20VC：为什么如今做A轮需要10亿美元基金 | OpenAI 与 Anthropic：谁赢得企业市场 | SpaceX 市值达2万亿美元，数据中心将建在太空 | 200亿美元Groq交易深度解析 | 杰夫·贝佐斯的新1000亿美元基金

你可以嘲笑这一点，或者说它比我们预计的还要多花九年时间，但它确实会发生。

You can mock that or say it's going to take nine more years than we thought, but it does.

它确实为IPO及其更远的未来描绘了一个非常强大的愿景。

It does create a pretty powerful vision for the IPO and beyond and beyond.

现在，你第一次真正看到这一切为SpaceX凝聚成形，而不仅仅是拥有互联网卫星和宇宙飞船。

Now you see it all coming together for SpaceX for real for the first time, rather than we've we've got Internet satellites and spaceships.

这听起来有点道理，但当我们正在利用整个太阳的能量时——因为这相当可行，因为我们已经建造了大部分技术——当成本开始降至两千亿美元时，就显得不那么昂贵了。

Like, it it sort of made sense, but when we're harnessing the entire sun, because it's pretty doable, because we've built a lot of it already, starting to sound cheap at 2,000,000,000,000.

看。

Look.

作为企业家和一个人，有人可能比你成就高出十倍。

Someone can be 10 x more accomplished than you as an entrepreneur and a human being.

但当你投资资金时，你仍然有权利问：我该给这个成就高出十倍的人实现下一件事赋予多大的概率？

But when you're investing money, you're still entitled to say, what probability do I say ascribe to that 10 x more accomplished person being able to do the next thing?

因此，你必须审视这一点，思考：这一愿景将被未来陈述支撑多久？它何时能值上二十倍的自由现金流？

And therefore, you have to look at this and say, for how long will this be supported by a future statement, and when will it be worth something on 20 times free cash flow?

但你知道为什么这很有趣吗？

But you know why it's interesting?

如果你真的相信DCF和公开市场中的自由现金流，我仍然感到困惑。

If you really believe in DCF and free cash flow for real in the public markets, and I still get confused.

如果星链真的有53%的利润率并且盈利非常可观，那么这种扩展使星链的愿景提升了五个数量级，这实际上是一个理由：如果我对此有任何信念，我的DCF就提升了。

If Starlink really has 53% profit margins and is wildly profitable, the fact that this extends the Starlink vision five orders of magnitude, it's actually a reason to say, Hey, if I believe in this at all, my DCF has gone up.

提升了多少？

How much?

我不知道。

I don't know.

因为星链在规模化后盈利惊人。

It's gone up because Starlink is so profitable at scale.

简直令人瞠目结舌地盈利。

Like, jaw droppingly profitable.

对吧？

Right?

两点评论。

Two comments.

首先，从宏观角度看，你是对的。

First of all, big picture, you are correct.

马斯克能做到而别人做不到的原因在于，他会提出这种巨大的跃迁式故事；正如一位投资者曾向我指出的那样，这一点非常到位——这些公司不像软件公司那样每年逐步增长。

The reason Elon can do it and no one else can is he's gonna articulate these big step function stories where as one investor in one many of his companies pointed out to me, it's a great point he made to this, they're not like software companies that incrementally grow every year.

它们更像是每隔五到七年才能攻克一次的重大技术挑战，然后在构建下一个跃迁式挑战的同时，从当前成果中收获回报。

They're kind of step function technical challenges that you accomplish maybe every five or seven years, and then you harvest on that while you're building the next step function challenge.

而这又会带来下一轮的跃升。

And then that gives the next lift.

我认为星舰就是一个绝佳的例子。

And I mean, I think Starship is a great example of that.

你曾经只是‘发射火箭，只拿政府合同’。

You had the, Hey, I launch rockets, and all I do is get government contracts.

而现在你却说：‘我发射火箭，现在还提供偏远地区的蜂窝网络服务。’

And then you're like, No, I launch rockets, and now I have a cellular service for remote cellular.

而下一个阶段可能是，如果我能让星舰成功运行，你就能实现全球覆盖的蜂窝网络和太空中的数据中心。

And now the next turn of the crank is maybe if I can get Starship working, you can have cellular for everywhere and data centers in space.

所以你是对的。

So you are right.

这些是宏大的愿景，每一个如果实现，都能带来额外的、高达一千亿、两千亿、三千亿美元的净现值。

These are big chunky visions, each of which, if realized, gives you an extra pick a number, 100,000,000,000, 200,000,000,000, 300,000,000,000 of net present value of thing.

所以我同意。

So I agree.

但没有人能讲出这些故事，也没有人有资格讲述这些故事。

And no one else can tell the story, no one else is credible to tell those stories.

你仍然必须回到这些问题：发生的概率是多少？什么时候会发生？以及从现在到那时的资本成本是多少？

You've still got to go back to what's the probability of happening, when does it happen, and what's your cost of capital between now and there.

对吧？

Right?

是的。

Yeah.

如果从典型的乐观分析师、华尔街分析师的角度来看，你可能会通过声称这件事发生的概率为80%来为哈里的未来估值，但我们却只赋予它30%的按时实现可能性。

And I I I would just argue if you're the classic optimistic analyst, Wall Street Analyst, you can probably justify Harry's future in valuation by saying the odds that this occurs are 80%, but we're ascribing only a 30% chance it happens on time.

有80%的概率在五年内，它的利润率能达到星链的水平，如果你把所有这些都回溯计算，就能合理推导出200亿美元对一万亿美元的估值。

There's an 80% chance that and within five years, it achieves similar profit margins to Starlink, and you roll it all back, and you can justify 2,000,000,000 over one point x trillion.

对吧？

Right?

我认为你完全可以在电子表格里做这个分析。

There I I think you could do it on a spreadsheet.

而这个赌注将由你来下，放手去做吧。

And that bet will be available to you, and have at it.

在敢于下1000亿美元赌注的这一周里，我们为什么还要做种子轮投资呢？杰森，杰夫·贝佐斯正寻求筹集1000亿美元，用于通过人工智能改造制造业。

Well, in the week of bold $100,000,000,000 bets and why the fuck are we doing seed stage investing, Jason, Jeff Bezos seeks a $100,000,000,000 to buy and AI transform manufacturing.

《华尔街日报》率先报道了这件事。

Wall Street Journal broke this one.

杰夫·贝佐斯正在筹集一笔1000亿美元的制造转型基金，收购半导体、航天、国防等领域的企业，将人工智能融入其运营，大幅提升效率。

Jeff Bezos raising a $100,000,000,000 manufacturing transformation fund and acquire companies across semiconductors, space, defense, eject AI into their operations and make them much more efficient.

他显然一直在新加坡和中东地区巡回，试图说服一些主权财富基金向他提供资金。

He's apparently been touring Singapore and The Middle East to charm some sovereign wealth funds to give him the money.

我们当时是怎么看待这件事的？

How did we think about this?

再说一遍，这又是充满无力感的一周，尤其是在早期阶段。

Again, it was another week of I feel irrelevant at early stage.

我觉得这是一项经典的印度溪岛式投资。

I think it's a great classic Indian Creek Island investment.

所以你正坐在迈阿密，住在你价值数亿美元的豪宅里。

So you're sitting in Miami in your couple $100,000,000 home.

我爱你，杰森。

I love you, Jason.

你有贾西和他的团队在操持这项艰难的业务。

You've got Jassy and team running the hard business.

你其实不需要亲自做那么多事。

You don't have to do that that much.

幸运的是，他们在做这些艰难的工作。

Luckily, they're doing the hard work.

现在我可以放手去想大事了。

And now I get to think big.

我可以在碳中和项目上，或者在游艇上畅想大事。

I get to think big at Carbon or on the yacht.

我不想再局限于小规模了。

And I don't wanna go small anymore.

我已经做过一次了。

And I've already done it.

你知道，我已经打造了亚马逊。

You know, I've already built Amazon.

所以，你知道我想做什么吗？

So I'm you know what I wanna do?

我要重新塑造一些行业。

I'm gonna remake some industries.

你知道吗，我当时和朋友们在Pura Vida喝果汁，我们都打算重塑一些行业。

You know, I was with my friends at Pura Vida getting our smoothies, and we're all gonna remake industries.

这就是Indian Creek Island的赌注，我明白。

And this is the Indian Creek Island bet, and I get it.

对吧？

Right?

你再也不想在亿万富翁避风港里胡闹了。

You don't wanna screw around anymore on at Billionaires Bunker.

你就是不想了。

You just don't want to.

你觉得他能筹集到1000亿美元吗？

Do you think he'll be able

能筹集到1000亿美元吗？

to raise a $100,000,000,000?

我的意思是，他完全可以卖股票。

I mean, he could just sell stock.

如果他想要筹集1000亿美元，他自己也能筹到。

If he wants a $100,000,000,000, he can get it himself.

所以我肯定他能拿到一大笔可观的资金。

So I'm sure he'll get some significant slug of capital.

唯一的问题是软银似乎已经没钱可投了。

The only problem is SoftBank seems tapped out.

他们本周刚刚宣布已经触达自身的债务上限了。

They're hitting their debt limits they just announced this week.

是吧？

Right?

那些数字都已经远超他们的贷款约定阈值了。

That they're flashing above their covenants.

所以我觉得，如果他不是笃定自己能做成这件事，他根本不会把它公之于众。

So I don't think he would announce it if there wasn't a re that he didn't believe he could do it.

没错吧？

Right?

所以你得宣布一个相当可能的概率。

So you got to announce a decent probability.

我想回到你刚才说的，詹姆斯。

I want to come back to what you said, James.

我觉得你提到的印度溪流那个观点非常有洞察力。

I thought that was actually very insightful, the Indian Creek comment.

你也看到了，我是走的艰难路线。

And you do see this of, I did it the hard way.

我现在50岁了，60岁了，不再是22岁了。

I'm now 50, I'm 60, I'm not 22 anymore.

我有了更多的钱，但时间更少了，所以我希望更深入地参与到价值创造的过程中，让事情更快实现，这就是我的逻辑。

I've got more money and less time, so I'd like to insert myself further along in the value creation process to make it happen quicker, the logic.

你说得对。

You're right.

因为我回想起，人工智能是一项令人惊叹的新技术，能够改变众多行业。

Because I was reflecting back, AI is this cool new technology that could transform all loads of industries.

就像二三十年前，互联网是一种能够改变众多行业的酷炫新技术，对吧？

Just like twenty, thirty years ago, the internet was this cool new technology that could transform a whole load of different industries, right?

如果你回想一下杰夫·贝佐斯刚起步的时候，其实有三种不同的策略可以选择。

And if you think you had really when Jeff Bezos was starting out, there was three different plays you could make.

你可以认为，互联网将改变零售业，那就专注于零售业。

You could say, Hey, Internet's going to transform retail, let's focus on retail.

我应该开发软件并卖给零售商，帮助他们转向互联网，比如打造Shopify。

I should build software and sell it to retailers so they can kind of move on to the Internet, build Shopify.

第二种选择是，互联网将改变零售业。

The second thing you could do is say, Hey, the internet is going to transform retail.

我应该收购沃尔玛，因为我能做得更好，让他们变成一家互联网公司。

I should buy Walmart because I'll kick ass and I'll make them become an internet company.

我就用这种方式来做。

And I'll do it that way.

或者第三种选择是，去做最难的事，但能赚最多的钱。

Or the third you can do is to say, I'm going to do the hard thing for the most amount of money.

我要通过打造一个完整的零售体系来亲自改变零售业。

I'm going to transform retail myself by building a full stack retail.

我要把它叫做亚马逊，然后彻底碾压所有人。

I'm going to call it Amazon, and I'm just going to kill everyone.

而最后一种选择，结果成了从零创造两万亿美元价值的机会。

And the last one was, it turns out, the $2,000,000,000,000 opportunity from zero.

所以你的内部收益率是从几乎零投资开始，通过价值创造赚取了几万亿美元。

So your IRR is from effectively no money and you make a couple of trillion bucks from a value creation perspective.

Shopify大约创造了几千亿美元的价值，因为它是最佳的电子商务技术提供商。

Shopify, roughly a couple of $100,000,000,000 agreed because that's the best e commerce technology provider.

公平地说，如果当时沃尔玛手上有五千亿美金，本可以实现双倍回报，因为它最终采纳了互联网。

And to be fair to Walmart, if you had half $1,000,000,000,000 lying around at the time, could have scored a double because it finally adopted the Internet.

你用一大笔钱获得了两倍回报，赚了五千亿美元，因为如今沃尔玛的市值大约是一万亿美元，它在互联网时代成为了真正的赢家。

And you you make a two x on a lot of money and you make half $1,000,000,000,000 because now Walmart's got a market cap plus or minus of a trillion dollars and they're very much a winner in the Internet age.

我只是在想，这三种就是你可以选择的游戏。

And I was just thinking, those were the three games that you play.

当你25岁、充满干劲的时候，你手头并没有五千亿美金，所以你选择了做亚马逊。

And back when you're 25 and you have incredible drive, you don't have half $1,000,000,000,000 lying around, you do Amazon.

你说得完全对。

You're exactly right.

如果你是印第安溪的人，心想：‘我没有二十五年坐在办公桌前打拼的经历，但我有两倍回报的狩猎机会，比如用一千亿美金收购一堆公司，然后像我当年把互联网注入沃尔玛那样，给它们注入人工智能’，也许这就是你的玩法。

If you're an Indian Creek and you're like, Oh, I don't have twenty five years of, you know, working out of a desk, I'm like a 2x on a hunt, you know, taking 100,000,000,000 and buying a bunch of companies and injecting AI into them like I could have injected internet into Walmart, maybe that's the play.

但这种做法本质上不如Shopify或亚马逊的模式具有颠覆性，更多是财务工程。

But it's inherently less disruptive and more financial engineering than doing either of the Shopify play or the Amazon play.

我同意。

I I agree.

我喜欢这种表述方式。

I like the framing.

这是当你钱多到不想走艰难道路时的选择。

It's what you do when you have too much money to wanna do it the hard way.

如果你去问问那些如今没有因为经营公开上市的SaaS公司而焦头烂额的亿万富翁们。

If you talk to billionaires today that aren't pulling their hairs out because they're running public SaaS companies.

好吧？

Okay?

氛围很相似。

The vibe is similar.

他们现在想在人工智能领域做一番大事业。

They wanna do something huge in AI right now.

但他们不一定想亲自运营。

They don't necessarily wanna run it themselves.

他们不想再当CEO了。

They don't wanna be CEO again.

对吧？

Right?

但他们非常有动力去实现其中一种模式。

But they're very motivated to do one of these plays.

所以我们将会看到很多这样的模式。

So we're gonna see a bunch of these plays.

这是每个人都想做的事。

It's what everybody wants to do.

这很合理。

It's logical.

这从亿万富翁岛的角度来看是合理的。

It's it's logical from from from Billionaire Island.

这很合理。

It's logical.

我喜欢看到谢尔盖·布林出现在迈阿密的一个随机黑客马拉松上。

I I love seeing Sergey Brin rock up to a random hackathon in Miami.

我不确定你们有没有看到这个。

I'm not sure if you guys saw this.

是的。

Yeah.

但在迈阿密，他在活动结束时现身，担任评委之类的角色，出席了一场非常草根的黑客马拉松，地点就在迈阿密的一个普通区域。

But in Miami, he came out at the end and, you know, was a judge or whatever standing on ceremony of a very grassroots hackathon in, you know, a random part of Miami.

也许这是全国唯一对亿万富翁友好的地方了，所以我们将会看到它加速发展。

May maybe the only only place left in the country hospitable to billionaires, so we'll watch we're gonna watch it accelerate.

天啊。

Oh my god.

被压迫的亿万富翁物种。

The oppressed species of billionaire.

你觉得，当我想到这个的时候，纽约的QSBS和其他那些东西，其实我们并不非得这么做。

Do think you know, when I think about this, the New York QSBS and other stuff, not not we don't have to do it.

但当你看到谢尔盖在那里时，对吧？

What I do think is when you saw Sergey there, right?

他甚至都没搬进亿万富翁避难所。

And he didn't even move to the billionaire bunker.

而是搬到了迈阿密海滩的另一个区域。

Moved to a different part of Miami Beach.

但我认为我们忽略的是，这可能是未来几年内美国唯一一个欢迎亿万富翁的地方。

But I do think what we're missing is I think that it is the only play may become the only place in The US over the next couple of years that is welcoming billionaires.

德克萨斯州是，但奥斯汀甚至不是。

Texas does, but Austin even doesn't.

奥斯汀的看法不一。

Austin has mixed views.

但不管你怎么说。

But say what you will.

然后我知道，这确实很糟糕。

And then I know it's I mean, it's terrible.

那个OnlyFans的人，我的意思是，话题非常有争议。

The OnlyFans guy, I mean, very, very controversial subject matter.

但他住在哪里？

But where did he live?

佛罗里达州的蓬帕诺海滩。

Pompano Beach, Florida.

明白吗？

Okay?

佛罗里达说，在这儿当个亿万富翁吧。

Florida said, be a billionaire here.

明白吗？

Okay?

所以我们低估了。

And so we're underestimating.

这不仅仅是税收问题。

It's not just taxes.

有了谢尔盖，你可能只有在迈阿密成为贝索斯或谢尔盖那样的人时才会感到安心。

With the Sergei, it is you may only feel comfortable if you're Bezos or Sergei in Miami soon.

你为什么会在加利福尼亚、华盛顿或纽约感到安心呢？

Why would you feel comfortable in California or Washington and New York?

认真的，你为什么会觉得安心？

Seriously, why would you feel comfortable?

也许犹他州。

Maybe Utah.

我会觉得，如果你只是不想一直被攻击的话。

I would feel I you you just don't wanna be attacked constantly.

没有人希望有这种感觉。

No human being wants to feel that way.

你想去一个能让你做自己的地方，筹集一百亿美元，或者做任何你想做的事——别管我。

You wanna go where people will let you just be yourself and raise $100,000,000,000 or do whatever, like, Leave me alone.

让我好好活着。

Let me live.

这就是我认为人们在对待这只金鹅时所忽略的。

And that's what I think people are missing with the golden goose.

他们让亿万富翁感到不舒服。

They're making billionaires uncomfortable.

这不仅仅是钱的问题。

And it's not just the money.

而是让人感到不适，这就是谢尔盖的情况。

It's being uncomfortably That's Sergei.

他不会再回来了，除了在山景城参加员工会议和黑客马拉松。

He ain't coming back except for staff meetings and hackathons in in Mountain View.

他已经走了。

He's gone.

我昨天跟你说过，我在这儿犹他州，昨天见到了瑞安·史密斯。

Tell you yesterday, I'm here in Utah, and I saw Ryan Smith yesterday.

我非常喜欢他。

I love him.

对吧？

Right?

Qualtrics的创始人。

Founder of Qualtrics.

明白吗？

Okay?

大家都喜欢瑞安。

People love Ryan.

他拿钱买下了爵士队和冰球队。

And he took his money and bought the Jazz as well as hockey team.

他第一年经营爵士队时很艰难，因为他交易了一些顶级球员，但这里的人们都爱他。

And he had a rough first year with the Jazz because he traded some top players, but they love him here.

这里的人们都爱瑞安。

They love Ryan here.

在湾区，任何人的名声都会被诋毁。

And in the Bay Area, anyone people are vilified.

亿万富翁们都被诋毁。

The billionaires are vilified.

你为什么要留下？

Why would you stay?

而且这种情况只会加速恶化。

And it's only going to accelerate.

所以事情是这样的。

So it's here's the thing.

很难预测结果。

It's hard to predict the outcome.

我真的不认为把QSPS引入纽约会引发人们所期望的大规模迁出。

I really don't think adding QSPS to New York is going to lead to the exodus that the people wanted to do.

我们可以谈谈为什么，但他们在加州就这么做了，光靠这一招并不奏效。

We can talk about why, but they did it in California and it that alone didn't work.

但当你对某个地方的生活感到不适时，你就会离开。

But when you are uncomfortable living somewhere, you leave.

而瑞安·史密斯在这里普罗沃备受爱戴，我今天就在这里。

And it is Ryan Smith is beloved here in Provo, where I am today.

萨姆·阿尔特曼被唾弃，而达里奥却能逃过一劫，也许是因为他捐出了80%，但谁愿意生活在被唾弃的地方呢？

Sam Altman is vilified and Dario gets a pass, maybe because he gave away 80%, but who the hell wants to live where you're vilified?

谁会愿意生活在那种地方？

Who the hell wants to live there?

可以给萨姆一些宽容。

Could put Sam some slack.

他显然没有OpenAI可以赠送，所以

He apparently has no OpenAI to give away, so it's

剩下的是霍华德·马克斯。

it's Howard Marks left.

我的意思是，他年纪大了，但他确实离开了。

I mean, he's old, but he did leave.

你希望生活在让你感到舒适的地方。

You wanna be where you're comfortable.

说到世界对亿万富翁的敌意，Groq宣布了与英伟达价值200亿美元交易的最终结果。

Speaking about the world hating billionaires, Groq announced essentially the debrief on the $20,000,000,000 deal to NVIDIA.

在人工智能领域被收购的金额不到一亿美元。

Less than a $100,000,000 in AI are being acquired.

创始人乔纳森在经历双重征税后，将获得约9.5亿美元，这表明在知识产权和团队收购兼并方面，税收成本相当高昂。

Jonathan, the founder, is gonna make, about $950,000,000 after what will be a double taxation, showing it's quite a costly thing, taxes in terms of the IP and team acqui hires that we've seen.

据报道，Chemath也赚了9.5亿美元，他在推特上对此作出了回应。

Then Chemath also reportedly made $950,000,000 to which he responded on Twitter.

他赚了多得多的钱。

He made much, much more.

我们该如何分析这个细分结构呢？

How do we think about the analysis of this breakdown?

我觉得你刚才提了三件不同的事，我觉得你应该把它们分开来讲。

I think there's three different things you said we'd talk about, and I think you should break them apart.

第一，你多久能看到一次这种年经常性收入低于一亿美元的公司以这种估值成交？

One is how often do you see this kind of sub $100,000,000 ARR revenue businesses going for this kind of value?

第二，交易结构是怎样的？为什么会导致双重征税？

Then the second thing is, what was the structure and why does it result in double taxation?

第三，为什么Portia Matt总要告诉我们他很有钱？

And then maybe the third thing is, why does Portia Matt need to tell us he's rich all the time?

没关系，我们相信你很有钱。

It's okay, we believe you're rich.

你可能让其他人变穷了，但我们承认你确实很有钱。

You may have made other people poor, but we stipulate that you are rich.

而且你也很聪明。

And even you are smart.

你在这里做了一件了不起的事。

You did a great deal here.

算了吧，可怜的家伙。

Let it go, poor guy.

心理咨询会有帮助的。

Therapy will help.

但我们还是回到第一个问题。

But let's go back to the first one.

因为你在笔记中提出的第一个问题，每次谈到这个节目时你总是忽略，那就是：你什么时候会看到这种交易价格，仿佛收入根本不重要？

Because the first question you asked in the notes, you always ignore when it comes to the show, is when do you see this kind of transaction price as if revenue doesn't matter?

那就是问题所在。

That was the question.

什么时候会有人为一亿美元的收入支付两百亿美元？

When does someone pay $20,000,000,000 for $100,000,000 in revenue?

我当时也在想这个问题。

And I was thinking about that.

这很简单。

It's easy.

答案是，当收购方认为其价值极高，并且拥有足够的市值时。

The answer is when the value to the acquirer is so high and they have the market cap to do it.

英伟达拥有5万亿美元的市值，可以为有价值的东西支付200亿美元。

And NVIDIA, with a 5,000,000,000,000 market cap, can pay $20,000,000,000 for something that's valuable.

我还想到另一个很好的例子，因为这种现象在小规模上经常发生。

There is another good example I thought of at scale, because it happens a lot at small scale.

有很多科技领域的并购案例，一些糟糕的小公司年收入不到100万美元，却被以1亿美元收购，相当于百倍甚至两百倍的收入倍数。

There are loads of tech M and A where some shitty little company is doing less than 1,000,000 in revenue, someone buys it for a 100,000,000, which is a hundred, two hundred X revenue multiple.

但我们对此并不声张，因为规模实在太小了。

But we don't make a noise about it because it's just so small.

他们这样做的原因是，可以将其整合进自己的渠道，迅速将这百万美元的收入转化为2000万、3000万甚至4000万美元，因为这对他们具有战略价值。

And the reason they're doing that is because they can run it through their channel and they can convert that million in revenue into $20.30, 40,000,000 very quickly, art has strategic value to them.

这种规模的交易发生的次数很少，但WhatsApp是另一个绝佳的例子。

The number of times it happens at 20,000,000,000 is low, but WhatsApp is the other great example of that.

Facebook以160亿美元收购了WhatsApp，而当时WhatsApp的收入为零。

Facebook paid $16,000,000,000 for WhatsApp and it didn't have a dime of revenue.

这是一笔绝佳的交易，至今仍然是。

It was a great deal and it's still a great deal.

所以这种事确实会发生，但能负担得起这种交易的买家寥寥无几。

So it does happen, but there's only a few number of buyers who can afford to do that.

Groq那个项目，你知道吗，他们上周在GDC上刚宣布进入量产阶段。

The Groq one, you know, they just announced at GDC last week that it's going into production.

所以这不一样。

So that's different.

明白吗？

Okay?

我想跟你说说我在风险投资领域普遍觉得有趣的事情。

And I'll tell you what I find interesting in general for Venture.

他们有1亿美元的收入。

So they had a 100,000,000 in revenue.

他们验证了这个概念。

They proved the concept.

他们证明了这个想法基本可行。

They proved it sort of works.

詹森说，一年内就能将其投入生产。

And Jensen said within a year, can get this into production.

这值数十亿美元。

That's worth billions.

对吧？

Right?

而且

And

对收购方来说很有价值。

so value to the acquirer.

这说明了并购有多奇怪，真的非常奇怪。

It illustrates how weird m and a is so weird.

这笔交易的价格大概是上一轮的数倍。

This deal probably was a multiple of the last round.

上一轮的估值是69亿美元。

The last round was at 6,900,000,000.0.

如今这种情况不太常见了，但传统上，成长轮的融资轮次通常是上一轮的2到3倍。

This is less common these days, but classically rounds would be two to three x the last of a growth round.

最近由于某些原因，这种情况已经大幅减少了。

Okay, that has collapsed for some reasons recently.

但我第一家初创公司被收购时，价格正好是我们的上一轮融资的三倍。

But my first startup was acquired for exactly three x our round.

确切地说，我们的收购方下载了我们的公司章程，查到了每股价格，然后未经邀请就直接提出了三倍的收购报价，明白吗？

Literally, our acquirer downloaded our certificate of incorporation, found our per share price, and showed up unsolicited with an offer three x, okay?

我认为这里发生的就是这种情况。

That's what I think happened here.

但奇怪的是，这提醒我们，并购的很大一部分，无论以何种方式，都聚焦于收入倍数，要么直接，要么潜在地，而交易完成后这些倍数就被弃之不用了。

What is so weird though is that it's a reminder that so much of M and A, one way or another, is focused on revenue multiples, either directly or potentially, and then they're just abandoned after the deal.

他们只是说：你值10.2倍的ARR，然后交易完成后我们就解雇销售和市场团队，把业务整合进我们的核心产品。

They're just, You're worth 10.2 X ARR, and then we fire the sales and marketing team after the deal closes and roll it up into our core product.

这真是件怪事。

It's an odd thing.

虽然必要，但确实很奇怪，对吧？

Necessary, but odd, right?

它们的估值方式有太多奇怪的地方。

There's so many weird ways they are valued.

同意。

Agreed.

这很奇怪，因为通常独立运营时的价值可能只有20亿或30亿美元，而被收购时却高达200亿美元，这中间的170亿美元价值该如何分配呢？

It's a weird thing because there's often this huge gap between what you work standalone might be 2 or $3,000,000,000 what you were to acquire might be $20,000,000,000 And it's a question of how does that $17,000,000,000 of value get allocated?

显然，有时收购方会试图压价，只比你独立运营的价值多一美元。

And obviously, sometimes the buyer is trying to grind you down to $1 more than your standalone value.

而有时候，就像这个案例一样，他们会说：我们会支付给你们一个对我们而言公允的金额，这远高于你们独立运营时的价值。

And then sometimes, like in this case, they're like, Hey, we will pay you a fair amount of what it's worth to us, which is way more than your worth on a standalone basis.

但顺带说一下接下来的问题，作为回报，你们将采用这种结构，虽然税务效率极低，但这是我们能快速完成交易、避免政府审查的唯一方式。接下来要谈的是，你试图表达的另一个观点是：CEO——没人会为赚了9.5亿美元的人感到同情，他们甚至都还不是亿万富翁，所以没人会恨他们，这很好。

But kind of segueing to the next thing, in return for that, you're going to use this structure, which is wildly tax inefficient, but it's the only way for us to get this thing done quickly and without government review, which is the next thing to say here, which is the pointthe other point you're trying to make is that the CEOI mean, no one's going cry for someone who made $950,000,000 And they're not even a billionaire, so no one will hate them, so that's great.

我的意思是，这实际上是个双赢。

I mean, it's actually a win.

很好，再加5000万美元，民众就要举着火把找上门了。

Good, another $50,000,000 and Jason, the pitchforks would be out.

但这些交易的税务效率非常低，因为实际情况是：公司把资产出售给英伟达，确认了资本利得，因为这些资产在账面上的价值不到10亿美元，而现在却以200亿美元的价格售出。

But these transactions are very tax inefficient because what happens is the company sells the assets to NVIDIA, books a gain because the assets were in the books at sub 1,000,000,000, and now they're getting sold for 20,000,000,000.

因此，公司层面必须就这笔收益缴税，然后通过分红或赎回的方式把资金分配给股东，个人投资者还要就这笔收益再次缴税。

So, you have to pay tax at the company level on that, and then you dividend or redeem the money out, and individual investors have to pay tax on the gain.

所以，这种做法的税务效率相当低下。

So, it's fairly inefficient.

因此，在一笔200亿美元的交易中，你们可能因为这种结构白白浪费了大约40亿到50亿美元，而这正是

So, you're probably wasting plus or minus 4 or $5,000,000,000 on a $20,000,000,000 transaction because of the And it's

对创始人乔纳森来说，实际税率大约是60%。

probably to the founder, Jonathan, it's roughly 60% effective tax rate.

你不能持有英伟达的股票。

And you can't hold NVIDIA stock.

你套现了，对吧？

You're cashed out, right?

这里面涉及的金额巨大。

Like there's a lot of it.

这笔交易中有太多低效之处。

There's so many inefficiencies in this deal.

首先，你连知识产权都得不到，对吧？

One, you don't even get the IP, right?

你得不到这家公司。

You don't get the company.

你什么都没得到。

You don't get anything.

而且创始人要承担60%的税率，还不能进行股票置换。

And it's a 60% tax rate to the founders and no ability to roll over the stock.

为了避免反垄断，花9.5亿美元值不值？但天啊，这绝对是为规避反垄断而设计的最复杂、最低效的手段。

Know, avoiding antitrust, is it worth it probably for the $950,000,000 But man, this has got to be the most inefficient thing ever convoluted to avoid antitrust.

这太昂贵了。

It's so expensive.

而且有一点值得注意。

And it is worth pointing out.

从政府的角度来看，这简直令人恐惧。

It's just quite terrifying from a government perspective.

现在你有了这样一个流程：政府制定规则并执行反垄断法。

You now have a process whereby the government makes the rules that enforces the antitrust.

而你基本上只有两个选择。

And basically, you've got two choices.

看起来，你要么在最高管理层进行大量游说，从而获得顶层的豁免——这周《华尔街日报》就刊登了一篇相当不错的文章。

It would appear you either lobby extensively at the highest levels of administration and you get a waiver from the top down, put out Wall Street Journal article this week, which was pretty good.

而选项B就是这么操作，然后你要面临双重征税，无论怎样政府都赢了。

And option B is you do it this way, and then you pay double taxation, and the government wins either way.

知道吗，把钱转给我，我就放你一马，或者等交易完成后转给我，但总之你得把钱转给我。

Know, wire me the money and I'll let you off, or wire me the money after it closes, but wire me the money either way.

这真是一个非常扭曲的激励机制。

It's a really perverse incentive.

我的意思是，下次谁要是进入反垄断部门，说我们应该清理规则，让它更加透明，这可能会让政府损失高达2.03万亿美元，你知道的，某种形式的回扣和避税组合。

Mean, whoever comes into the antitrust division next time and says, I think we should clean up the rules and make it much more transparent, it's probably gonna cost the government $2,030,000,000,000 bucks in terms of, you know, some combination of kickback and tax avoidance.

我得说，我确实挺喜欢的。

I have to say I do like it.

乔纳森在沙漠和黑暗中度过了很多年，他是一位真正像蟑螂一样坚韧的创始人，经历了艰难时刻。

Jonathan was in the desert and the dark for many years, and he is a founder who's been a real respectfully cockroach who's gone through the hard times.

他经受住了批评。

He's gone through the criticism.

他本人也是一个很棒的人。

He's also just a good dude.

我非常喜欢他。

I like him a lot.

看到好人得胜真好。

So it's nice to see good people win.

就像特雷马特一样，另一个好家伙，他经历过低谷，现在赚了九亿五千万。

Just like Tremat, another good guy who's been through the wilderness and has now got his 950,000,000.

所以，我肯定这就是你想表达的观点，哈里。

So they I'm sure that's the point you're trying to make, Harry.

他需要钱，罗伊。

He he needs money, Roy.

明白吗？

Okay?

他现在可以再买一些劳拉·皮亚娜了。

He he can now now buy some more Laura Piana.

罗伊，你之前对我说得真好。

Roy, you brilliantly said it to me.

你知道，这很棒，但那我呢？

You know, that's great, but what about me?

我持有亚马逊的股票，也持有Figma的股票。

I I own stock in Amazon, and I own stock in Figma.

明白吗？

Okay?

谷歌推出了Stitch。

Google launches Stitch.

Figma股价暴跌。

Figma tumbles.

说Figma股价暴跌都太轻描淡写了。

Figma tumbles is an understatement.

我看到一条推文，其实是有人发布的公告，说红杉资本正在买入价值3500万美元的Figma股票。

I saw a tweet it was actually an announcement that someone posted, and Sequoia were buying $35,000,000 of Figma stock.

我当时就想：操。

And I was like, fuck.

如果红杉和微软Azure都在买入价值三千五百万美元的Figma股票，那我也要投点自己的钱。

If if Sequoia and Azure are buying $35,000,000, I'll put in some of my money.

这对我来说是个好迹象。

That's a good sign for me.

我亏了22%。

I'm down 22%.

22%。

22%.

是的。

Yeah.

每股21.66美元。

It's $21.66 a share.

我记得当时看了一下。

I remember look.

当它还在108美元时，你问我觉得会涨到多少，我说35，结果我猜错了。

When it was at a 108 and you asked me what I thought it'd be, I said 35, and I was wrong.

我当时笑你，因为你太悲观了，结果我错了。

I was you laughed at me because I was so pessimistic, I was wrong.

现在是21美元。

It's 21.

哇哦。

Wow.

这有底线吗？

Does this have a floor?

当然有底线。

Of course, it has a floor.

我的意思是，别说了。

I mean, stop.

再说一遍，它的现金流强劲，所以有底线。

Again, has a floor based on its cash flow, which is strong.

它的现金流增长率也构成了底线，对吧？

It has a floor with its growth rate of that cash flow, right?

第三个要素是被颠覆的概率。

The third element is the probability of disruption.

你知道，短期来看，股权业务的棘手之处在于，每个人都可以对这种颠覆概率进行投机。

And you know, the tricky thing about the equity business in the short term is everybody gets to speculate on that probability of disruption.

你拿出现金流，如果你喜欢这个故事，就加上溢价，参考埃隆的案例；你拿出现金流然后买入；但如果你对这个故事感到非常恐惧，就会施加恐慌性折价，这正是这里正在发生的情况。

You take the cash flows, And then if you love the story, you apply uplift, see Elon for details, you take the cash flow and then you buy the And if you're really scared about the story, you apply terror downlift, which is what's going on here.

最终，如果这家企业真的有价值，它就会增长并产生现金流，然后他们就能像Palantir的那位创始人一样行事——我非常欣赏这一点：每次财报电话会上，他都会狠狠回击所有质疑者，基本上就是说：去你的，我正在赚钱，而你们全错了。

Now, the end, if the business is worth it, it will grow and it will generate the cash and they'll get to do what the Palantir guy does, which I so love, which is every earnings call, he basically slams all the haters and says, basically, fuck you, I'm making money, and you all were wrong.

短期内，市场可以抱怨、发牢骚、表达自己的观点，但底部不会因为市场改变主意而出现。

In the short term, the market gets to bitch and moan and have its opinion, but the floor doesn't come because the market changes its mind.

也许会，也许不会，但那不在你的控制之中。

Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but that's not in your control.

如果你在运营Figma，只要你能执行到位，证明自己已经适应了以AI为先的世界，实现了增长并产生了现金流，最终局面就会扭转。

If you're running Figma, the floor comes if you execute, you demonstrate that you've been able to adapt to an AI first world, you generate the growth, you generate the cash flows, eventually it'll turn.

但这就是为什么回撤如此糟糕。

But that's why drawdowns are shitty.

这就是回撤如此艰难的原因。

That's why drawdowns are hard.

关于Stitch和Figma这件事，我的意思是，我当然用过Stitch，就像你想象的那样。

On the Stitch Figma thing, I mean, I've used Stitch, of course, as you would imagine.

我认为那些对此发表意见的人大多都没用过它。

I I I think most folks that chimed in on this never used it.

我有98%的把握。

I I'm confident 98%.

杰森，对于不了解的人，Stitch是什么？

Jason, for those that don't know, Stitch is what for those

这是一个谷歌推出的新设计工具，而谷歌推出新AI工具的门槛相当低。

It is a new design tool that Google launched, and the bar at Google to launch a new AI tool is pretty low.

他们尝试很多东西，但几乎都会放弃，因为他们只专注于少数核心产品。

They try a lot of stuff, and they abandon almost all of it because then they focus on a few core products.

所以当谷歌推出一个产品时，你根本无法认真对待，因为你根本不知道他们是否会坚持下去。

So you literally cannot take it seriously when Google launches a product because you have no idea whether they will stick to it.

他们推出了Sono。

They launched a Sono.

是Sono吗？

Is it Sono?

抱歉。

Sorry.

我老是说错。

Keep getting this wrong here.

那个音频的。

The the audio one.

对吧？

Right?

那个源头是什么？

What's the one source?

那个音频的？

The the the audio one?

哦，是Sono。

Oh, it's Sono.

是的。

Yeah.

所以谷歌推出了一款与Sono竞争的产品。

So Google launched a Sono competitor.

看起来不错，但远不如它。

It's like cool, but it's not nearly as good.

它根本不好用。

Like, it doesn't really work.

他们会坚持五年吗？

Will they keep with it for five years?

我敢打赌他们不会，因为这不属于核心业务。

I'll bet you dollars to donuts they don't because it's not core.

明白吗？

Okay?

我用过Stitch。

I used Stitch.

我用过谷歌所有的设计产品。

I've used all of Google's design products.

我认为，他们决定基于这个项目花十年时间打造一个Figma竞争对手的可能性几乎为零。

I think the odds that they decide to build a Figma competitor from this for a decade approach zero.

所以，一方面，市场对一个概念验证反应过度了。

So, on the one hand, massive market overreaction to a proof of concept.

如果我是红杉资本之类的机构，别开玩笑了。

Give me an effing break if I'm Sequoia or whatever.

另一方面，市场在说：我们非常担心被颠覆。

On the other hand, the markets are saying, We are extremely worried about disruption.

你们必须向我们证明，Figma、Atlassian、Salesforce，你们走在颠覆之前，而不是落后于它。

You better prove to us, Figma, Atlassian, Salesforce, you are ahead of disruption and not behind it.

而市场说：我们不相信。

And the market said, We don't believe it.

我同意市场的观点，因为 Figma Make 是我过去六个月用过的最差的产品之一。

And I agree with the markets here, because Figma Make is one of the worst products I've used in the last six months.

但单独来看，Stitch 至少比 Make 好一些。

But Stitch on its own, at least it's better than Make.

至少它能从网站获取上下文并进行幻觉生成。

At least it can take context from a website and hallucinate.

但市场应该说：拿证据来给我看。

But the market should be, show me the money.

再说一遍，Figma 那 3 亿美元的收入从哪里来？它到底怎么像我们之前讨论的那样颠覆了 Replit 和 Lovable？

Again, where is Figma's $300,000,000 of revenue from disrupting Replit and Lovable like we talked before?

所以，如果你没有像 Palantir 那样交付成果，或者没有像 Salesforce 那样开始交付，市场就会恐慌，觉得你的收入根本不可持续。

And so, if you haven't delivered like Palantir, or started to deliver like Salesforce, the markets are gonna friggin' panic that your revenue is not that durable.

这就是我所有的看法。

This is what I think at all.

我很久以前就没再担心 2026 年的恐慌了。

Like I didn't get the 2026 panic for a long time.

我反应太慢了。

I was slow.

现在我明白了。

Now I get it.

市场理性地表示，我们不再相信这种收入具有特别的持久性了，老一辈的SaaS从业者。

The markets are rationally saying we no longer believe this revenue is particularly durable, old SaaS people.

P并不相信这一点。

P doesn't believe it.

Qualtrics本周未能完成其债务融资。

Qualtrics couldn't finish its debt offering this week.

Salesforce勉强才完成了债务发行。

Sales force barely got its debt done.

为什么呢？

And why?

市场并不是认为Figma是一家糟糕的公司。

The markets just It's not that they think that Figma is a bad company.

他们只是不再相信这笔收入还能持续十年。

They just don't believe this revenue is going to last a decade anymore.

他们不相信这一点。

They don't believe it.

因此，任何增长未加速的公司都会越来越多地遭遇这种恐慌。

And so, you're gonna see more and more of these panics for anyone not accelerating.

每当这种情况发生时，他们都会恐慌。

Peep they're just gonna panic every time it happens.

杰森，我们刚刚发布了一期与Figma的首席营收官的访谈，我问他：你如何看待AI在销售团队中的应用？

Jason, we just released a show with the CRO of Figma, and I asked him, how are you seeing AI implemented into your sales teams?

他回答说：老实说，我们目前还没有这个能力，也还没这么做。

And he said, honestly, we don't really have that ability, and we haven't done it yet.

而且，顺便说一下，我们正在大量招聘销售人员。

And oh, and and we're hiring a lot more in sales, by the way.

我们完全没有削减人员编制。

We're not reducing headcount at all.

我们没看到这种情况。

We're not seeing that.

顺便说一下，我们也没看到每座位定价有任何变化。

And, oh, by the way, we're not seeing seat pricing change at all.

听到这个，你感觉如何？

How do you feel when you hear that?

因为

Because

有趣的是，哈利，这个反而不像产品那样让我担心。

That one, ironically, Harry, ironically, that one does not worry me as much as the product.

我来告诉你我学到了什么。

I will tell you what I've learned.

在另外20家风投公司，我正式地，而对我自己来说是非正式地，我认识、接触过很多领先AI公司的首席营收官和首席营销官。

You formally, on the other 20 VC, me informally, I know, I've talked to, I know a lot of the CROs and CMOs at leading AI companies.

我关系比较近的那些人相当不错，但我也看到大量我称之为‘重复的平庸者’的人。

The ones I'm close to are pretty good, but I also see tons of folks I called recycled mediocre.

这些人是从那些几乎没什么作为的老B2B公司被淘汰出来的，但因为有正确的公司招牌，就被聘到那些热门的AI公司，假定他们什么都会。

They are folks that bombed out of old B2B companies that barely did anything there, but because they have the right logo, got hired to assume they're all over the hot AI companies.

太多 recycled mediocre（重复的平庸者）了。

So many recycled mediocre.

他们打算雇两百五十个销售，却不做任何培训。

And they're going to hire two fifty reps and not train them.

他们还会制作信息图。

And they're going to build infographics.

但产品太强大，需求太旺盛，根本不在乎这些。

But the products are so strong and the demand is so strong, it doesn't effing matter.

所以Figma的Make做得太棒了，他们的AI产品月收入达到五亿美元，你甚至可以让刚从非技术类大专毕业的新人去卖。

So Figma Make was so great and their AI product was doing 500,000,000, you could sell it with folks fresh out of a non technical junior college.

这都没问题，对吧？

It'd be fine, right?

所以我的观点是，尽管我经常谈论AI的市场推广代理，也相信它们很棒且有效，但它们并不能解决产品与市场的契合问题。

So my point is even though I talk a lot about AI go to market agents and I believe they're great and they work, they don't fix product market fit.

销售并不能解决产品与市场的契合问题。

And sales does not fit product market fit.

我们正看到产品与市场契合度在衰退。

And we're seeing decaying product market fit.

这就是为什么市场对Figma感到恐慌。

That's why the market panicked on Figma.

他们看到了一些迹象——仅仅是迹象——表明在AI时代产品与市场契合度正在衰退，你也应该感到恐慌。

They're seeing hints, just hints, of decaying product market fit in the AI era, and you should panic.

是的。

Yeah.

哈里，我再补充一点，因为我经常和我的公司们讨论这个问题。

Harry, just to pile in on that, because I actually have these conversations with my companies all the time.

实际上，我对杰森说的话并不完全同意。

I actually I didn't think I totally agree what Jason said.

当我的公司来找我，说想聊聊AI，他们就会说：‘看看我们。'

It's like when my companies come and say, Hey, we want to talk about AI, and they say, know, Hey, look at us.

我们在营销中使用AI，或者他们说，看看我们。

We're using AI in go to market, or they say, Look at us.

我们用AI来构建工程。

We're using AI to build engineering.

我说，这很棒，但根本没人关心。

I'm like, That's great, but nobody gets a rat's ass.

这就像用撬棍开门。

That's like jacks to open.

这并没有解决核心问题，除非你做的东西像汽车那样无关紧要。

That's not solving the core problem, unless you're making something like cars where it doesn't matter.

这仅仅是后台效率的提升。

It's just back office efficiency.

如果你是一家软件公司，最重要的问题是：AI如何改变你交付给客户的最终产品？

If you're a software company, the number one question is, how does AI change the end product you deliver to your customers?

这才是决定成败的关键。

That's what's going to determine success or failure.

所以我一直在想，杰夫，我本来以为你会抓住那个家伙的把柄，趁他落败时狠狠打击他，因为我觉得他简直是送上门来让你说‘这蠢货根本没用AI’。

So I was wondering, Jeff, I'd have guessed you'd have piled on to that guy and kind of bludgeoned him while he was down because I thought how he'd served you up a softball for you to say, Hey, the idiot is not using AI.

我本来可能会跟你争辩，但我认为你说到点子上了。

And I'd have argued with you, but I think you nailed it.

你在市场营销中可以用好AI，也可以用得很糟。

You could be using AI well or badly in go to market.

你在工程中也可以用好AI，或者用得很糟。

You can be using AI well or badly in engineering.

如果你不用好AI，迟早会付出代价，但那并不是导致30%、40%价格下跌的根本原因。

It will catch up with you over time if you're not using it well, but that's not what's driving 30%, 40% price declines.

真正推动这一点的，正是杰森所说的市场反应——人们看到这种情况，意识到这里存在颠覆风险。

What's driving that is exactly what Jason said is the market that look at this and saying, there's disruption risk here.

我不清楚这里的最终价值是多少。

I don't know the terminal value here.

我只是感到不安，所以我必须为这种风险获得回报。

I'm just nervous, so I gotta be paid for that risk.

天啊。

Oh, god.

他没接住我的送分球，对吧，罗伊？

He didn't take my softball, did he, Roy?

这通常是常态

That was norm normally

这确实是个送分球，但罗伊说到了关键点。

It is a softball, but Roy's got the important point.

你得用对AI，否则你的公司会衰退。

You gotta have the right AI or your company's gonna decline.

听好了。

Listen.

我肯定Figma的那位很棒，但说实话，如果我今天面试一位CRO，而他/她连在我们上一期播客中提到的任何AI代理都没用过，我会建议CEO：别雇他/她。

I'm sure the Figma guy is great, but honestly, if I interviewed a CRO today and didn't have any AI agents that he he or she had brought in to our last podcast, I would recommend to the CEO, don't hire her or him.

明白吗？

Okay?

当然。

For sure.

但如果我面试一位CTO，而这位新CTO根本不相信使用AI编码，那我会比遇到这种情况更担心，我会要求退款。

But would I think this was would I be much more worried than if I talked to a CTO and this the new CTO they wanted to hire didn't really believe in using the agent coding, then I would ask for my money back.

我能拿回我全部的投资，按1倍返还吗？

Can I have all of my investment back at 1x?

你可以保留你的利润。

You can keep your markup.

只要把我的500万美元还给我。

Just give me my 5,000,000 back.

我要再深入一层。

I'm going to go one level more than that.

你说得对。

You're right.

不用AI去开拓市场是坏事，不用AI来开发产品，也许我也想要回我的钱。

Not using AI and go to market bad, not using AI to build product, maybe I want my money back.

但如果你是一家软件产品公司，却不认为人工智能不仅会改变你的开发方式，还会改变你的产品本身，那么你实际上可能应该做空它。

But if you're a software product and you don't think AI is going to disrupt not just how you build, but what you build, then you actually probably want to actively short it.

如果Figma或Salesforce之类公司说，我认为人工智能对我们的客户群无关紧要，他们不想在设计中使用AI，如果有人真这么想，你会觉得天啊，你只会被远远甩在后面。

If Figma or Salesforce or someone was to say, I don't think AI is relevant for our customer base and they don't want to use AI in design, if someone was to take that pain, you'd be like, Oh my God, you're just going to be just left behind.

是的，这正是我对Figma对Make产品如此麻木感到担忧的原因。

Yeah, and that's why Figma's insensitivity to how mediocre Make is really worries me.

这实际上

That's actually

我不会质疑，如果Dylan或团队说：听着，Make还不够好，但请给我一点时间。

I the wouldn't question about care if if Dylan or the team said, listen, we're Make isn't good enough, but what give me time.

给我六个月。

Give me six months.

它会变得很棒。

It's gonna be great.

但说这个产品是我过去六个月用过的最糟糕的编码工具，而居然没有人公开意识到这是个问题，这真的让我很担心。

But saying this product that is the worst vibe coding tool I have used in the last six months, the fact that there is no public awareness that this is an issue really worries me.

杰森，你能帮我理解一下吗？

Jason, can you help me understand that?

因为戴伦是个优秀的CEO。

Because Dylan is a good CEO.

听我说，我不确定。

Listen, I don't know for sure.

明白吗？

Okay?

但我认为，每个规模化的企业都会陷入一个陷阱，那就是你的现有用户群就是一个陷阱。

But I think everyone at scale has a trap, which is your installed base is a trap.

这是一个可以设下陷阱的机会。

It is an opportunity to trap.

把你的代理产品，比如Agent Force，卖给那440亿美元的AI市场，是世界上最棒的事。

It is the greatest thing in the world to sell your agentic product to, to sell Agent Force to, is the $44,000,000,000 of AI.

这是最好的机会，因为你不需要去赢得这个用户群，对吧？

It's the greatest opportunity because you don't have to earn that base, right?

但这也意味着五十年的债务、五十年的功能积累、五十年的离线集成、他们想要的非智能型缺口，以及五十年无尽的工作。

But it is also fifty years of debt, fifty years of features, fifty years of offline integrations, non agentic gaps they want, fifty years of endless work.

如果你不小心，这个已有的用户基础会消耗掉你98%的资源，对吧？

And if you're not careful, it will consume 98% of your resources is that installed base, right?

他们需要大量的关注。

They need so much attention.

我真的认为，Make 是我用过的唯一一个具备这种编程体验的产品——你可以说：‘帮我为20VC建一个网站，用20vc.com做模板’，它不能直接访问20vc.com来抓取内容生成网站。

And I do think, literally, Make is the only vibe coding product that I have used where you say, build me a website for 20VC, use 20vc.com as a template, and it can't go to 20vc.com and pull the context to make the website.

在2025年6月，Replit 还做不到这一点。

Now, Replit couldn't do this in June 2025.

Lovable 也做不到。

Lovable couldn't.

但今天任何人都能做到，对吧？

But anybody can do it today, right?

包括你知道的，Stitch 就做得相当不错。

Including, you know, who could do it pretty good was Stitch.

Stitch 对设计项目的上下文把握得不错，我明白。

Stitch got the context right of the design projects, I get it.

这让我觉得，负责的人根本不在乎这些使用场景。

And that just shows to me whoever's running it doesn't care about these use cases.

他们就是不在乎。

They just don't care.

它已经落后了。

It has fallen behind.

我猜，我猜测，这个项目团队很小。

And I really, my guess is, my guess is there's a small team on this.

你知道，他们还在增长，大概35%？

You know, they're still growing, what, 35%?

对吧？

Right?

我的意思是，它算是其中最出色的之一。

I mean, is one of the best out there.

但这里有个陷阱。

But here's the trap.

我们所有的投资组合公司都面临这种情况。

And we all have portfolio companies like this.

赚取35%增长的陷阱可能会危及你的智能增长。

The trap of earning that 35% can imperil your agentic growth.

它可能会消耗掉你所有产品、工程和客服资源的100%以上，对吧？

It can consume more than 100% of all the product and engineering and CS resources you have, right?

就连迈克尔·坎农·布鲁克斯上节目时也暗示过这一点，对吧？就在他们裁员的时候。

Even Michael Cannon Brookes, when he was on the show, he alluded to it, right, when they did the layoffs.

他说：我得把这些资源争取回来，否则Jira和Confluent这些项目会把所有资源都吸走，我就没人手了。

He's like, I gotta get these resources, because otherwise Jira and Confluent and everyone's gonna suck it all up, and I have no people.

这是一个陷阱。

It's a trap.

想想你那些已经规模化的投资组合公司。

And think of some of your portfolio companies at scale.

超过一亿美元后，他们不会这样描述，但你知道这其实是个陷阱。

North of a 100 million, they don't describe it this way, but you know it's a trap.

尤其是当他们有一位平庸的副总裁参加董事会会议时，这位副总裁会说：我想做这件事，但我没足够的人手。

Especially when they have a mediocre VP present at the board meeting, and the mediocre VP is like, I just I wanna do it, but I don't have the people.

我需要再招700个人才能完成这个项目。

I need another 700 people to build that.

你知道的。

You know?

唉，真是头疼。

Like, ugh.

很难开口说：我先为新项目分配资源，剩下的再给旧项目。

Is so hard to say, I'll allocate to the new thing first and allocate the residual to the old thing.

你本能地会说：我先解决旧项目，然后再找人去做新的。

And you are the instinctive is to say, I'll deal with the old thing, and then I'll find some people for the new.

你说得对。

You're right.

这是思维上的转变。

It's a mind shift.

这个观点很有意思。

It's an interesting point.

而且啊，我不想过度夸大Intercom的那个例子，但如果要把它当案例分析的话，它确实能说明我们需要做些什么。

And and, you know, I don't wanna overstate the intercom example, but but if you wanna use it a case study, it does illustrate what you have to do.

当时欧文的态度非常明确。

And and and Owen was clear.

我们会任由核心业务出现一定程度的下滑。

We let our core business go into partial decline.

但对上市公司来说，这非常难，几乎不可能做到。

It's very hard for almost impossible for a public company, though.

身为私营企业是很幸运的，因为你得有十足的魄力才能说出：我们要任由一个规模十几亿美元的设计业务小幅下滑，才能集中资源打造我们的智能代理产品。

It's lucky being private because, you know, you gotta have a lot of guts to say we're gonna let a 1 point something billion dollar design business decline a little bit so we can build our agentic product.

如果你是上市公司的话，这件事执行起来会格外艰难。

It it's tough when you're public.