be right.

你资金最集中的是哪一家公司？

Which single company are you most capital concentrated in?

Stripe。你知道的，大约十亿美元。

Stripe. You know, it's about a billion dollars.

跨基金投资是扯淡吗？有限合伙人经常担心这个，不喜欢这样操作。

Is cross fund investing concerns bullshit? LPs often worry about it, don't like it.

跨基金确实是个重要考量因素。我们在跨基金前会深思熟虑，但确实会这么做。我们要确保你在原基金中已配置足够资金，对所承担风险感到不安时才会跨基金。如果你真正看好某个项目，应该先让它成为当前基金的最大持仓之一，再考虑跨基金。我尽量控制在单支基金里对单一公司的投资不超过10%到15%。

Well, cross fund is an important consideration. We do think a lot about before we cross fund, but we do cross funds. We wanna make sure you have done enough capital to work in the fund that it's in, where you feel uncomfortable about the risk you're taking before you cross it. If you really believe in something, you wanna make sure that becomes one of your largest positions in that fund before you go to the next fund. I try not to have more than 10 to 15% in a single company in a fund.

所以到某个阶段，确实需要跨基金。如果是真正伟大的公司，你会被迫跨基金，因为应该让多支基金都从中受益。

So at some point, it does. If it's truly a great company, you will be forced to cross because you should have multiple funds benefit from that.

我一直记得布莱恩·辛格说过：资金集中度限制是伟大风投回报的天敌，所以我们经常会在单个公司押注30%。我当时想，哇，我需要更多勇气。

I always remember Brian Singer saying capital concentration limits are the enemy of great venture returns, which is why we'll often have 30% in a single company. And I thought, wow. I I need to get more courage.

是的。我认为专注是成为优秀投资者的关键。我真心相信这一点。

Yeah. I mean, concentration is key to being great at investing. I genuinely believe that.

当公司上市时，你可以选择是否分配股份。你认为在上市后管理这些头寸方面，你比有限合伙人（LPs）更合适吗？

When companies go public, you have the choice to distribute or not. How do you think about whether you are better placed than your LPs to manage those positions once going public?

我总是从多个角度考虑。一是，我们的时间投入是否重要？如果我们继续在这家公司上花费时间，是否会对未来的复利增长产生影响？比如我们早期投资的一些项目，如果你想继续持有并参与管理，这是合理的。另一个考量是我们应该持有多久才能确保为该基金创造最佳回报？

I always look at it as it's a variety of things. One is, will our time matter? If our time continues to be spent on this company, will it matter in terms of compounding from here or not? So some of the ones we started, for example, that would make sense if you wanna stay on and do that. The other thing I look at is how long should we hold it to make sure we drive the best returns for that fund?

考虑到我们对有限合伙人的承诺，这家公司是否应该通过持续复利增长来创造回报并推动业绩表现？因为许多有限合伙人会区分公开市场和私募市场的投资组合。如果你给他们股票，他们可能会程序化地卖出。我们希望确保在真正捕获足够价值的时间点将股份分配给他们。这是我们在这种背景下考虑的另一个因素。

Is this the company that should be compounding most to keep generating returns and driving performance given our commitments to the LPs? Because a lot the LPs will have their public sleeve and their private sleeve. You give them stock, they'll sell it, and it's like programmatic for them. We wanna make sure we give it to them at a point where we've really captured enough value. So that's another factor we think about in that context.

这意味着你

Which suggests you

确实认为自己比他们更擅长管理这些头寸。

do think you're better at managing it than them.

嗯，我的意思是他们可能并没有在积极管理这些资产。

Well, they may not be managing it, is what I'm saying there.

但通过出售股票，他们正在设法应对

But by selling it, they're managing

这已经超出了程序化范畴——在他们的私人持股部分，他们根本不打算长期持有，而且私募团队基本上被告知一旦获得股票就立即抛售。另外一点是，在我们领投的公司中，当我们主导其上市时，我们会持有大量股票。在分配股票时也必须有所节制，因为一次性抛售过多可能会打压股价，进而影响整体收益。所以我认为还存在一个如何有序变现的节奏问题。

it have out of programmatic, that in their private sleeve, they're just not gonna hold it, and the privates team is basically told that once you get stock you sell. And also the other thing is you wanna in our lead companies where we lead, where we go public, we have a lot of stock. You also have to be measured in how you distribute stock because doing too much at one time, you'll you could also hurt the prices of stock, which hurts the rest of it. So I think there's also a pacing question of how do you liquidate.

您如何看待二级市场的运作？考虑到像OpenAI这样的企业极有可能成为万亿美元市值的非上市公司，当公开市场有时不存在时，您认为该如何应对二级市场？

How do you think about navigating secondary markets? You know, when we look at there's a very strong chance that we have a trillion dollar private company in an OpenAI of the world. How do you think about navigating secondary markets when public market is sometimes not there?

听着，我认为对于最顶尖的企业来说，私募市场的运作方式与公开市场无异。存在二级市场可以变现，股东和员工都能获得流动性，企业能获得信贷支持，可以进行并购，股票价值也获得市场认可——我说的是像Stripe、SpaceX这样的企业，OpenAI正在朝这个方向发展，Anthropic等公司也是如此，对吧？

Well, look. I think for the very best companies, private markets behave like public markets. There's a secondary market. You can liquidate, so your shareholders can take liquidity, your employees can take liquidity, you have access to credit, you can do M and A, your stocks value, you know, your valuations believed. I'm talking about the bit of stripes, SpaceXs, I OpenAI is gonna get there, Anthropic and so on, right?

像Databricks这样的优秀企业也在逐步接近这个水平。最顶尖的企业已经实现了这种状态。然后是那些非常优秀但算不上前10或15名的企业，也就是所谓的'非凡十强'之外的优质私企。对这些企业而言，上市获得市场认可可能更有帮助。或许因为二级市场表现不佳，或者它们无法高效进行并购，又或者需要比私募市场能提供的更大规模资金。

So the very bad Databricks is getting there slowly. So the very best, that's what happened. Then there's the very good companies, but not let's say, the top 10 or 15 private ones, not the magnificent private 10, if you will. For them, going public and getting validated actually could be more helpful. It may be that the secondary market isn't behaving as well or they can't do m and a as effectively or they need to access a lot more capital than they can just being in the private markets.

我认为正是这些考量最终推动企业选择上市。此外还存在我之前说的那批数量庞大的企业——它们是优质公司，可能永远保持25%的复合增长率，但由于规模太小无法进入公开市场（它们不是年增长30%的十亿美元级别公司，难以引起公开市场兴趣），发展速度又不足以吸引风投。这个中间地带正是需要创新的领域，也是客户价值基金存在的意义——帮助这些企业达到未来能够上市的规模。

And I think those decisions are what ultimately then push you to go public. And then there is the, as I said, this bloated set of companies that are good companies that will compound at 25% maybe forever, that have no access to public market because they're too small. They're not a billion dollar company growing 30% a year that the public markets, you know, would be excited about, and they're too slow for venture to fund. And that's the purgatory where we need innovation, and that's where the customer value fund resides to, like, help these companies get to that scale so they can go public someday.

私募市场的扩张是否正在加剧社会财富分配的不平等？过去是富达、T. Rowe Price这些机构管理着全球养老金，我祖父母那代人只需支付20、30或40个基点的费用。而现在随着私募市场扩张，资金管理者却能收取2%管理费和20%利润分成。

Is the extension of private markets not an increasingly harmful thing to the distribution of wealth in society. When we look at the before, it would be your fidelities, your tea rose, and the pensioners of the world. My grandparents would pay them 20 bips, 30 bips, 40 bips. And now with the extension of private markets, you get money and get two and twenty.

2018年我出版第一本书《Unscaled》时，邀请先锋集团高管来访，他们谈到：普通投资者无法接触这类资产类别。于是2018年我不断思考：如何实现这一点？如何真正向散户开放我们的基金？随着401k条款变更和《40号法案》的演进，如今这已成为可能。因此我完全预期将出现让散户投资顶尖科技公司的产品，我们必将参与其中——因为这本身就是正确的事。

When I published my first book, Unscaled, in 2018, I had the leadership of Vanguard come by, and they talked about, look, Main Street doesn't have access to this asset class. So I spent a lot of time in 2018 saying, how do we do that? How do we actually give retail access to our funds? Now with four zero one k changes and some of the 40 act evolution, you actually can do that. So I fully expect that you will start seeing products that give retail access to the best companies in technology, and we will definitely engage in that because it's the right thing to do.

你认同这个观点吗？当我看到拉方特夫妇讨论时，不禁感叹：干得漂亮！但转念又想：这不正是我们追求的吗？投资渠道的民主化。

Do you agree with that? Like, when I saw the LaFontes talk about this, I was like, oh, wow, guys. Well done. And and then part of me is like, well, isn't that what we want? The democratization of access.

当然。我认为这是双赢局面。既为科技投资打开了庞大资金池，也为原本无缘于此的人们创造了巨大机遇。我们不必以'暗箱操作'的心态看待这件事——

Yeah. Look. I think everybody wins in this. You open up large pools of capital for investing in technology, but you also open up large pools of opportunity for people that don't have it otherwise. So, like, we don't need to look at it as, oh, we're doing it because it's sneaky.

这对世界有益，我们就该去做。若出现超额认购，就该为此腾出空间。关键在于：当基金吸纳资金超过预期时，你是否愿意接纳？我的主张是：我们必须为普通投资者保留席位。

I think it's good for the world and we should do it, and if you're oversubscribed, make room for it. That's where this matters, which is when you have more capital than you wanna take on in a fund, would you let it in or not? And what I'm saying is that we should be making room for

你认为费率结构需要调整吗？

Do you think fee structures need to change?

我最看重的是业绩表现。开场就说过：衡量我们作为种子基金的标准是——核心定位是否正确？是否从事高风险高回报的工作？是否在最早期扶持创业者？保持卓越绩效才是关键。

I am very much focused on performance as the number one thing. That's why I said in the beginning that I measure us as how good a seed firm as we are in the context of everything we do is, like, is our core right? Are we doing the highest risk, highest reward work? Are we helping founders in the earliest stages? So you wanna stay high performance.

若要维持卓越绩效，激励机制就该更侧重创造超额收益、为团队谋福祉，而非收取管理费——后者反而可能分散精力。顺带一提，我们企业将所有管理费重新投入运营，这是根深蒂固的理念：我们不希望基金合伙人因追求更高分红而盲目扩大规模。所有收益都会反哺业务发展。

And if you wanna stay high performance, then your incentive should be much more focused on generating carry and making it a prosperous place for your team than generating fees, which to me can be a distraction. By the way, we you know, just to say, like, our business, we don't distribute any fees. We invest everything back in the business, and that's a deep belief that we don't wanna be in the game where the partners of the funds at General Catalyst want bigger and bigger funds because they can take, you know, bigger and bigger distributions. Whatever fees we get, we invest it back in the business.

恕我直言，合伙人不是能赚个300万或500万美元吗？

I'm so sorry to be so blunt, but don't partners make, like, 3 or $5,000,000?

比那要少。

Less than that.

你担心吸引不到顶尖合伙人吗？因为他们在其他基金能拿到那样的报酬。

You worry that you're not gonna get the best partners? Because they are getting that at alternate funds.

这取决于他们是否注重绩效与薪资。我认为这本身就是一道筛选门槛。而我的承诺是：只要你实现目标，达成理想，你赚的钱会比在其他任何地方都多。但前提是目标必须一致。我们必须专注于绩效和价值创造，而不是满足于丰厚安逸的薪水。

Depends on if they're focused on performance and salary. I think that that to me is a filter. And my commitment is that you go deliver, you know, your dream and you'll make more money than anywhere else. But it's gotta be aligned. We gotta be focused on performance and value creation versus being rich and fat and happy salaries.

那绝不是我们想要的文化。

That is just not the culture we want.

你认为风投生态系统的其他机构也秉持相同理念吗？

Do you think that is the same or reflective of the rest of the venture ecosystem?

不清楚，我从不关注这些。

I have no idea. I pay no attention to it.

你不知道？不。你难道不关注你的竞争对手吗？

You don't? No. You Do not pay attention to your competitors?

我不知道那里的人拿多少薪水。我不知道。哪些竞争对手

I don't know what people get paid there. I don't. Which competitors

是你最尊敬的？

do you most respect?

所有的。他们都让我们变得更好。

All of them. They all make us better.

如果要你选一个，我可以说，比如欧洲的point nine。我认为point nine在欧洲做得非常出色，真正在他们行业中开辟了一片天地，并且清楚那类交易的本质。

If you were to choose one so I could say, like, point nine. I think point nine in Europe have done an incredible job really carving out their industry and knowing what is that type of deal.

安迪·戈尔登，他曾管理普林斯顿大学捐赠基金，现在和我们有一些合作，他在我帮助建立GC的过程中对我影响巨大。他总是说，跑你自己的比赛。实际上，我即将出版的书里有一章就是讲这个的，比如，玩你自己的游戏。

Andy Golden, who ran the Princeton Endowment, and he's doing some stuff with us now, he had a huge impact on me as I was helping build GC. He always said run your own race. It's actually a chapter in my upcoming book is about that, like, play your own game.

你不认为你可以从别人那里学习吗？

Do you not think you can learn from others?

不。我想向他人学习，但不想参与风投领域的零和竞争游戏。

No. I wanna learn from others, but I don't wanna be in the game of we're competing in the zero sum game of venture capital.

当你审视为创业者提供的产品线时——你们现在有覆盖欧洲、印度和美国各地区的多元产品，从种子轮到成长期，从客户价值基金到并购整合。你们还缺什么想开发的产品？比如是否有类似Square遗产或财富管理业务？

When you look at that product that you give to founders, you have a lot of products now from, you know, the geos of your Europe and your Indias and your USs to the seed, to the growth, to the customer value, to the roll ups. What product do you not have that you would like to have? Do you have, like, a Square heritage or a wealth management business?

我们确实

We do. Of

当然，你们有。

course, you do.

是的。实际上这块业务增长迅猛，目前已颇具规模。说实话我们有个产品路线图，我始终关注创业者真正需要什么。

We do. And that's actually growing rapidly. It's a fairly large business at this point. We have a roadmap, to be honest. And I always look at it as what do the founders need?

我们制定了未来可能尝试的产品构想清单，会逐步验证是否应该引入。目前我们主要有三大产品线：从种子轮开始的风投基金、客户价值基金，以及通过并购整合和从零孵化来创建企业的'创造'业务——本质上我们更像是建设者。

And we have a roadmap of things that we think about, you know, that we will over time experiment with and see if we should bring in. I mean, we have really three products. Right? We have venture capital, starting with seed. We have customer value fund, and we have creation, which is where we do the roll ups and hatches, building companies from scratch, sort of being really builders.

现阶段我们拥有这三类核心产品。

We have three products today.

但你最想拥有哪一个呢？

But which one would you most like to have?

我认为我们需要解决基础设施问题。在人工智能竞赛中，我目前重点学习并处于早期思考阶段的是：要正确发展AI，必须先解决好能源问题。这是众所周知的。若深入思考能源领域，伴随所有新需求的出现，这实际上也是一个以盈利方式迈向可持续发展的绝佳机会。但短期内，可持续解决方案尚不存在。

I think we need to figure out infrastructure. The race in AI, the thing that I'm very focused on learning about and we're early in our thinking is, in order to get AI right, you have to get energy right. Everybody knows this. And if you think about energy, it's a really interesting opportunity with all the new demand to actually move towards sustainability profitably as well. But in the short term, you don't have sustainable solutions.

以美国为例，你们真正依赖的是天然气。那么我们该如何规划能源发展路径来真正支撑AI发展？这是个基础设施问题。就像我常想的——如果我们重视用AI改变世界（要知道我们所有的转型工作都是关于用AI改造全球各行业和企业），那么就必须解决能源问题。

You really have natural gas in The US, for example. So what is that arc with which we're gonna think about energy to really get AI right? That's an infrastructure problem. That's an example of something I'm like, well, if we care about using AI to change the world, you know, all of our transformation work is about transforming industries, businesses with AI all over the world, then we need to figure out what to do with energy.

你如何看待不同产品线对资本供给基础的变革需求？我主要活跃在捐赠基金基金会领域，这个圈子很美好，但当你跨产品线时情况会剧烈变化吗？

How do you think about how you need to change the capital supply base with the different products? I very much operate in the Endowment Fund Foundation world, which is lovely and nice, but does it change drastically when you move across products?

这是个很好的问题。当我们经历GC领导层更迭时——从David、Joel和我共同运营业务（过去十年大部分时间如此），再到我接任CEO——同期我们的有限合伙人基础也经历了有趣演变。那些主导的基金会（其中许多是我们重要支持者，我视他们为团队一部分）原本坚持"单策略专精"理念。而我们的战略突破是提出：不，我们需要整合所有能助力创业者成功的策略，你们投资我们就是为了这个目标。经过游说，他们最终接受了这个理念。随后我们引入了大量美国各州养老基金，因为正如你所说，确保为全体美国人创造财富也是重要动机。

It's a great question, because I think as we went through the succession at GC from David, Joel, and me running the business sort of most of last decade together, the two of them before that, to me taking on as CEO, I think at that same time, we also we had a succession from a leadership standpoint, you know, Ken Chenal came in, became our chairman, mentored me, but also had an interesting evolution of our LP base. Because the LP the Indominate Foundations, which many of them are huge backers of us are of ours and I consider them sort of really part of our team, The mindset there was we want managers to be dedicated in single strategies, and we will create the portfolio. The break in strategy we did was to say, well, no. We need to have all the strategies that make the founders successful, and you back us to make the founders successful, then we'll create And that's what we were on a campaign to convince enough of them to stay on with us and do that, and they did. Then we went and got a lot of the states in The US, states in pensions, because that part of it was, going back to your point, I wanna make sure we create wealth for everybody in The US, so that was like a motivator there as well.

现在我们正与主权基金深度合作，因为正如之前所言，AI正在改变国家形态——但这种关系需要更接近伙伴模式。我们协助他们思考区域发展战略，让我们成为其战略伙伴，他们则作为资本提供方。目前我们正在建立这类创新合作关系。

And now we're actually very deeply partnering with sovereigns as well because as I said earlier, the AI, the transformation of the countries, but there the relationship needs to be more of a partnership. We're helping them think about, hey, what you can be doing in your regions and let us be a strategic partner to you, and you be a capital provider to us, like we're doing the sort of interesting partnerships in that regard.

必须找主权基金合作，因为只有他们能开出十亿美元支票，不是吗？

And you have to go to sovereigns because they're the only ones who can write a billion dollar check. No?

某些州份同样可以，但这些领域都存在分级资本。关键在于你的工作如何契合他们的战略背景，而GC就像一个灵活的平台，人们可以在该背景下参与。正如我们之前开玩笑提到的，零售业是另一个即将开放的领域。对吧？目前约有16种零售资本——什么会促使零售业开放呢？

Some states can as well, but there is scaled capital in each of these areas. The key is how does your work fit in the context of their strategy, and GC is sort of a flexible platform where people can engage in that context. And as we were talking about cheeky jokingly before, retail's another one that's about to open up. Right? And there's like 16 retail capital that's What will cause retail to open?

零售业的开放体现在《40号法案》法规的调整上，体现在401k能否投资另类资产的变化上。它必将开放，也应该开放。我们需要负责任地将零售投资者引导至私募风险曲线的合适区间。我认为这至关重要。因此必须慎重考虑：如果我们未来推出GCO产品（目前尚未提供），怎样的方式才是正确的？

Retail is opening up in terms of the 40 act regulations, in terms of the changes in the can four zero one k invest in alts? It is gonna open up, and it should open up. And we need to be responsible about exposing retail to the right part of the risk curve in privates. I think it's very important that we do that. So being very thoughtful about if and when we do make GCO, we don't we don't do that today available, like, what would be the right way to do it?

我相信整个行业都会思考这个问题。在我看来，所有这些资金池已然存在。如果我们想为创业者提供恰当服务，让他们能获得各类资本和灵活的融资方案来建设公司，就必须与所有愿意支持不同业务环节的资本来源建立合作。

I think the whole industry is gonna think about that. So so in my view, all these pools are there, and I think if we are to service the founders the right way and have the capital and the flexible capital solutions all available for them to build their companies, that we need to engage with all these capital sources that are willing to support different parts of that stack.

零售资本开放时，会是涓涓细流还是洪水滔天？

When retail opens, is it a trickle or is it a flood?

最好是细水长流。它应该缓慢启动再逐步扩大。虽然最终规模会很大，但我们会保持谨慎。

Hopefully, a trickle. It sort of starts slowly and then scales. I do think it'll scale in a big way, but I think we should be we'll be careful.

因为我担心的是——回到你最初的观点——世上没有那么多帕特里克、约翰、萨姆或达里奥这样的天才。根本问题是：能定义时代的顶级企业家数量，无法匹配资金供给端的规模。情况只会更糟。我对零售开放不是欢呼'哇哦'，而是感叹'天啊'。

Because I worry when we go back to your very early statement that there's not many Patrick and John's or Sam's or Darrios. The problem is there's not enough truly generational defining entrepreneurs for the supply side of cash. That will only get worse. I'm not looking at retail opening up going, woo hoo. I'm going, wow.

局面即将变得更加艰难。

This is about to get harder.

没错。因此我认为，在我看来，零售投资可以开放成为规模化最优秀的公司之一。例如，Robinhood正在这方面努力，他们刚宣布将创建一种方式，让散户也能接触到一些顶级公司。我觉得这是最近的公告。

That's right. So I think retail can open up to be in the very best companies at scale, in my view. I think Robinhood is working on some work there, for example. And they just announced they're gonna create, like, a way to give retail access to some of the top companies as well. I think it's a recent announcement.

所以这是一点，我认为可以这样：让人们有机会投资SpaceX和Stripe，你不会后悔的。这对他们来说是好事，你会为此感到自豪。你不想做的是把散户资金投入那些亏损的风险投资基金的后25%，仅仅因为他们获得了准入。我认为资金需要谨慎流入，确保投向有回报的领域，而不是让散户陷入高风险、可能亏损的境地。

So that's one, which is I think there you could be, hey, giving people access to SpaceX and Stripe, you're not gonna regret it. It'll do right by them. You'll feel proud of it. What you don't wanna do is take retail and put it into the bottom quartile of the venture capital funds that lose money because they got access to it. Think that's where it needs to be trickling in to make sure it it goes where return we should not put retail into very high risk situations where they lose money.

我对此感受非常非常强烈。我们必须谨慎行事。因此，我认为在零售投资者接触我们这个资产类别时，风险需要沿着风险曲线逐步降低。

I, like, I feel very very strong about that. We have to be careful. So I think it needs to be trickling down the risk curve in terms of how retail accesses our asset class.

过去十年里，你做过哪些事后希望没做的事？不一定是交易，我更多指的是产品、策略或公司建设方面。

What did you do that you wish you hadn't done in the last ten years? It doesn't need to be deal I'm more thinking about, like, products, strategy, firm build.

你知道，我们文化的一个优点——我要归功于GC的创始人们——就是每当我有什么疯狂想法时，他们都支持。所以我通常都能去做大部分想做的事。但有一件事我回想起来会问自己：我是不是犯错了？当金融服务市场兴起时，我想着要投资最好的公司。我当时决定投资Stripe，但没投Square等其他公司。

You know, the good thing about our culture, and I give the founders of GC a lot of credit, is anytime I had a crazy idea, they supported it. So I've I've usually gone and have been able to do most of what I wanted to. There's one place I look back and say, did I make a mistake? When the financial services market took off, I was like, I wanna be in the best company. And I was like, let's invest in Stripe, but let's not do Square and whatever else.

当人工智能热潮来临时，我想的是要在风险调整后收益最大的地方下注。但事后看来，我们其实应该全面布局这个领域。像Jerry Miller等其他投资者在这方面做得很好，取得了巨大成功。我当时执着于'要做就做最好的'，想证明自己眼光独到。如果能重来，我会明白在某些领域，只要资金允许，采用指数化投资策略比在高度不确定的环境中挑选标的更明智。

And when the AI stuff happened, I was like, I wanna be where I think I can risk adjusted, make the most money. I think in hindsight, we should just go on and index those. You know, some of the other investors like Jerry Miller and others that did a great job at it and did very well. Was I focused on I wanna be the best, and I was like, see how good I am that I did the best one. And if I could go back, I would understand that in certain parts of the stack, indexing, if you can afford to, get the capital base to, is a better strategy than trying to pick in a world of peak ambiguity.

我是个学习速度慢的人。虽然在这个行业已经25年了，但直到现在我才开始更好地理解这一点。

And that's something that I'm a slow learner. I feel like I've been at it for twenty five years, and I'm starting to understand that better.

你现在已经转向那个领域了吗？

And you've moved to that now?

我还没有转向那个领域，但我会等待下一次机会。我在AI领域错过了。比如，我们的朋友Lightspeed在AI方面做得非常出色。我认为这对他们来说会非常顺利。

I have not moved to that, but I'm gonna wait to see the next time. I missed it in AI. Our friends at Lightspeed did a great job in AI, for example. I think it's gonna work out really well for them.

你为什么这么认为？

Why do you think that?

因为当你知道趋势会赢，但不知道哪个会赢时，支持所有趋势比试图挑选并认真参与却选错要好得多。这是一个非常难做且容易出错的决定。

Because when you know the trend's gonna win, but you don't know which one's gonna win, you're better off backing all of them than trying to pick and meaningfully play and get it wrong. That's a very hard decision to make and get it right.

你后悔当初因为结构问题有机会投资OpenAI却没有参与吗？

Do you regret not being in OpenAI when you had the chance to but didn't because of the structure?

这是我每天都会和自己以及我的合作伙伴讨论的话题。我确实后悔，因为如果我能坐在前排真正理解发生了什么，我们能学到的东西会多得多，我希望能有那样的机会。

This is a daily conversation I have with myself and with my partners. I mean, I do regret it because the amount of learning we would had if I was sort of at a front door seat really understanding what's going on, like, I wish I had that.

那会阻止你投资Anthropic吗？

Would it have prevented you from doing Anthropic?

我不这么认为。我认为有很多投资者同时持有这两家公司的股份。看看结构就知道了。许多人想得太复杂了，我也是。那个平台上正在发生许多改变世界的事情，而我却没有前排座位。

I don't think so. I I think there are plenty of investors that are in both companies. Look at structure. Many people overthought it, and I overthought it as well. And there's a lot going on that platform that's changing the world, and I don't have a front row seat.

所以，是的，我确实有点后悔。

So, yeah, I do regret that a little bit.

我们提到了对业绩的关注。Circle的IPO疯狂至极，它为基金带来了惊人的回报。那只基金的回报率如何？我们刚才在外面还聊到这事。

We mentioned focus on performance. Circle's IPO was nuts, and it did wonders for the fund in terms of returns. How did that fund return look? We were chatting about it outside.

是的。那只基金是我们两三个最佳基金之一。简单说说它的持仓——Livongo在里面，Snap在里面，Circle在里面，Gusto也在里面。

Yeah. That fund is one of our two or three best funds. And just to tell you what was in it, Livongo was in that. Snap was in that. Circle was in that, Gusto.

最终回报率可能会达到13到15倍。故事还没结束呢。所以

It's probably gonna end up being a 13 to 15 x fund. Story's not over yet. So