20VC：Anthropic vs 五角大楼：谁胜出？| OpenAI 获得1100亿美元巨额融资 | Cursor 年经常性收入达20亿美元 | Block 裁员40%：是AI驱动还是过度招聘？

我们选举的人，我敢说，我们的大多数政治领袖甚至都不理解人工智能是如何工作的。

We elect people I most don't of our political leaders even understand how AI works.

我不认为大多数人，尤其是X平台上的人，真正理解它是如何运作的。

I don't I don't think most of most of the folks, in general, even in on x, understand how it works.

他们不理解，完全不理解。

They don't they don't understand.

嘿，各位。

Well, hey, guys.

这里有逻辑，也有理性。

There's there's logic and there's rationality.

罗里，你在逻辑上是对的，但杰森在理性上是正确的。

You're logically right, Rory, but Jason is rationally correct

大多数人不同意。

in the majority of disagree.

但不，不是这样的。

But, no.

世界上大多数政府对人工智能及其部署和演进的了解都不足以做出明智的决策。

The majority of governments around the world are not sufficiently versed in artificial intelligence and deployment and evolution of it to make sound decisions.

我想我们都同意这一点。

I think we would all agree on that.

我不同意。

I wouldn't.

听好了。

Look.

根据定义，如果你在任何具体事务上依赖政府决策，专家懂得更多。

By definition, if you're running the government on any individual thing, experts know more.

你的职责不是成为专家。

Your job is not to be the expert.

你的职责是能够管理专家。

Your job is to be able to manage the experts.

对吧？

Right?

我认为，这本质上和新冠疫情期间人们盲目依赖科学时犯的错误是一样的。

And I think it's the same mistake, frankly, that folks made in COVID where they did defer to science.

不。

No.

应该是倾听科学，然后做出明智的判断。

It's listen to science and make informed judgments.

现在你可能会说，在不同时间做出这些判断的人，能力平庸甚至糟糕。

Now you might argue that the people making those judgments at various times have been mediocre or even bad at judgments.

但解决这个问题的方法是选举出更合适的人来做判断。

But the way to solve that is to elect different people to make judgments.

你可以说：我不信任美国政府，所以我不想和他们打交道。

You can say, I don't trust the US government, so I don't wanna deal with them.

但在他们启动《国防生产法》的那一刻，这种态度就不再完全合理了。

That's a totally rational thing to do up until the moment when they invoke the Defense Production Act.

对吧？

Right?

完全合理。

Totally rational.

但你不能一边想要两亿美元，一边还想要指导别人该怎么做。

But what you cannot do is say, I'd like my $200,000,000, but I'd like to tell you what to do as well.

关于这笔交易，有一个有趣的地方，我们先抛开其他不谈，然后我们继续往下说？

Just one interesting thing on the deal, just structurally, putting aside, and then and why don't we move on?

就像任何大型交易一样，它在签署之前根本不是在谈判的，对吧？

Like, it wasn't being negotiated before it was being signed, right, by by the nature of any big deal.

所以它是在去年夏天签署的。

So it was signed last summer.

这意味着Anthropic在那时可能已经接近十亿美元的年收入，但仍试图实现盈利。

That means Anthropic was probably closer to a billion dollar run rate and still trying to break it.

因为到2025年1月，它的收入就已经达到十亿美元了。

Because it was a billion dollars in January of of twenty twenty five.

是的。

Yeah.

是的。

Yeah.

所以签署了一笔2亿美元的交易，再加上来自Palantir的2亿美元资金支持。

So signing a $200,000,000 deal plus 200,000,000 from Palantir pull through.

明白吗？

Okay?

再加上阻止你的竞争对手与Palantir及其他公司合作，这在当时很可能是一笔非常重要的交易。

Plus blocking your competitor from Palantir and others, that was probably a pretty big deal at the time.

这很可能是一次他坦诚承认自己放弃了一些原则的交易，比如从主权财富基金筹集资金。

That was probably one where, like, he was honest that he swallowed some of his principles, like raising money from sovereign wealth countries.

但为了在企业市场取得胜利并构建这个云平台，这至关重要。

But it was so important to winning in the enterprise and building this cloud.

在估值大约十亿美元时承担这个风险，可能比在一百五十亿美元时更合理，因为那时你可能会想：‘天啊，人人都会说，把跟Palantir的那两亿、四亿都扔了吧。’

It probably actually made more sense to take the risk at a billion ish, right, than at 15,000,000,000, where you're like, oh, you know, everyone's gonna be like, throw away the 200, 400 with Palantir.

明白。

Okay.

两亿，两亿。

200, 200.

在十亿美元的营收规模下，这个决定更艰难。

Tougher decision at a billion run rate.

就像我们大多数投资组合公司一样，如果它们来找我们说，只要签个合同，今年就能多增长40%，我们通常更倾向于不签，但这完全合法。

Like most of our portfolio companies, if they came in and said, we can grow an extra 40% this year if we sign a contract, we'd kinda rather not sign, but it's totally legal.

而罗里，与其今年只增长60%却没有任何退出机会，不如增长110%。

And, Rory, instead of growing 60% this year and having no exit, we can grow 110%.

我认为大多数投资者都会说：签下这笔交易吧。

I think most investors are going to say, Take the deal.

放下你的自尊。

Swallow your pride.

所以，当时这比现在看起来更重要，我觉得。

So it was a bigger deal at the time than it is today, I think.

同意。

Agreed.

但说实话，刚才我说得有点严厉，现在我要夸一夸。

But actually genuine now having been harsh, I'm gonna compliment.

我认为这并不是因为他们当时急需资金，而现在不需要了。

I don't think this happened because they needed the money then and they don't need the money now.

我认为，就像生活中经常发生的那样，人们不知不觉陷入了一种没人真正认真考虑过的情况，最终却来到了这个位置，尽管这根本不是他们的本意。

I think like often happens in life, people drifted into a situation that nobody fully thought true, and then you end up at this point even though you didn't plan to be there.

我确信，最初这段关系其实是Palantir主动建立的。

I'm sure I think actually the relationship happened initially by Palantir.

所以他们当时像对待一个绝佳客户那样向Palantir销售产品。

So they were selling to Palantir as one would, a great customer to sell to.

Palantir的客户是政府，一旦被牵扯进去，你可能会想，这应该没什么大不了的。

Palantir sells to the government, you get dragged in, and you probably sit there thinking, well, that'll be reasonable.

我们会去和他们聊聊我们的运营方式。

We'll go and talk to them about how we operate.

我的意思是，《华尔街日报》今天刚报道了这件事。

I mean, The Wall Street Journal covered it today.

这部分，像往常一样，是性格上的冲突。

Part of this, as is always the case, is personality clashes.

你会想，这是我看待世界的方式，而桌子对面的那个人看待世界的方式却完全不同。

You're like, oh, this is the way I look at the world, and this guy at the other side of the table looks at the world totally different.

关于OpenAI和Anthropic，最后再谈一点，然后我们就不再讨论它们了。

Final thing on on OpenAI, Anthropic, and then we will move off them.

促成这笔交易的最终人物是萨姆·阿尔特曼，他完成了1100亿美元的融资，创造了有史以来最大的IPO。

The ultimate deal maker of this, Sam Altman, closes a $110,000,000,000 round for exercise of the largest IPO ever.

我的天，你得给这个人点赞。

I mean, Jesus, you gotta give the man credit.

我的天，这人真是个超级机器。

I mean, what an absolute machine.

除了赞誉之外，还有别的吗？

Anything other than plaudits?

世界上还有钱来资助这些企业吗？

Is there any money left in the world to fund these businesses?

与他刚刚筹集的1100亿美元相比，2041亿美元的收入显得相对微不足道。

The $204,100,000,000 in revenue seems relatively paltry compared to the $110,000,000,000 he just raised.

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，有些医疗领域的公司，显然它们没有上市，而且收益只惠及相对少数的股东。

Mean, there's some medical I mean, obviously, they're they're not public, and obviously, the benefits are inuring to a relatively modest amount of shareholders.

对吧？

Right?

所有这些情况。

All of that stuff.

但这确实让人怀疑，我们是否根本没必要讨论IPO窗口或这些乱七八糟的事。

But it does make you wonder if we should even be talking about the IPO window or any of this crap.

当OpenAI能筹集1100亿美元时，这还重要吗？

Does it even matter when OpenAI can raise 110,000,000,000?

哦，我们都在担心某家B2B公司无法在估值30亿美元、年增长40%、收入4亿美元的情况下上市。

Oh, we're all worried some B2B company can't IPO at 400,000,000, growing 40% at 3,000,000,000.

这有什么区别呢？

What difference does it?

简直微不足道。

Like, it's so miniscule.

我的意思是，对在那里工作的人有影响，但当OpenAI融到1100亿时，这根本对经济无关紧要。

I mean, it matters to the humans that work there, but it's not even relevant to the economy when OpenAI does 110.

他们可能在IPO之前还会再融一轮，如果可能的话，对吧？

They're gonna do another one before the IPO, probably before the IPO if they can, right?

也许不会。

Maybe not.

要么是IPO，要么是另一轮这样的融资，但这已经是大势所趋了，对吧？

It'll either be an IPO or another round like this, but it's a force of nature, right?

首先，这显然很幸运，而且令人震惊。

First of it's clearly a fortunate and it is astonishing.

总之，你这么一算，当把今年迄今所有风险投资金额加起来时，你大概会说300亿，再加上这1100亿，如果算作风投，那就是1400亿，比去年全年美国风投总额还多。

Anyway, you cut it, it's like, you when you add up venture dollars raised invested year to date, know, you kind of go 30 and then Tropic 110, if you call it VC is 140, it's more than US venture for all of last year.

这些数字真是惊人，对吧？

So these are astonishing numbers, right?

我很好奇，让一轮私募融资成为有史以来最大规模IPO的前置动作，这种情况实在太奇特了，对吧？

I do wonder, it's a very odd circumstance to have a private round be for exercise of the largest IPO ever, right?

这确实让人不禁思考，这个IPO究竟该如何完成。

And it does make you wonder how that IPO gets done.

而且这里有一些微妙的细节，挺有意思的。

And it's interesting, there's little nuances here.

亚马逊的出资，我认为是400亿美元或500亿美元，其中一部分是 upfront，另一部分则与IPO或AGI挂钩——这本身就是一件怪事，因为他们的部分资金只有在公司实现AGI或上市后才需要投入。这让我联想到，你和杰森之前提到过，似乎透露出一些IPO支持的迹象。

Amazon's, I think, 40,000,000,000 or $50,000,000,000 some of it's upfront, some of it's commensurate on either an IPO or AGI, which is just one of those weird things that some of their money only has to go in once the company either achieves AGI or goes public, which to me, and Jason, you mentioned a while back, exudes a little bit of the IPO support coming in.

换句话说，这150亿美元真的是当前实际投入，而另外350亿美元只是为IPO账目预留的placeholder吗？

In other words, is this really 15,000,000 now and 35,000,000 as kind of a placeholder for the book on the IPO or something?

NVIDIA也曾有先例，投资了1000亿美元，随后又撤回了部分资金。这次又是同样的情况吗？

There are also precedents of Nvidia investing $100,000,000,000 and then the kind of walk back of up to $100,000,000,000 Is it that again?

我真的是

I'm genuinely

不，情况并非如此，因为英伟达曾表示要投资1000亿美元。我记得我打印出了那份新闻稿，但最终他们只投资了300亿美元，所以稍微回调了一些。

No, it's not quite that because Nvidia talked about investing $100,000,000,000 Remember, I printed out the press release, and then they ultimately invested $30,000,000,000 So they folded back slightly.

亚马逊投入了500亿美元，但这笔钱不像是一份新闻稿，而是一个真实的承诺，只是这个承诺附带了上市或AGI实现的条件。

Amazon came in for $50 but of that $50 it's not like it's a press release, it's actually a real commitment, but it's commitment on closing conditions that are either an IPO or AGI.

所以这笔钱现在还不存在。

So it's not money now.

如果你下周需要支付员工工资，而这350亿美元还不到账，那你就拿不到。

If you needed to pay your workers next week with that 35,000,000,000, it wouldn't be there.

这什么时候上市？

When does this go public?

你必须相信，Anthropic和SpaceX的下一轮融资都将通过公开募股进行。

You've got to believe that the next round for this Anthropic and SpaceX are all public offerings.

明确一下，谁会私下写下一张支票，以及他们的投资逻辑是什么。

Articulate who writes the next check privately and what the investment thesis is.

我认为那里没有更多的资金了。

I don't think there's more capital there.

很难想象在这之后还会有一轮融资。

It's hard to imagine another round after this.

所以，通过排除法，你终归得上市，下一轮很可能就是公开募股。

So you just therefore, by a process of elimination, at some point, you got to go public, And the next round probably is a public round.

关于我们标注了双星号的这一点，很重要。

An important point on an asterisk that we have a double asterisk to.

这是一轮1100亿美元的融资，其中500亿美元来自亚马逊，但只有150亿美元是 upfront 的。

So it's a 110,000,000,000 round, but 50,000,000,000 from Amazon, of which only 15,000,000,000 is up front.

对吧？

Right?

其余部分则取决于AGI或IPO的达成。

The rest is AGI or IPO.

但亚马逊自身的自由现金流已降至每年110亿美元，因为它支出太多。

But Amazon's own free cash flow has fallen to 11,000,000,000 a year because it's spending so much.

OpenAI不得不去找亚马逊，还得找Nvidia旗下的所有人，他们正在耗尽所有资源，而亚马逊甚至都未必真有那么多。

OpenAI had to go to Amazon and they had to go to everybody on planet Nvidia and they're exhausting all like Amazon doesn't even real does not.

它有资源，但没有足够的自由现金流来履行其承诺。

It has the resources, but it does not have the free cash flow to fund its commit.

亚马逊能拿出1500亿、3000亿美元吗？

Could Amazon do a 150,000,000,000, 300,000,000,000?

我的意思是，这里有个极限，参与这一轮投资的人真的已经无力再投了。

I mean, we're re there's a limit here where the folks that did this round literally cannot do anymore.

对吧？

Right?

这可能就是为什么詹森撤回了那1000亿美元的承诺——理论上这说得通，但世界已经变了。

And this is probably why Jensen walked the 100,000,000,000 back was there's a theoretical idea where it makes sense, but the world has changed.

这需要大量的自由现金流。

And it's it's that's that's a lot of free cash flow.

即使是英伟达，1000亿美元也是个天文数字。

Even for NVIDIA, a 100,000,000,000.

对吧？

Right?

所以我们正在接近他们的极限。

So we're reaching their limits.

我知道这个提议简直愚蠢至极。

I know this is an absolutely stupid property suggestion.

你们完全可以因此开除我。

You can both fire me for it.

有没有萨姆·阿尔特曼溢价？

Is there a Sam Altman premium?

我们以前讨论过埃隆溢价。

We've spoken about the Elon premium before.

如果萨姆说，我不想再继续了。

If Sam were to say, I don't wanna do this anymore.

有没有萨姆·阿尔特曼溢价？

Is there a Sam Altman premium?

我不这么认为。

I don't think in the same way.

他的天才体现在做交易的能力，以及那种魄力和胆识，能够私下筹集超过两千亿美元。

His genius has been deal doing and the oomph and the chutzpah to raise 200,000,000,000 plus privately held.

但埃隆在边际上的天才，在于他能够依次完成极其复杂的工程项目。

But Elon's genius at the margin has been the ability to pull off amazingly complex engineering projects sequentially.

所以我认为那里并没有同样的溢价。

So I don't think there was the same premium there.

而且，为了更尖锐地针对埃隆一会儿，OpenAI 在本轮融资前估值为七千亿美元，但这是因为其高速增长——我记得去年从30亿到40亿美元的GAAP收入，增长到了120亿美元的ARR年化收入。

And you could even to make it a little more pointed as it were against Elon just for a second, OpenAI trades at 700,000,000,000 pre this round, but that's because it's hyper growing at, I can't remember the growth from 12,000,000,000 last year, from 3 or 4,000,000,000 in GAAP revenue to 12,000,000,020 billion ARR run rate.

对于高速增长的公司来说，这是营收的30到40倍。

It's 30 or 40 times revenues for hyper growth.

令人惊讶的是，我还要指出，特斯拉的股价依然以营收的10到13倍交易，尽管其收入正在下降。

Astonishingly, I continue to point out Tesla continues to trade at ten, twelve, 13 times revenue for declining revenue.

埃隆的溢价相对于其底层资产的表现来说，要高得多。

The Elon premium is way higher you know, relative to the performance of the underlying asset.

你问的是，谁的溢价更高，埃隆还是萨姆？

You asked who's got the better premium, Elon or Sam?

实际上，问这个问题最简单的方式是对自己说：去掉那个享有溢价的人。

And actually, the easiest way to ask that question is to say to yourself, remove the person with the premium.

特斯拉今天市值为1万亿美元。

Tesla trades at 1,000,000,000,000 today.

我认为如果埃隆明天去世，它的市值会跌到2000亿美元。

I think if Elon died tomorrow, they trade at 200,000,000,000.

OpenAI今天市值为8000亿美元。

OpenAI trades at 800,000,000,000 today.

我认为如果萨姆·阿尔特曼明天早上去世，它的市值会跌到6000亿美元。

I think if Sam Altman died tomorrow morning, trade at 600,000,000,000.

他们会说：我们得赶紧找个人来接替了。

They'd go, we better get someone else to run.

我觉得布雷特·泰勒会接手，对吧？

I think Brett Taylor would be in charge, right?

布雷特·泰勒会非常出色，他会理清一切，把公司建起来并上市。

And Brett Taylor would be great, and he'd figure it all out, and they'd build a company and go public.

如果马斯克走了，谁来制造机器人和机器人出租车？

If Elon goes, who's going to make the robots and who's going to make the robotaxi?

如果你不做这两样东西中的任何一样，你就只剩下一个汽车产品线在衰退、在电动汽车市场艰难环境下收入增长停滞的汽车公司。

And if you don't make one of those two things, you've got a car company with a declining car product line, flat revenue growth in a tough market for electronic vehicles.

你的市值会蒸发8000亿美元。

You'd be down $800,000,000,000.

如果萨姆离开，你可以用80亿美元收购Sierra，只占其价值的10%。

If Sam left, you buy Sierra for 80,000,000,000, 10% of the value.

你可以收购股东，不管怎么算，谁拿到什么，你只需一夜之间花80亿美元，你的问题就解决了。

You buy out the shareholder you know, whatever the math works, whoever gets what, you do you just do it overnight for 80,000,000,000, and your problem is solved.

而且除了融资之外，公司事后可能会更强大。

And and possibly the company's stronger afterwards, other than the fundraising.

情况可能会更好。

It might be better.

是的。

Yeah.

同意。

Agreed.

而且如果由我们这个时代最杰出的技术型首席执行官来主导，而不是一位非常聪明但终究非技术背景的创始人，那几乎很难超越布雷特·泰勒的背景。

And if you have one of the greatest technical CEOs of our lifetimes in charge of it, instead of a very brilliant, but ultimately nontechnical founder, I mean, it's tough to beat Brett Taylor's background.

而且他已经在董事会里了，对吧？

And he's already on the board, right?

但从根本上说，杰森认为，你说得对。

But fundamentally, Jason thought, you are right.

从根本上讲，你会想，好吧，我们现在就来打造一家公司。

Fundamentally, you'd be like, oh, we're just gonna build a company now.

我们要打造ChatGPT。

We're gonna build chat GPT.

我们不会被其他事情分散注意力。

We're not gonna have distractions.

我们就只管做好就行了。

We're just gonna be fine.

在我们继续之前，我要催促你们两位一下。

I'm gonna push you both before we move on.

它什么时候发布？定价是多少？

When does it go out and what price does it go out at?

我认为，现在OpenAI内部正悄然形成一股紧迫感，这三家超大型公司之间正在争夺资金。

OpenAI, I think there is now a subtle, unspoken rush to the money that is taking place between those three mega cap companies.

其他人都在 sidelines 等待，直到这些交易完成。

Everyone else is kind of to a rounding out on the sideline until these deals get done.

我个人认为，对所有人来说，越快越好。

I personally would say the sooner the better for everyone.

所以我希望它们能尽快上市，早点了结此事。

So I'd love them to go public as quick as can and get it over with.

问题不在于它们何时想上市，因为我认为，如果它们能在这年年底前挥动魔杖，我相信这三家公司都会选择挥动魔杖，说：让我们上市吧。

The question is not when they go wanna go public, because I think if they could if they could all wave a magic wand by the end of this year, think that all all three of those companies would wave the wand and say, let's be public.

那样会更安全。

It'll be it'll be safer.

我觉得是十月，而且我觉得它的估值会是1.5万亿美元。

I'm gonna say October, and I'm gonna say it's gonna go out at 1,500,000,000,000.0.

我觉得你可以在这类代币化赌注上用聚合物进行交易。

I think you can trade that in polymer on on some of these kind of tokenized bets.

我的意思是，这可能确实是我们应该去做的事情。

I mean, you know, which probably should be something we should do.

我觉得这是一个合乎逻辑的赌注。

I think it's a logical bet.

他们最初可能会选择一个更低的价格，以免在IPO时定价过高，然后再观察情况发展。

They might they might actually seek initially a lower price to not stretch it for an IPO and then see what happens.

埃隆为SpaceX设定的IPO估值是1.75万亿美元，这个数字很疯狂，但并没有达到上一轮估值的两倍，对吧？

The SpaceX IPO price that Elon is making up, 1,750,000,000,000.00, it's a crazy number, but it's not 2x the last round, right?

所以适度上调价格可能是有道理的，但这其实只是表面功夫。

So it may make sense to have a modest step up, but that's really just aesthetics.

你知道的，市场最终会自行找到平衡。

You know, the market will settle.

你认为他们是否已经耗尽了一些资本池，比如往返投资者、软银、英伟达，现在还有亚马逊？

Do think there's risk that they've exhausted some pools of capital the round trippers, the SoftBanks, Nvidia, and now Amazon.

亚马逊的大部分资金今天并不在银行里，这对我来说并不算数。

The fact that so much of the money of Amazon isn't in the bank today, to me, doesn't count.

也许这为Rory所提到的IPO创造了条件。

Maybe it sets the IPO up, to Rory's point.

能提前卖出350亿美元的IPO份额，这真是太棒了。

That's great to set up to have 35,000,000,000 of your IPO presold.

这确实让IPO更容易了。

That does make the IPO easier.

让我们说清楚。

Let's be clear.

走进去时有一半的订单已经售出，这简直就是一份礼物。

It's a gift walking in and have half your book sold.

如果资金已经耗尽，那他们确实应该在十月上市。

Exhausted the money, then, yeah, they should go public in October.

我觉得这是对的。

I think it's right.

关于估值，我简单说一点。

Just a comment on the valuations.

我的意思是，我不觉得在15亿就没事。

I mean, I'm not in the, oh, it'll be fine at 1.5.

我认为这些数字太大了，完全依赖于整个市场继续保持极度强劲的态势。

I think those are such huge numbers that they're very much predicated on the overall market continuing extremely strong.

我的意思是，标普500指数，尽管系统内有各种噪音和SaaS末日论，但目前仍接近历史高点，波动幅度在±2%以内，市盈率也达到了二十年来的最高水平。

I mean, S and P, despite all the noise within the system and all the SaaS apocalypse, S and P is plus or minus 2% from an all time high and trading at a twenty year high in terms of any kind of trailing KPE basis.

所以，这是在人们热衷于购买证券的时候出售证券。

So, this is selling securities at a time when people are hot to trot and buy securities.

所以在今天的市场中完成这件事，天知道具体会怎么完成？

So, getting it done in today's market, who the hell knows how it gets done?

它很可能以一个惊人的价格完成，但值得停下来思考一下：从任何基本面角度来看，估值与实现这些数字所需的对未来极度乐观的押注之间，存在着巨大的差距。

It could easily get done at an incredible price, but it is worth pausing and just looking at the vast distance between the valuation on any kind of fundamentals basis and the amount of leaning into the future you have to do to get to those kinds of valuations.

它们之间有点不同，因为OpenAI增长迅速，非常快，只要未来两三年能持续这样高速增长，一切就都成立。

And it's kind of slightly different between them because OpenAI is a, it's growing fast, really fast, provided it continues to grow really fast for two or three more years, it all works.

所以你可以支付，你知道的，四十到五十倍的收入。

So you can pay, you know, what, forty, fifty times revenues.

我的意思是，我甚至敢说出这句话，本身就说明了这种情况是如何发生的。

I mean, the fact that I even said that sentence at scale is how that one happens.

如果那时市场愿意为40到50倍收入买单，那就可以做到。

And if there's an appetite to pay 40 or 50 times revenues at that point in time, you can do it.

SpaceX的情况更复杂，因为你基本上得为下一代技术风险承担相当大的担保责任。

SpaceX is even harder because you're basically having to underwrite a fair slug of next generation technical risk.

诚然，你是在为过去二十年里最擅长交付这类技术风险的人承担风险。

Admittedly, you're underwriting with the person who in the last twenty years has proven most able to deliver that technical risk.

但你还要面对整个星舰的风险，以及下一代星链2.0直连手机的风险，还有数据中心和太空相关的风险，而你需要所有这些潜在市场，因为现有业务是180亿美元，年增长20%。

But you've got the whole Starship risk, and then you've got the next generation Starlink two point zero direct to cellular risk, and then you got the data centers and space risk, and you need all that TAM because the existing business is 18,000,000,000 growing 20%.

所以，以20%的增速来看，100倍的 trailing 收入估值并不明显合理。

So it's not obvious that it's worth 100 times trailing revenues for 20%.

如果这是一家年收入180亿美元、以20%速度增长且盈利能力一般的SaaS公司，杰森肯定会嗤之以鼻，说只值五倍。

If that was a SaaS company doing 18,000,000,000, growing at 20% with modest profitability, Jason would be sneering and saying five times.

我不会嗤之以鼻。

I wouldn't be sneering.

我会说只值五倍。

I'd be saying five times.

是的，你会这么说。

Yeah, you would be.

对。

Yeah.

我会为此感到惋惜。

I'd be lamenting it.

我会双手抱头，但绝不会嗤之以鼻。

Like, I'd have my head in my hands, but I would not be sneering.

我会表示同情。

I'd be commiserating.

我会说：能不能让我回到2025年12月？

I'd be like, could I just go back to December 2025, please?

能不能让时间倒退一点点，就回退到去年年底？

Could I just roll back time, just a heartbeat, just till at the end of last year?

永恒的，天啊。

The eternal, oh my god.

如果我早知道现在知道的这些，我就把一切都卖了。

If I'd known that what I know now, I'd have sold everything.

但确实如此。

But yeah.

但你说得对，杰森，从这个数字到1.7万亿美元之间差距巨大。

But you're right, Jason, and it's it's a big gap between that and 1,700,000,000,000.0.

你说过，如果是一家年收入180亿、增长20%的上市公司。

You said if it was a public company doing, you know, 18 at 20%.

杰森，在我们开始录音之前，你说过一句话，我记下来了。

Jason, before we started recording, you said something, and I wrote it down.

你说过，你认为每一家上市公司都会未能达到业绩预期。

You said you thought every public company would miss their numbers.

我的意思是，我并不是想消极看待。

Well, I mean, I don't mean to be negative.

我觉得今年剩下的时间里，几乎所有上市的软件公司表现都会越来越差。

I think all almost all the public software companies are just going to do worse and worse for the rest of this year.

我觉得MongoDB在业绩强劲的季度后股价下跌了20%，创下了历史最大跌幅，因为他们表示增长将回落到个位数，对吧？

I think Mongo was down, what, 20, the largest drop ever after a strong quarter because they said growth will drop back to the teens, right, even though they crushed their quarter.

从周一开始，伊朗那边的20家风投公司表现不错，但公开市场认为它们每个季度的增长预期都会被一再下调。

You had Iran from Monday on the other 20 VC this week, it was great, but the public markets think that they're going to keep rerating growth lower and lower each quarter.

我对现有的这些B2B公司根本看不到任何积极面。

I just don't see any positives for the existing group of B2Bs.

Rory的观点是我们需要更多优秀的公司加入，才能提升整体的中位数和数据。

And Rory's point is we just need more good ones in to raise up the median and the numbers.

也许事情就这么简单，但我认为我们对SaaS的末日危机完全理解错了。

Maybe it's that simple, but I think we got the SaaS apocalypse all wrong.

不是氛围编程在拖垮我们。

It's not vibe coding that's killing us.

而是每个人都迷失了增长的方向。

It's just everybody has lost the way to growth.

我认为由于净收入留存率、收入留存率，以及这些数据大多是回顾性的，实际上几乎所有人都比表面看起来更糟。

And I think because of NRR, because of revenue retention, because so many of these numbers are backwards looking, think almost everyone is worse than it looks.

你知道吗，这挺有趣的。

You know, it's funny.

我这周写了一篇分析。

I wrote it up this week.

你可以把范围扩大得很广，但就我关注的股票而言，最成功的是DigitalOcean。

You could expand the basket very widely, but for the stocks that I follow, the most successful one is DigitalOcean.

DigitalOcean今年上涨了28%。

DigitalOcean's up 28% this year.

DigitalOcean这几年已经实现了十亿美元的云收入。

DigitalOcean, these years, to a billion in cloud revenue.

某种程度上，做到十亿美元还挺令人印象深刻的。

Like, in some ways, impressive to a billion.

对吧？

Right?

但另一方面，像这样只做到十亿美元的生意其实也不错。

But in the other hand, like, it's pretty good business to only be doing a billion.

对吧？

Right?

你可能会批评，但你必须同时大幅加速增长和盈利。

You're pretty you're it it you could be critical, but you need to radically accelerating growth and profitability at the same time.

你看着这些公开数据，心想：到底谁会大幅重新加速增长呢？

And you're looking at these public eyes, and you're like, who the hell is gonna radically reaccelerate growth?

谁？谁会啊？

Who who the hell?

所以当我必须挑出四个值得投资的标的时，我只找到了三个。

And that's why when I have to come up with my four to bet on, I could only find three.

我是打算选四个，但我只找到了三个，因为我能说明这一个被低估了，市场没看到它的内在价值。

Like, I'm still gonna do four, but I could only find three because I can make the case that this one's undervalued and that the markets don't see the inherent value.

但市场在说，你们得重新加速增长，而所有公司都会放缓。

But the markets are saying, you guys gotta reaccelerate, and they're all gonna decelerate.

所以我总觉得，几乎所有这些B2B上市公司都比表面上看起来更糟糕。

And so I just think almost all of these public b two b companies are in worse shape than they look.

虽然我不希望看到SaaS末日，但我觉得这比 vibe coding 更糟糕。

And while I wish we didn't have the SaaS pocalypse, man, I just I think it's worse than vibe coding.

我觉得 vibe coding 是我们这个时代对软件公司的小威胁之一，而我经常用 vibe coding。

Think vibe coding is one of those minor threats to software companies in our lifetimes, and I vibe code constantly.

这只是一个小小的威胁。

It's a minor threat.

所以它们都得裁掉一半的团队，这跟我们上周的对话有关。

And that's why they all have to cut half their teams to our conversation last week.

我当时听起来好像特别紧迫。

That's I sounded so pressing.

接下来两个季度，你一直得面对这种情况：你或许能勉强达到季度目标，但却不断下调盈利预期和评级，你该怎么办？

What are you gonna do when for the next two quarters you keep like, you may even make the quarter, but you keep having to drop your earnings estimate and rate down.

在这一年中的某个时候，你不得不裁掉一半的团队，否则你无法让财务数据算得过来。

At some point over the course of year, you're just gonna have to cut half your team because otherwise you can't make the math work.

我想聊聊团队的问题，但在那之前，我想先提一个注意事项。

Well, I wanna talk about the team, but before it, I just wanna put one caveat out there.

对吧？

Right?

你确实得考虑价格因素。

You do have to take price into account.

让我告诉你我指的是什么。

And let me tell you what I mean by that.

Yamango上个季度表现强劲，未来指引与预期的差距不大，但股价还是下跌了25%。

Yamango had a very strong quarter, modest delta in terms of future guidance versus expectations, dropped 25%.

为什么？

Why?

回答。

Answer.

它的交易价格是明年EBITDA的40倍。

It was trading at 40 times EBIT next year's EBITDA.

当你以极高的价格交易，达到营收的八到九倍时。

When you're trading at a super high price, eight or nine times gap revenue.

对吧？

Right?

当你以极高的价格交易，而增长率从30%下降到即使你知道的，我认为2023年的指引是20%，显然假设2024年和2025年会是实际结果。

When you're trading at a super high price and you go from 30% growth to even you know, I think it was the guidance of '23, 20 '4, clearly, assumption would be '24, 25 would be actual result.

当你以40倍EBITDA交易时，稍微一点波动就足以让你从神坛跌落。

When you're trading at 40 times EBITDA, it doesn't take a lot to knock you off your pedestal.

相反，许多这类公司现在都以明年EBITDA的七、八、九倍交易，即使8%、10%、12%的增长率也大概率能撑住，至少不太可能下跌30%，而且上行空间可能大于下行风险。

Conversely, a whole bunch of these things are now trading at seven, eight, and nine times next year's EBITDA, where even eight, ten, 12% growth can probably make it, at the very least, highly unlikely to decline by 30% and arguably more upside than downside.

但为什么它们会重新加速？我根本不相信这些

But why will they reaccel I just don't believe these

我可没说它们会重新加速，杰森。

I didn't say they re accelerate, Jason.

我认为有两件独立的事情，这会让你产生一个块注释。

I think there's two separate things and it gets you a block comment.

你必须在两件事中选其一。

You've got to do one of two things.

我同意你说得对，你必须在两件事中选其一：如果你能足够地重新加速，那么即使盈利能力暂时不足，只要有一些利润或利润趋同，他们也会对你宽容。

I do agree you're right about you got to do one of two If you reaccelerate enough, then they'll cut you slack on profitability provided you have some either profits or convergence on profits.

如果你没有重新加速，那你说得对。

If you don't reaccelerate, then you're right.

你所推销的只是一个盈利故事，然后我们直接转到Block。

All you're selling is a profitability story, and then we're going to segue straight to Block.

要做到这一点，唯一的方法是审视你的成本结构，说，我的意思是，我不喜欢‘40法则’，但姑且提一下。

The only way to do that is to look at your cost structure and say, if my I mean, I hate the rule of 40, but let's put it out there.

如果我的收入增长是10%，我就可以用40减去10，得出需要30%的自由现金流。

If my revenue growth is 10, I can subtract 10 from 40, and I come up with 30% free cash flow required.

所以你说得对，你开始算账了。

So you're right, you start running the math.

这太残酷了，因为投入到云和LLM的资金规模是我们前所未见的。

It's just brutal because there's been the amount of spend that has gone to cloud and LLMs is like nothing we've ever seen before.

如果你是一家上市公司，你一点都没抓住这部分机会。

And if you're a public software company, you've captured none of that.

这是一场灾难。

It's a disaster.

就像泰坦尼克号一样。

Like it's a Titanic.

情况比看起来更糟，因为你根本想不出办法，把这么多投入转化成你的1万、5万甚至10万客户愿意多付钱的智能代理和LLM？

It's worse than it looks, because you can't figure out any way to take all of that spend and turn it into an agent and LLM that your 10,050 thousand, 100,000 customers want to pay you more for?

这可以说是我们历史上最大的失败和自摆乌龙，而且情况还会更糟。

I mean, it is the biggest fail and own goal in our history, and it's going to get worse.

有太多上市公司还在推出测试版，或者这周刚加了个云连接器，但到了2026年，这已经是一场灾难了。

There's so many public folks who were rolling out a beta, or we've added a cloud connector this week, And it's a disaster at this point in 2026.

确实如此，当你听到这些上市公司的首席执行官们讲话时，就能看出来。

It is and you can see it when a lot of these public company CEOs speak.

我就参加了马克·贝尼奥夫的收益电话会，他很有信心。

They don't have the like I was on the earnings call with Mark Benioff, he's got the confidence.

他相信Agent Four会带来增长。

He believes that there will be a lift from Agent four.

如今，一部分增长已经属于非有机增长了。

Growth already now some of it is inorganic.

增长确实在上升，他也相信自己拥有一个表现良好的智能体。

Growth is up, and he believes he has a performing agent.

我当时就在公司里亲眼见证了这一切。

Like, I was there in the building.

这家伙是真的相信。

The dude believes.

好吧。

Okay.

不，我明白你的意思。

No, I hear you.

但我能感受到其他上市公司缺乏信心。

But I can smell the lack of belief in other public.

我知道哈里在采访他时也能感觉到。

I know Harry can too when he interviews him.

你根本就能从字里行间闻出来。

You can just smell it out of the pores.

作为一个人，我有同理心。

As a human being, I have empathy.

但天哪，正因如此，我觉得由于客户留存问题，情况比看起来更糟。

But good God, that's why I think because of retention, it's all worse than it looks.

情况比看起来更糟，因为你可以在多年合同、年度合同和价格上涨下躲藏。

It's all worse than it looks because you can hide under multi year contracts and annual contracts and price increases.

那三个来自斯坦福的孩子都能搞懂怎么用Opus，你怎么就不行呢？

You had so much Like these three kids from Stanford that figured out how to use Opus, why couldn't you?

它就在那里。

It's out there.

这并不贵。

It's not even that expensive.

你们为什么就不能弄明白怎么用Opus呢？

Why can't you figure out how to use Opus?

你们为什么不能把20个最优秀的工程师集中起来，直接去复制Harvey、11 Labs或者Lovable呢？

Why can't you put your 20 best engineers and just freaking clone Harvey or 11 Labs or Lovable?

复制这些应用到底有多难，各位？

How hard is it to clone those apps, guys?

你们都该被开除。

You all deserve to be fired.

实际上，我觉得这周Intercom的Owen写了一篇非常棒的文章，讲的是他如何彻底重构现有业务，并在其基础上打造Finn。

Actually, I thought Owen at Intercom had a really great piece just this week on, you know, what it took to take his existing business, you know, gut it and build Finn on top of it.

这正是我之前对Jason说‘这很难’时想表达的意思。

And and and that that's what I meant when I said, Jason, it's hard.

从技术角度来看，这确实是其中一部分，但更重要的是要有决心去做出所有这些改变，把全部赌注押在新事物上。

Not from a technical perspective, that's part of it, but just from a fortitude to make all those changes, to put all your bet on the new thing.

可能有一年时间你都觉得自己的行为很荒谬，因为你一直在谈论一个小东西，而那个大东西却如此庞大。

There was probably a year of feeling ridiculous because you're talking about the small thing and the big thing is so much.

客户都在问：你们为什么不去专注那个大东西？

Customers are saying, Why aren't you focused on the big thing?

他很好地描述了要有多固执才能让这一切发生。

And he just described very well what it took to be bloody minded enough to make that happen.

你说得对，杰森，我认为你是对的。

And you're right, Jason, I do think you are correct.

这种态度正是任何公司都需要的——机会就在那里，我很想听听你对Agent Force的看法，无论是这周、下周还是什么时候，但要推动这一切，就需要这种固执的精神。

That's the kind of attitude that any I mean, the opportunity is there, and I'm interested to hear your take on Agent Force either this week or next week or whenever, but that's the kind of bloody mindedness it's going to take to push through.

你确实需要这种精神，但我就是看不到。

You do need it, and I just don't see it.

我在初创公司里看不到，在上市公司里也看不到。

I just don't see it across startups, and I don't see it in the public companies.

我现在不这么看，欧文不得不重新担任CEO。

I don't see now listen, Owen had to come back as CEO.

那里也有复杂性，对吧？

There's complexity there too, right?

但他直言不讳地说，这是一个创始人主导的市场，而且很难。

But he's been brutal that this is a founder market, and it's hard.

是的，对他们来说更难，因为他们有一个机构基础，他必须部分保留，同时也要放弃很多复杂性。

And yes, it was harder for them because they had an institutional base he had to partially retain, but also partially abandon a lot of complexity.

但别跟我诉苦。

But woe is me.

他的所有观点都非常好。

Like, his points are all were all really good.

但你知道吗？

But you know what?

也许他比其他人早了一个或两个季度才达到那里，因为他在客户体验和支持领域。

Maybe maybe he got there a quarter or two earlier than others because it was in CX and support.

明白吗？

Okay?

所以他比任何人都更早地看到了变化，这不仅仅是全情投入的问题。

So he could see the change earlier than every it wasn't just going all in.

还因为他所处的正是变化最快的两个领域之一。

It was that also he was in one of the two categories that changed the most quickly.

对吧？

Right?

但世界其他地方呢？

But what about the rest of the world?

你已经有时间了。

You've had time.

你可以在推特上说，大语言模型是可替代的，记录系统应该受益，因为，因为我们拥有真正重要的东西，而且大语言模型是商品化的。

You can go out there and say on Twitter, LLMs are fungible and that systems of record should benefit because, because, we own what matters, and and LLMs are commodity.

我的意思是，得了吧。

I mean, give me a break.

你的目标在哪？

You've where's your hunt?

给我看看一亿。

Show me a 100,000,000.

给我看看两亿。

Show me 200,000,000.

给我看看五亿。

Show me 500,000,000.

你现在已经有十六个月了。

You've had sixteen months now.

但我觉得，像Shopify的托比就是最杰出的CEO和技术天才之一。

But I think, like, Toby at Shopify is one of the most brilliant CEOs and technical minds.

Spotify的古斯塔沃也是。

Gustavo, Spotify is too.

我在这里真的有点天真。

I'm genuinely naive here.

你是说他们作为CEO错过了什么关键节点吗？

Are you telling me they've missed a beat as CEOs

不是。

No.

托比正毫不留情地将他的公司推向智能代理领域，推出他们的智能商务系统。

Toby is dragging his company mercilessly into the agentic air, rolling out their agentic commerce.

我不知道这会有多成功，但这将成为Shopify的核心焦点，对吧？

I don't know how successful it will be, but it'll be front and center of Shopify, right?

这正逐渐成为核心焦点。

It's becoming front of center.

但在我看来，他的速度大致与Salesforce相当，他或许应该更快一些，对吧？

But he feels to me roughly at the pace of Salesforce, he probably should be faster, right?

因为这是一个更灵活的组织，但他们正拖着拥有真实产品的公司走向未来。

Because it's a more agile organization, but they're dragging their companies with real product into the future.

而我认为其他所有人，他们已经开始坠入事件视界，进入一种终局性的衰退状态，他们的团队不想做这项工作，他们也没有想法。

And I think everyone else, they're already starting to fall into the event horizon, into a state of terminal decline, that their teams don't want to do the work and that they don't have the ideas.

他们没有想法。

They don't have the ideas.

哦，杰森，我上线了AI销售开发代表。

Oh, Jason, I rolled out AI SDRs.

不错，但你是一家软件公司。

Great, but you're a software company.

你的智能代理在哪里？

Where's your agent?

那个替你客户完成所有工作的智能代理在哪里？

Where's your agent that goes out and does all the work for your customer Right?

他们正朝着事件视界前进，试图点燃推进器，但每天恢复起来都越来越难。

They're just headed in the event horizon, and they're trying to put on those jets, but it's it's it's getting tougher each day to recover.

是的。

Yeah.

罗伊，我们三个要办个圣诞派对，杰森是我们的主要出资人。

Roy, we're gonna do a Christmas party, the three of us, and and Jason's our our bringer upper.

是的。

Yeah.

他是关键人物。

He's the move.

是的。

Yeah.

他确实会是，没错。

He's it's gonna be yeah.

他将成为那个推动者。

He's gonna be the fluffer upper.

我知道？

I know?

听好了。

Listen.

如果你真的在玩这个游戏，那就不行。

If you're really in the game no.

认真的。

Seriously.

如果你真的在玩这个游戏，我会成为你最大的干扰者。

If you are in the game, I will be your biggest interrupter.

我会使用你的产品。

I will use your product.

我会支持你的产品。

I will support your product.

我会说它很棒。

I will say it's great.

所以，老实说，很长一段时间以来，它没有任何好处。

That's why, honestly, for a long time, no benefit it.

这就是为什么我如此支持Agent Force，因为我们开始使用它，而且它真的有效。

That's why I was so supportive of Agent Force because we started using it and it works.

所以我想，我要拿这个例子来参考，但它并不完美。

So I'm like, I'm gonna take this example and it is not perfect.

我可以跟你详细讲讲，比几乎八个多得多。

Like I can tell you all about it more than almost eight.

我不认为有那么多人会使用25个、10个不同的GTM代理，包括Agent Force。

I don't think there's that many people that use 25 different 10 different GTM agents, including agent force.

我们可能只是其中之一。

We might be end of one.

我可以告诉你它的缺陷、问题和挑战，但至少他们已经参与进来了。

I can tell you the flaws and the issues and the challenges, but at least they're in the game.

成群的全职员工，成群的人在部署自定义代理，而且情况会越来越好。

Armies of FTEs, armies of folks deploying custom agents, and it will get better.

我可以告诉你，它仍在不断变化。

And I will tell you, it is still changing.

Agent Force一直在不断变化。

Agent force is constantly changing.

它不是静态的，而像一家真正的AI公司，每个月或每两个月都会变得更好。

It is not static, but like a real AI company, it gets better every month or two.

它一直在变得越来越好，我们的AI工具就是这样，而不是停留在测试阶段。

It keeps getting better and better and better like our AI tools are rather than be sticking to beta.

我不是说Salesforce明年就会实现50%的增长，但我希望看到任何软件公司都能做到和Salesforce一样好，甚至更好。

So I'm not saying Salesforce is going to turn into 50% growth next year, but I want to see this or better from any anyone, anyone in software, you got to be doing as good or better than Salesforce.

我觉得你没救了。

I think you're hopeless.

你真的没救了。

You're hopeless.

哦，我们的行业其实并不喜欢AI。

Oh, our industry doesn't really like AI.

哦，你知道的，祝你好运吧。

Oh, you know, our well, good luck to you.

祝你好运。

Good luck.

祝你成功。

Good luck to you.

我会带来节日的欢乐气氛。

I will bring the holiday cheer.

我的立场其实处于一个无聊的中间地带，我想重申一下：我认为这些上市公司的首席执行官们完全忽视AI的说法是个稻草人。

I mean, I just wanna reiterate my position in the boring middle here, which is I think the strawman of these public company CEOs are ignoring it totally.

这并不真实，也不公平。

It isn't really true or fair.

我相信大多数这些SaaS公司并不会消失或消亡。

I do believe that most of these SaaS companies, I don't think they evaporate or go away.

我认为，只要它们跟上潮流，根据行业和市场不同，有些市场有充足的时间，AI在收入层面并不会造成广泛颠覆——我稍后会谈到运营支出，从完全不会颠覆到明显颠覆的各个程度都有。

I think provided they get with the program, depending on the industry and market, know, those are markets where you've got plenty of time where AI is not going to be widely disruptive from a top line perspective, I'll talk about OpEx next, all the way to where it's obviously disruptive.

我认为，对于那些薪酬丰厚、身负重任的高管来说，解决这个问题完全在他们的能力范围内。

I think it's well within the capabilities of highly compensated executives who have their ass on the line to figure this out.

大多数已经具备规模的公司不应该因此消失，但这和说它们还能重新获得20倍、30倍的EBITDA倍数，更别说上帝保佑别再有20倍的营收倍数——就像2021年那样——是两回事。

Most of the companies that already have scale should not be vanished from this, which is a different statement than saying they will ever regain their 20x, 30x EBITDA multiple, still less, God forgive us, 20 X revenue multiples, which they got in 2021.

关于SaaS末日论，我有一件事不明白，但正是这一点让我觉得这些公司可能会走向终结。

Here's the thing that I don't understand about the SaaS apocalypse, but this is what I think makes these companies terminal.

好的。

Okay.

到2025年12月为止，公开市场基本上表示：听着，即使你们的增长率越来越低，我们依然愿意给你们增长溢价。

What happened through December 2025 is basically the public markets said, listen, we're actually gonna give you a growth premium for ever lower growth.

比如在2025年，顶级公司如果增长率达到30%或更高，平均估值大约是收入的25倍。

Like, the top tier in 2025 was if you grew 30% or higher, you were, I think, on average, valued at 25 times revenues.

明白吗？

Okay?

即使在2024年每年我们的增长都在放缓，这一趋势依然持续。

And this held even each year through 2024, our growth slowed.

市场不知为何会说：听着。

And the markets were like for whatever reason, the markets would say, listen.

没问题。

It's cool.

我们会降低对上市软件公司的预期。

We will ratchet down what we expect from public software companies.

我们会逐步下调，但在一月的某个时候，市场突然说：不再了。

We'll ratchet and then at some point in January, the market said no longer.

不再给予高增长溢价，而且这完全是出人意料的。

No longer will we ascribe high growth premiums, and it came out of a shot in the blue.

这就是为什么现在每个人都 still stunned，因为这种增速放缓但估值倍数依然坚挺的情况，曾经在前三四年里，只要你处于前25%，就完全行得通。

And this is why everyone is still stunned now because it were this like, this deceleration but multiples staying strong, you were in the top quartile, it worked for three years.

事实我同意，但不认同‘震惊’这个说法，因为你说得对，从二十年的视角来看。

Agreed on the facts, not the stunned, because you're right, zooming out twenty years.

我觉得他们确实很震惊。

I see them stunned.

我觉得哈里也看到他们震惊了。

I think Harry sees Then them stunned

他们根本没看图表，对吧？

they just didn't look at the chart, right?

如果你看图表，其实非常简单。

If you look at the chart, it's really simple.

不，你的股价下跌了。

No, your stock price fell.

不是股价的问题。

Not on stock.

首先，我同意你的结论，我们现在处于这个阶段，对吧？

First of I agree with you on the conclusion, way we're at, right?

过去十五到十六年里，这个领域以平均30%的增长率发展，估值为收入的六倍左右。

There was fifteen or sixteen years of the bucket growing at an average of 30%, valued at an average of six times revenues.

接着是两年的疫情期间，这个领域增长率达到40%，平均估值为收入的20倍。

Then there was two years of COVID bucket growing 40%, average of 20 times revenues.

然后你说得完全对。

And then you're exactly right.

实际情况是我们不仅回落到30%的增长，还降到了15%，而市场却说了句蠢话：好吧，我们又回到六倍收入的估值了。

What happened is we de accelerated not just back to 30%, but down to 15, and the market said something stupid like, Well, we're back to six times revenues.

这没什么，就像以前那样。

It's okay, like it used to be.

你说得对，杰森。

And you're right, Jason.

那是错的。

It was wrong.

曾经有一段时间，你的市销率是六倍，增长率是30%。

It was six once upon a time, you were six times revenues and growing at 30%.

现在你的市销率是六倍，但增长率只有15%，而且你这样持续了两年。

Now you're at six times revenues, growing at 15, and you sat there for two years.

这就是为什么如果你只画一个随时间变化的收入倍数图表，那是个愚蠢的图表，因为它看起来像是回到了正常水平。

And it's why when you do a chart that just shows revenue multiples over time, it's a stupid chart because it looked like it had gone back to normal.

但你说得对，杰森，增长已经彻底下滑了。

But you're right, Jason, the growth had gone out the bottom.

去年发生的一切是，人们终于醒悟了，他们意识到，这不是因为X、Y或Z导致的暂时性增长放缓。

And then all that happened last year is people's eyes were opened, and they were like, it's not a temporary growth decline because of x, y, or z.

现在这是永久性的，因为AI。

It's now permanent because of AI.

我的天啊。

Oh my god.

我们到底在想什么？

What are we thinking?

你应该只有四倍。

You should be at four times.

这就是现实情况。

That's the movie.

由于人工智能，这现在已成为永久性的了。

It's now permanent because of AI.

这真是个非常有趣的论断。

That's a really interesting statement.

我们显然看到了杰森发言后的情况。

We obviously saw following Jason's statement.

我...我不知道杰克当时是否在听。

I I don't know if Jack was listening.

我宁愿相信他是听取了杰森的建议并发布了裁员40%的决定。

I'd like to think that he is and took Jason's guidance's instructions and announced, obviously, laying off 40%.

这本质上都是为了提升AI效率。

It's kind of all under the hood of AI efficiency improvement.

这真的是因为AI，还是因为一个臃肿的组织本就需要调整？

Is it truly that, or is it a very bloated organization that needed resizing?

杰森一直过度招聘，这次只是披着AI外衣的人员精简。

Jack's continuously overstaffed his companies, and it was just a resizing with a mask of AI.

杰森，你应该先说，因为是你上周发起的这次讨论。

Jason, you should go first because you called this last week.

你虽然没点名公司，但你预见了这场灾难。

Didn't name the company, but you called the catastrophe.

你看啊。

Well, look.

我觉得人们特别忽略了Block公司，我知道他们的盈利能力大幅提升，但我觉得他们的总收入增长率只有3%左右。

I I I think people missed on Block in particular, I know their their profitability was way up, but I think their top line is only growing, like, 3%, something like that.

对吧？

Right?

所以这个故事被所有人忽略了。

So this story misses, everyone missed this.

所有人都被那份声称每股利润、毛利润增长了27%的新闻稿骗了。

Everyone got suckered in by the press release that said profit per share, gross profit was up 27%.

好吧。

Okay.

这确实是真的，但当你没有增长时，才会只强调这一点，对吧？

And that's true, but you only lead with that when you're not growing, right?

当你在增长时，你应该优先强调收入增长，对吧？

When you're growing, you lead with revenue growth, right?

那你打算怎么做？

So what are you going to do?

我觉得这个故事比表面看起来要简单得多。

I think the story is simpler than it looks.

杰克，他们增长了3%，但他已经完全放弃了重回增长，我认为今年内大多数上市公司都会走到这一步。

Jack, they're growing 3% and he's completely given up on returning to growth, which I think most public software companies will get to during the course of this year.

他们会放弃的。

They will give up.

首席执行官们会放弃的。

The CEOs will give up.

这正是我想说的。

This is my point.

他们会放弃重回增长。

They will give up on returning to growth.

他们会放弃的。

They will give up.

他放弃了。

And he gave up.

那你下一步打算怎么做？

And what's your next play?

你得变得更盈利，对吧？

You've got to get more profitable, right?

有一个限度，超过50%的运营利润率并不值得，除非你是做知识产权授权的公司，对吧？

There's a limit where it's not worth, like more than 50% operating margins isn't worth it unless you're an IP licensing shop, right?

但关键是得把事情做成，因为我必须达到下一个阶段，那就是超盈利。

But it's the get it done because I got to get to my next state, which is hyper profitable.

所以我的观点是，人们对此的反应就像这是一家高增长的科技公司。

And so my only point is people reacted to this like this was a high growth tech company.

至少已经好几年，甚至更久，它不再是高增长的科技公司了。

It has been many years or at least years since it's been a high growth tech.

3%的增速相当艰难。

3% is pretty tough.

我的意思是，至少SaaS公司可以提价4%。

I mean, a SaaS company at least can raise prices 4%.

至少我们在SaaS领域还有这个优势。

At least we have that in SaaS.

我们直接去找我们的客户。

We just go out to our customers.

由于今年我们添加了令人惊叹的功能，包括更改按钮的颜色，今年我们将价格上涨6%。

Due to the incredible features we've added this year, including changing the colors of our buttons, we're raising prices 6% this year.

我觉得这里面有很多内容。

I think there's a lot in that.

从宏观角度看，我同意。

Big picture, agree.

一家年收入二百亿美金的公司，一年前增长10%，去年却几乎停滞不前。

A mid-twenty billion dollar revenue company, 10% growth a year ago, down to almost no growth last year.

所以你放弃了收入增长，只剩下唯一一个可以操作的按钮。

So you've given up the revenue growth, there's only one button to press.

你说得对，如果你想让股价上涨的话。

You're exactly right, if you want to make the stock go up.

所以，一些普通股。

So a couple of common stock.

一个是关于员工人数。

One is on employee count.

你说得对。

You're right.

员工人数曾大幅膨胀。

It had ballooned up.

有几年我们的增长率达到了50%，但你必须对此进行调整，因为有趣的是，如果你看人均收入或人均毛利，与SaaS公司相比，其实差距并不大。

There'd be a couple of years we're going 50%, and you've got to calibrate that because, interestingly, you know, if you look at revenue per employee or gross margin per employee, compared to SaaS companies, it actually wasn't that far off.

但当然，它并不是一家SaaS公司。

But of course, it's not a SaaS company.

它是一家金融服务公司。

It's a financial services company.

从这个角度来看，显然收入中包含了大量交易费和转嫁成本，与业内顶尖的金融服务公司相比，显然存在大量可以削减的开支。

And when you look at it on that basis where obviously revenue, you have all these interchange and pass through costs, relative to best in class financial services companies, there was clearly fat to cut there.

杰森，你说得对，这正是他们这么做的原因。

And Jason, you're exactly right, that's why they did it.

但说到人工智能，你们会用AI这个词吗？

But talking about AI, do you ever use the AI word?

而且AI这个词有两种不同的用法。

And there's two separate uses of the word AI.

你是指AI对营收的影响，还是仅对运营支出的影响？

Are you talking about AI on your top line or just AI on your OpEx?

这里值得指出的是，这并不是一个AI驱动营收增长的故事。

And it's worth pointing out here, this is not an AI top line story.

Salesforce是一个人工智能驱动的营收增长故事。

Salesforce is an AI top line story.

人工智能要么会提升你的营收（如果你部署了智能代理），要么会减少你的营收（如果别人部署了智能代理而你没有）。

AI is either going to increase your top line if you deliver agent force, or it's going to reduce your top line if someone else delivers agent force and you don't.

这是一个关于人工智能营收的故事。

It's an AI top line story.

这不是一个关于人工智能营收的故事。

This is not an AI top line story.