The Billion Dollar PDF

Key Takeaway

Audit your commitments for optionality today. List the capital, contracts, and obligations that force you into a single path, then identify one way to preserve room to adapt—raise less money, negotiate broader terms, simplify a commitment, or keep cash available. In unstable environments, flexibility can be more valuable than maximum funding or maximum commitment because it lets you change the business when new information arrives.

Episode Overview

This episode examines how narratives shape capital allocation, markets, media, and institutions. The conversation moves from founders’ cap-table design and investors’ “billion-dollar PDF” narratives to attention-driven media, AI, the future of software economics, investing simplicity, hiring, and the cultural beliefs behind technology.

Full Transcript

Transcript of The Billion Dollar PDF from Invest Like The Best. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

You know, you can to generate billions dollars of capital, simply introducing a new idea. Time from time someone, in fact, crystallizes the idea just in time and in the right way, which becomes fundamental point of view or opinion regarding a certain era. Everyone is panicking a little. They don't know what is happening. AND someone just need to create history and narrative. AND it's not even must be right, but there is just certain confidence that this is happening. Follow me. Capital just follows by PDF file on billion dollars in this industry.

So, we have there will be a possibility to talk, how are we we do every day, about 57 different ideas. But to me it's always interesting to start from several questions about investing. I I am sitting next to you. We We share an office. So I hear many such stories daily. And I think that you would be very happy interesting to use your observations from all these, who knows- how many hundreds conversations with the founders of these companies and capital, which supported them in past, to to share what you learned from this front for the last 18 months, formulated as tips for founders and capital tips, because...I just don't I know a lot.

investors who consider the following situations like yours, with so high amount of reputation. So what are you learned in the first 18 months of this work? I learned a lot. You really you realize, let's say, on long-term private markets that a great filter for funds, so to speak, is their ability to tell stories, essentially, because you you know their product, which, for example, realized cash income, takes a decade . And what you sell meanwhile, whether because , you know, quarterly update, is yours the event, or just yours personal conversations face to face with yours partners or something such, actually there is just a narrative.

Very specific interesting situation that we have seen a lot, it has two aspects. Firstly, the business is a bit old, but recently started flourish. It interesting scenario, because this is one of those cases where simply because the company, again, history, company narrative is that she is 7 years. Suppose, the company really began to change. Maybe it's because artificial intelligence, or , perhaps because of something different, but they there are already six or seven years. Hereby it is very difficult for companies get financing, because The story is like this, well, Okay, great.

You increased by 200% from the previous year, but you know, you only progress in absolute in terms of your income is only 8 million, and you are already 7 years. While I think what if you just changed the name and told another history, and just arbitrarily launched countdown two years therefore, this company would be really popular, and this interesting situation. Correction, in my opinion opinion is that, to be more flexible regarding narrative and history. A kind of derivative from this problem is number enterprises that are in a state of when everything works, things are starting to go well okay, but they encounter three options, namely: they are not going to attract significant growth round.

So actually they are are considering strategic option , such as share capital in mergers and acquisitions. And this really difficult situations. If you are you in such a situation, I think that This is where you really need it. need to show creativity with table capitalization. And if you have some money, buy yours investors, convert all to common stocks, start spending more time for table capitalization, because otherwise I was shocked by how hostile they are insider rounds capitalization. I I think that's it. not enough the part under discussion venture capital calculations, they just have it, you know , 3-fold preferences regarding liquidation, or warrants, or ratchets, or others things.

There is such an interesting idea: if you you extract shares down, Everyone seems to be drinking you. But if you mining direction from the point of view potential, you say: " I want to have the right invest in the same price in 2 years." Hmm, both ways similar to mining, but since one of them optimistic mining direction, Everyone loves him. So, what advice would you give? gave to the founders regarding consideration tables capitalization with from the very beginning? It is obvious that now we we are in a very volatile and indefinite period.

Nobody knows if this is death software software. I think , what is this, you know, certainly, the most unprecedented and the most uncertain time, at least with times of transition to Internet. Therefore I I think that at this time you need a big one number options, ability to be flexible and do what what is right for business, and not to be constrained by a table capitalization. So, maybe yours business needs to become a business that provides services. Maybe you need buy others companies. Perhaps, you need to work profitably for a while.

Perhaps, you need to change all your business model. Perhaps, you know if pricing for the job will disappear, you will need to focus on using. Maybe you need will free up the heap customers. So, I think that in unstable times are always useful have optionality. So, I think the general The advice is this: if you not sure that do you just want to try one thing, and it will be huge or zero, you should to think about optionality, which usually means involving less amount of funds, raising funds from investors from wider powers, not get stuck in all these strange problems where you need continue attract more money.

And if you you won't do this, this bad for employees, this bad for recruiting, uh, people's capabilities disappear, they start to leave; all of this seems to reduce optionality. It it's funny, because in general, I I think that commitment is much better strategy than optional, but I think that in very unstable times, when it's hard predict the future , you are essentially just want to control, to be able to to be super smart, to act as soon as possible deadlines, do what you want, don't be limited, like: well, we are set up like this way, our capital configured like this in a way that we can to do just one thing, which, by the way, also true for investors; they have the same problem.

Returning to investors and building an effective narrative for creation investment firm, before you get 10-year investment profitability or something like that, you have this great idea under PDF title per billion dollars. Can you describe what you have what do you mean by this and what interesting PDF components for a billion dollars usually? This is yours. kind of idea that we you came up with jokingly, and what, seems to have turned out the truth, the more we thought about it; that is: from time to time someone, in fact, crystallizes the idea just in time and in the right way, which becomes fundamental point of view or opinion regarding a certain era.

And I I think it's simple. the idea that everyone a little unsure, everyone they panic a little, they they don't know what is happening, and someone just need to create history and narrative. AND it's not even must be right, but there is just some confidence that here What's going on? It is happening. Almost Follow me. When they unite, they just create a new narrative, on which everyone can to lean on for a while, until it appears the following PDF file. AND, um, and a PDF file on a billion dollars—that's an idea that really can, you know, to form billions of dollars capital of one kind or another way, just by asking a new idea.

And then, you know, maybe you can you imagine capital as a 10-year a child playing in football. or, you know, they are all simple follow the ball, and capital simply follows the PDF file for a billion dollars field. This is probably a good one. an excuse to talk about...I don't know how long we will talk on this topic, probably, long. This is common the concept of publication, which I think is a PDF- file per billion dollars, there is simply final form this or something like that.

AND a furnace that is temporary scale, preferably X, That's where I get it from. your timeline; there is and other places, but it seems that these the concept really captured the desire and people's attention, that is everyone wants eventually to have a place on this timeline. It strange phenomenon. I would like so that you simply told about five or six subcomponents timeline, about what I want you to do to ask, but, maybe, for starters, What do you think about this? a strange modern phenomenon. I think that this is happening at technological trends changes, and I think that technological changes is actually a source energy.

So people don't what they value in X is that everyone gets the same 500 tweets on a day, and that's hundreds millions of active users every day. AND you know, uh, what people who don't write, don't realize it how much, you know, correlation posters for lacquers in these things are huge. So it is very difficult. feel the impact if you really don't go to the feed and Don't you see how all the people which you don't know, read X all day, uh, your comments things. I always I wonder when I I publish a good one.

tweet, and, you know, someone writes to me about this, that I literally don't know so it could be someone I know well I know, and I have no idea. I thought they were reading. Twitter all day. But everyone reads Twitter all day, so uni tape, I think, is of a kind technological the catalyst for this phenomena. This is X, by the way. Interestingly, X is something like a social Lindy network. As if it just never will reach scale others, but it just does this vital role.

And I wonder how it is , you know, at least for almost 20 years...Uh, and it is still more important than ever, just a source truths almost for the whole world. And this means that everyone they read the same thing exactly. This is global newspaper, right? AND just as you know , people would talk about the latest article in magazine 30 years ago, this is the last one now tweet or latest essay about X. And so I think, that this creates that all the most important people in the world, at least when it's about markets capital and politics, and, um, I'm sure that some others journalistic, entrepreneurial, entrepreneurial technology, they read their daily newspaper every morning, and, um, these things really shape opinion, they determine prices for securities, they dictate where capital moves, and they, of course, write politics, and so there's this idea that even one wonderful the filter is probably whether yours will survive institution, only if she is native to timeline.

And this means that she reacts and reflexively reacts on the timeline. Reactive means that she, you know, constantly monitors timeline and reflexively, because her actions then affect the time the scale that she then as if reading and reacting . And you might think , you know, the White House, Obviously, it is. Uh, venture capital such. Uh, of course, public actions are as follows. There is an idea as to what history? And what's interesting, it's funny, for example, one of the things about I most often get emails, this, probably a comment, which I made somewhere that the publications –this is the last big one meritocracy.

I I receive emails letters about this, because such people really I was clicked on. head, and I started publish, and publications change your life if you are in this is good You understand. This is still true, perhaps, even more than anytime. And this is yours kind of meritocracy in in a strange sense. THERE ARE algorithms, artificial intelligence and all that, but in a sense it's still a long way more meritocratic than it was before. As well as everything, it turned into for the lottery. So, you know, in the old days it was necessary, like, hard to work and create a huge number subscribers, and then, having a big number subscribers, you can was to publish really stupid, um, tweet, and he would be very popular.

But now that's not the case anymore It happens. You just you can you can literally to be, for example, new account and just write good post, and then the algorithm will choose you and will show you 500 to millions of people. It something like a strange things when you have a global newspaper that everyone reads, which everyone consider very influential. There is also such a meta thing, where is this like a newspaper if you could see how everyone influential people react to articles in newspaper, and then, responding to this, this does the thing more important, and everyone can publish in her.

People are still very underestimate, how much politics dictated by time scale, how much venture rounds investment is held on timeline, how many businesses is built on a timepiece scale. And I think that everything will become more and more something like native for timeline. I I think TPBN is great. an example of this. Um, and, of course, how are you you know when we do this we write, in a day someone writes something pornographic fanfiction about AI, and this radically changes public markets. AND so I think that's it returns again to the idea of ​​a PDF file on billion dollars: when there is uncertainty, people are just looking the most interesting story history.

And how it is works at the time scale, there is no, you know, this not well thought out the book everyone is talking about speak during year. This is something on like that sounds reasonable, nice, it should be interesting. Maybe this another change: a good post should be very interesting because people are on timeline to them entertained. They can lie to themselves and to say that they are there with other reasons, but this just for fun. AND this is obviously what algorithms are chosen. And so there's this idea that the most interesting thing, the latest, something interesting, something correct will set actions and consensus for all on a daily basis.

Um, and this displayed on their actions. Ramp is a single platform, created for to make your financial team more flexible, faster and better, saving business on average 5% per year, so that you can to focus on growth. Ramp Clients increased income in 3.2 times faster than average American business . Visa, Vercell, Cursor, Stripe, Notion , 11 Lab, Shopify and 70,000 other companies working on RAMP. My too, and yours too should. Find out more at ramp.com/invest. Felix by Rogo is personal financial agent, which transforms one request for ready-made work ready for client, using own templates, context and your standards companies.

Send Felix the electronic a letter like: " Take these comments and process them for me or update mine tracker by context these electronic letters. Or " Do the calculations for this buyer, and Felix will send you ready-made presentations PowerPoint, Excel models and research of sources. Felix works like this just like yours team, performing work quickly and exactly around the clock. Learn more at robo.ai/felix. The best artificial intelligence companies intelligence and software software, from OpenAI to Perplexity, use WorkOS, to get ready for corporate overnight development, not in months.

Visit workos.com to to skip uninteresting work with infrastructure and to focus on your product. Or it's all simple adding fuel to fire for concept power law in general? One of the things, which I noticed in our transmission, this is what earlier than all of them the variance was quite low. The best option showed a little better work, but not much better than worst of the point in terms of productivity, and this is completely changed. And now, It seems there is this threshold, which we just talked about spoke today in the morning: if you break the restrictions, if you exceed this threshold, literally it feels like you captured the world's brain and just for a short while period of time chained to themselves everyone's views.

Yes. And the impact of these several things much larger than all the others together taken. So what for you play, this to actually be one of these breakthrough things. AND, probably correct way of thinking about the timeline consists of in what actually everything that matters, this is what you get one of them. So you must be on the verge dissemination as much as possible in that what are you posting about, What are you writing about? I mean, I don't I know, everything is simple. result technological changes.

So the reason why you you know what yours is podcast followed normal dissemination, consisted in the fact that technology of it delivery was RSS- channel, and now this algorithm, uh, and this clips, and, I have on mind, even the method, isn't that right? I am sure. that some indecent the number of your viewers watching or listens on YouTube, um, what is new. And no one, you know, even if you are subscribed to podcast on YouTube, they they won't show you every one episode in chronological order.

So I think, that all this is just new, just a result technologies. I am not I think something changed in content or in the listeners. It just the way it is is served. Um, and you know, in this sense, perhaps one world where world of podcasts somewhat lagging behind from the world of YouTube, is that the world of podcasts still very naive in providing content algorithm. For example, if you delve into group chats in Twitter, especially now that they published algorithm, you'll see all these very specific things that can be done with replies, likes, duration and all these numbers, which the algorithm chooses.

AND, You know, I would say, streamers, people on YouTube and others, of course, understand this, as well as podcasts. I think that, maybe the reason, why does it seem like this a bit random, is that still not podcasts very understanding of the essence of what we record this video is for LLM to view and decide what it is wants to show people, and then people will decide , do they like it or not No. But we really we don't think about this first filter, but that's how it is.

Does this stress you out? Or this seems deep dystopian event ? I hear a lot of complaints about death of books. People no longer read. AND this is so interesting for me, because I...I just, you know, me read a lot books. Me I like books. Hmm, I spent a lot of time part of your life, reading books, but It's not...I don't know. Me doesn't really bother, what people...don't see that great crisis, about which everyone complain with books. I have on meaning that the question duration concentration of attention, maybe true.

Me, of course, much it's harder to read a book, simply focusing on her, but I feel that the totality interviews I listen to , things I read, and All of this is wonderful. And I don't think I have no appetite for books just because they are harder to read. I I think I feel yourself fueled with other sources. And this Interesting, isn't it? For, you know, if you think about it about, well, porn, this, obviously bad, because people don't have sex, and watch porn, and it is quite obvious that Sex is better than porn.

And it seems obvious, but people as if they will hold it next to the books. And I I don't know, like, for I like this book. something a bit like a swan song for, you know, technology, for which, um, you know, there will still be room, uh, but it was the best method of reporting information, which in We were, and now we are new ways, and they, they, they are more convincing and more interesting. You know, you of course, must to warn you that I am very sensitive to language, and you know, the terms that we use, such as urgent online brain rot, we recognize that this terms of death, and, and, and , and, rotting, and, as destruction, and, uh, very negative nihilistic terms .

And so you know that you need balance this with that that we didn't call it, uh, we didn't choose neutral or positive terms for these species activities. Uh, and I don't I think someone once... something, you know, I would imagine reading large number of books as something very negative. Therefore, the counterargument will be what is not, in fact, in we have a deep the feeling that this badly. Um, and I think that, perhaps, like everything other, it's just less indulgently. So if you are very disciplined and motivated, um, the way in which you can you use new ones media, better than anytime, but if not , then everything will be simple worse than ever.

You mentioned that White home, of course, the first White House, who feels fully adapted to the timeline and reacts to it. Yes, I think that's it. the first modern administration, as in for better or for worse. Yes. What else does this mean? What else does " "modern" in this context, except " hidden to "timeline"? It's just very reactively and reflexively to timeline. Um, I I think that's it. hyperawareness, you know, maybe so same as the previous ones administrations were dependent on surveys. I think that it looks more at timeline than on survey, which is to understand desires and wishes average human; but temporary scale actually returns to more republican model, which consists of because you take care of that no matter what, about several hundred thousand influential people.

And, um , you know, Ben Sasse, that one , um, that one, former senator, um, has this great idea that Washington now mainly consists of people, who want to be, um, TikTok and YouTube stars, this is what they want to be congressmen and senators, and, um, he condemns this, that true with very simple sense, which is that one can hope that , for example, congressmen and senators [] in the first are interested in management, um, but they are not. But with on the other hand, I think, that maybe a shift this one, which I just I'm composing it now, it's like management or, maybe a survey manage the management.

Whereas if you really just pulling timeline, you you can think about it is so, that is why, You know, we have people, which are now reaching success in politics, simply optimized for content. They, by essentially, content creators , because the survey– this is a timeline. And this interesting again, because who on the timeline? Uh, I mean that readers are probably rather accurate sample average people in the country, but those who writes posts and dictates what he thinks timeline or something like this, it's really very small group.

So it's almost like that, you know, if, uh, if initial vision the one who voted, was, uh, you know, white male owners land, perhaps vision or version people who are now important for politics, these are just good posts that, I don't know, is it good or bad, but that's absolutely true another group, which, on in my opinion, no necessarily related with some specific demographic sign. You are friends with many people. or by majority great contributors. What makes a contributor? wonderful? You know, I think that this not so much differs from letters.

And that's why I think what it's like to be a little tortured, have a little spoiled personal life in general. Yes. I I can come up with an idea. comics or something like this. Yes. And, perhaps, publications–this is a bit something like writer, mixed with a comedian or something like that. Of course, there is comedic element, you need some a reef that resonates, and it's something like an instant hit. It interestingly formulated . It's something like comedy mix, poetry and writing. What do you think, are we on...

You already used this funny phrase earlier, that we are at our peak, boy . What does this mean? I think we're at our peak, boy. Hard to say why begin. There is pagan understanding God as such, which is inside and around you, everywhere. All animated. All controlled and dictated by the gods. AND then, in the era Renaissance, maybe to say that God lives above the clouds, but there, upstairs, there is some a guy you can be with speak. And then, when we discover that is behind clouds, we say: " Okay, well, there, above, there is none "boy".

And then we we are opening up space. AND so, essentially, you you just need continue. Well, okay, maybe he is outside of space. And, uh, maybe we are not anymore we know it's a boy. Uh, or as a separate a person or thing with whom it would be possible to contact and to talk, but this a conceptual thing. God just seems everything is moving away further and further and everything becomes more conceptual . But the idea is because ever since we have become atheist society, we looking for things to can be compared and worship.

Now somehow banal to say that everyone must worship or something like that. I think which is perhaps more accurate would be to say that, um, in society always there is a role for priests, and we were looking for new ones priests, and, it seems we tried scientists as priests. Scientific project a little collapsed. Hmm, this is widely discussed . We hoped that physics will give us meaning . But that didn't happen. . Physics is significant went into a dead end corner after the war. AND so I think we went beyond science as sources of meaning.

AND so I think there is this class of billionaires, which we are looking at as a new source meaning. On the first look, it makes no sense, what are we spending so much time for that billionaires think about physics, theology, health or topics, not related to earning a billion dollars. But the reason, why are we doing this, I I think it is that what is our new class priests. We They said, "Okay, you know, the values ​​that are important in our in society, it is success in business, and to to be successful in business, usually need to be smart and hardworking." And this people who rose to the highest level piety in our value system, so we are going to collect them listen.

We were ready, for example, to accept scientific and medical advice from people who either belong to the class billionaires, or are next to billionaire class, that is, the poster class, which I think is new class. And so this idea "peak boy" is that, on I think we're bored. billionaire. Essentially, billionaires were many. This is partly is due to the fact that their became much smaller. I think the number billionaires, at least, billionaires for a certain state of mind, increased 100 times in the last 20 years, maybe even more.

We seem to we turn to them for answers to these question, and, um, it's not was satisfactory. So , you know, I think that this idea, like: "I want listen to everyone podcast with this billionaire, and I I will study it. daily routine and habits, and I will I wonder what he thinks. about these things", reached its full saturation. I think that there is also this one a secondary idea that is that the money we just seen, not like that powerful as we are, maybe there once were, either we are, or we think that they are.

Regarding, um, you know, of course, our political landscape, we do not saw that the class donors was so successful, as they might have been before, or as we thought. If you billionaire, you are enough limited in that you can do like, for example, African military leader or even, you know, of course, the high baron , isn't it? And therefore, maybe there are these three forces inflation, which in general reduce the value of what it means to be billionaire. And then evolution of structures power in society also limits, for example, Andrew Carnegie can raise weapons against their own workers, but now if you, like billionaire, publish wrong thing, you will have to go to resignation.

So there is this the feeling that all this The class just got smaller. important. And then, I I also think that the media and podcasts simply oversaturated. THERE ARE only you, you You understand. You understand this thing. Emm, but we don't want to to take life advice. We are no longer we want to hear about what occurs from billionaire class. So I would say that this whole set is just very oversaturated. It seems unlikely to be some marginal billionaire from whom I will be able to find out.

something very interesting in podcasts. And I don't think so. that it was like six years ago. So logical question: what will be next class while we looking for the next one recruitment of priests? AND I'm looking, it seems, this is the one who adds, and, maybe you can do it to see, because, on in my opinion, class billionaires a few differs from the one who writes. AND so one very obvious way is that class of scientists inherited priesthood after real priests , and then you always you can see, what class subordinate next, so that to see who next, and class scientists are becoming subordinate billionaire class.

It , definitely a lesson Epstein, right? That's all scientists are talking about they talk about money and glamour, and now what, in my opinion, class billionaires became subordinate the class of those who adds. And here I am I think you can to see who society collectively chooses be like: "Okay, This is the guy who I want to listen to two hours and, you know, build on it "your life." Subordination poster class proves why you you say that they are subordinate posters? I was on this for a while.

some time ago, and there was a bunch of investors- billionaires, and all they fought for, Who can sit next to me? with Tyler Cowen, because he the most interesting person there. Yes. In every room There is a boss. In each There is a boss in the room who is ...Yes. That's right. And I I think, hmm, I think that There is something very special about this. important. That's right. simply. And, uh, there's some line subordination. There is also this interesting one moment about what it is just a shortage, like always.

And inflation billionaires—this their grain decline, what if there is so much billionaires if you you know, Grant Cardon billionaire, like Elon Musk or someone like that. It just does it. so stupid. And therefore we need or new class at the top , and it's not Deca, or billionaire, who indifferently. This is something else, what distinguishes To us need reclassify top 100 or something. Robert Barren. Yes. It just seems that there are too many of them, so no one, so I already indifferently. And it seems, which is much easier get a billion dollars than to get real estate in people's consciousness or on the timeline that can do, for example, a couple first users.

If I could just to determine this by decree, that would be who is liquid billionaire with taking into account inflation . I think these numbers, probably not much changed. But again well, I think that if I always believe very useful to consider this retrospective, er, historical framework. Net worth is how this is a new idea. It's like a really new idea. If you are reading something like "Pride" and prejudice, "Mr. Darcy," how are you? you know, they say about how much all men are rich. About Mr.

Darcy they say that he receives 10,000 pounds sterling per year from of your property. This is his wealth. This is his cash flow. AND It's funny that no one would make a scene where not made discounted cash flow for Mr. Yes. There is probably no scenes in the movie " Pride and prejudice, where they asking: "Does he have a lot of margin loan for your own estate?". And also there is no this idea about that his property it costs, you know, as much as you want, 200 000, because he would never sold his estate.

Why not him? be considered an asset? So it's simple. conceptual assessment , just points in leaderboards, because you can't have them spend. I really am I think this is mine. kind of disaster when to talk about billionaire as a pro state of mind between private markets and, uh, clean capital as concept, uh, and inflation. Billionaire now you can just call it something like that. I think you you will begin to perceive the word "billionaire" as something like political label, which only indirectly related. I have on I mean, you often you see it on the clock scale, that is, people are called billionaires who, you know, not at all rich, but have certain features and associations.

So I I think this term looks like a "billionaire" ", right? How " millionaire", no one else does that says. Yes. And before that it was not enough the same weight as " billionaire"; but now "millionaire" is something on like...yes, that's...that's not it matters, but also...when you say that someone is a millionaire, you are just saying that this is some rich a person of higher rank or middle class with house. But it doesn't matter whether it has she is 5 million dollars or 800,000 dollars. This is similar to situation with a freer class, because, maybe currency devalued as in literally, and in the fact that with her can be done.

I have meaning that time limited, right? So new scarcity is like attention that can be to draw to the screen. If you think about the most interesting contributors today , I'm not asking you approve them yes or no otherwise, but simply about people you do you think the most interesting. Yes. Who comes to mind? The difference is because there are, um, there are people, from whom I want get tweet notifications, because I really am I think that everyone their post is really good, and this incredibly small quantity, but there are good ones contributors who really did something thanks to its fertility.

I have on mean that another problem with posts is that they still reward fertility, against what I still categorically I am speaking. I always believed that Twitter had to be dictated to quantity subscribers, divided into posts, but that's not how it works. He just rewards fertility. I think that there is an idea that the most important media there will be no resource revised. The most important thing The author is not read. The most important thing not a philosopher understand. The most important action does not have fundamental principles.

Like everything, what do I think in the world fiat currency all becomes this strange a fiat thing. Of course, that's true. regarding philosophers, authors, or someone really reads books, What do these authors write? I don't think so. I I think it's small. the number of people who shape the taste, read books, while others people are looking at books as idols. AND if they, like, blessed the right people, then it's like , imitation, um, celebration of this things. And even podcasts like you they said, right? Such the clips are much better, than podcast episodes.

I, I, I think I I am proud of myself, I can to say if it's good podcast, blog essay, a book or something else, without even reading his, simply, type, triangulating it. As well as I, I know which of your episodes are good pass, not listening to them because I can to feel something on kind of reception. AND to some extent precisely in this is the thing, you can imagine a world where there is a few excerpts from podcast, but no one never listens podcast; but I I don't really think so.

that this will reduce property value. That's like everything processed and is packaged to to attract attention, but take up a minimum of time this person. Yes. I heard an interesting the story of the publication, which has millions subscribers or readers, as if they it was not described, and the person behind him, told me that approximately 95% of readers- these are people who are flipping through, for example, quotes in Instagram or something. They are still readers. AND this is simply fascinating, for me that's all It's quite depressing that our whole world posters and content reoriented around this monolithic temporary scales, and all of them just feed him what he wants.

But This is a game you have to play. AND I'm curious, I know, I don't know why you left. for 6 months or something such, completely have moved away from this, as if you just disappeared . How was it? And is this, uh- uh, the way you would encouraged people try, refuse? I think mine the conclusion from this was It would be simple: it's not worth it. to deceive oneself, thinking that you looking for something other than entertainment, in all media, which you consume, because they are created for entertainment.

They selected for entertainment. They edited for entertainment. Task of what is happening on the screen, — to entertain you. And therefore I think that this is the main lesson that is that I I'm not going to talk. people, how much entertainment they must have in your life, but this what it is essentially. Rolex Can Nike to convince you that their thing is investment or asset, and not passive. And then you spend on it much more money. Podcasts, posts and essays can to convince you that, What are you reading?

useful for you and productive, and that anything, except whole viewing day TV. Do I want to? to spend an hour on day on the timeline , or eight hours a day day. This is approximately what as much as I want have fun, and you know , anything else I would said from this reason, I think that that's enough, enough milk toast in that in the sense that, like, yes, are you really nothing you miss. Uh, if you as a relative if you not a complete hermit, you hear about that importantly; it filtered.

You, apparently, the most educated method of consumption these media are not read them yourself, but just receive filtered thoughts from the people around you at dinners, lunches etc., and you just allow me, hmm, you know, first to expose oneself to influence radiation, and then, type, return and tell you what Is there anything interesting there or not? Our friend Jesse thinks about it like this: he refuses any algorithm in our lives, and we such as: where are you from you know what that includes news that is simply algorithm.

This is the type how do you know that is happening? He said that people they tell you, yes, that would be mine conclusion. Question freedom against influence. Do you believe that Is the compromise real? I think he is real. One of questions that I What is interesting is that, I always seem to I am interested in this. different classes of classes boys, archetypes, genres, etc. And, hm, It seems like it was like this the type of people who largely extinct, and again, I, on sorry, I think that's all it's probably simple explained technologies that are a bit boring, but, perhaps accurate explanation, but how Theodore Roosevelt or Andrew Carnegie, who can, um, conduct a lot of time in leisure, a lot of time out of one's own business.

And, you know what's interesting, for example, for Carnegie, that's what he, he, he, he, maybe, still the richest person, or very close to the richest man, who ever lived. But I am fascinated by this idea, is it is it necessarily true? Is the idea that need to work, you know, 22 hours on day to reach such results that are changing the world. Is this is it necessarily true? I, I, I think it's interesting, that Larry Ellison is a modern figure who as if opposing this trends.

And you know, he, he, he, he claims that founded Oracle with the aim of disappear for 2 weeks, to go swimming or something like this, and anyway, for with all the data, to appear and disappear. And is it still possible to be not to be a player connected 24/7? It is incredible that President of the United States may be out of date network month, but Is this true in business? I I don't know. Is that a lot? hard work, which is performance? Perhaps in the case of Carnegie is interesting, because he is all his own life was aware your need to join such a society.

Maybe it's crying. his time. He knew, What money will he have? is not enough, and he wanted to be accepted in society, to be well-read, to be writer, to write etc., and, you know, in this makes no sense nothing new under the sun. You know, I I firmly believe that this it is true that the final state—it's simple publish message, for example, the number billionaires and founders who turn to Twitter after have accumulated their wealth, or launch podcasts, or are starting a business. Run...Yes. Start a channel on YouTube.

Yes. It's like this final state. And I I think that, you know, one of the ways how you can do this look, this is what as soon as you accumulate wealth, you want to gain fame. Another the view on this is in that again yes, less wealth valuable, and you actually you realize that a rare asset is attention and influence, and therefore you know that almost protect yourself from that, you know, quickly depreciates, uh, the nature of your money and try to move on to that actually rare.

It seems very interesting, let's call it that's seven or eight people which you and I we know what we are are most interested in, are not contributors. THERE ARE some interesting the opposite, and, um, they stood up to temptation or something like that , and it makes me to wonder if it is almost a trap. Hmm, but this is so interesting the concept that hard work is performative is the phrase you used. It actually makes make me think about that which is persistent work is performative, like you think about it the question of artificial intelligence and displacement of workers places we are talking about You talked a lot.

I personally really seems interested, what is the problem, around whose people unite through concerns about AI, is that it is will destroy jobs just like the previous ones technological changes didn't do it because it so ubiquitous. This is intelligence, and it develops like this quickly, that even if you compare it to previous technological changes that displaced or changed jobs or something else, this happened slower. And that's why it so scary. But it questions that what is work actually in in the modern sense, especially work " "white collar workers." Me I wonder what your opinion is.

opinion, will be with AI and displacement of workers places. Short-term and medium-term the forecast is difficult speculate, and he it could very well be bad. Uh, you know, my friend told me, that, uh, he has children in college, and he has A 10-year-old child, and he very worried about kids in college, but not for a 10 year old child. And I think that this the right direction. Um, so, you know, perhaps, from the point of view of A 10-year-old child, I I think that's great. I I think that first of all, everything possible to automate, has to be automated .

I think that very It's hard to argue with this, when you really, really, are you thinking about it. Um, and you know, the thought for me, that maybe I will be in my last years. of your life when I will have to sit in front of computer and do something with him, that's extremely liberating . I don't really understand this. the idea that we are peak employment or What will happen to us? work. For me very It is obvious that each certainly, each work of "whites" "collars" are completely fake and fictional in that in the sense that it is not depends on the conditions, because, mostly, you know, Obviously, there are exceptions, but they don't depend from housing, food, medicine and other necessary things.

Well, that's not what I'm talking about. I say, but most works do not apply this, or if relate, then very, in a very derivative way [] . Um, and that's why, you know, most of the work, such as , like, you know, what your job as distributor? It like, well, because capital in its own right essentially inflationary, you must, you can't just leave it at peace. This is one of such wonderful species, Um, I don't know, uh, maybe the evil of money is that, having received them, you do not you can just leave them alone, because then they disappear, and you need something with them do.

And this creates all of this. And so, like, my job is to because when you have money, and you don't want it, to make them disappear, you must give them away to someone. And that's why you give them to the pile people, and then I take I put them into things, which are productive, and then, I hope, you don't lose yours money, you will receive more money, and, like , is this useful? Is this good? Yes, of course. But this is unrealistic, this fun and useful, but not directly.

Hmm, for me too there is unlimited quantity jobs that can be created in such scenarios. IN we will be unlimited number of wishes and needs, and our the economy will to be guided solely by our restless desire to consume things, so we will to invent new things for consumption. AND again, in short-term and medium-term perspective situation maybe unstable, and may there will be many losses jobs, etc. AND you know that this is not okay, and, uh, you know, there may be many I despair, but in long-term in the future we we will just to invent new things, as if we have already decided all our problems.

Uh-huh , you know, uh, and that's why for me it's like concern about that we will not have more jobs, er, just doesn't resonate because it seems to me that we are just making up things for yourself, and in this the whole point. Uh, and this good. Like, you know, It's better than being, uh , inactive. Uh, and, maybe more people must be idle. Uh, but I think there is all sorts of ways, like this is visible through the cracks, right? Yes? It's like, you know, work from home, I think , is strong evidence that, actually, most people don't have 40 hours of work.

They have, maybe there are 40 hours, for example, meetings, on which you need sit, or they have 40 hours during which they should be, uh , in standby mode. But you know, I think, what is the reason for working with I don't think I was home. would be like that important, if you imagine yourself an option where you working on factory line and you can create microcosm of the plant in yourself on the back yard, but you're all it will have to be the same on the line 10 hours on day.

Uh, yeah, I think so. work from home, for example, perhaps, you can have lunch at home, and to work you no longer needed go. And this, but this is not that's already huge improvement. People like that tied to work from home, because in fact have 2-3 hours work per day. So work from home Fridays–this is yours kind of soft start four-day working week. And I I think that's all. normally. On mine opinion, the fact that we we can continue to pay people for work from home or 4 days a week, or something else, it's just a sign that actually we takes less time, less working hours people than before, and we can still be the same productive.

Some of these works, possibly fictional, and actually people will be happier, unable to bear parts of one places in another on screen or something. I wonder how you are. thinking about searching of his calling. You Someone once wrote to me message that what I remembered : we all have a certain moral obligation to manage one's own talents, and if you think about it, will you? Do you agree that this is truth. I wonder how you are. you explain this, but what this later redefines success and bad luck in a steep a way that, perhaps, breaks through this, you know, priestess something like addressing others, so that they can tell us, what to do instead to watch inside yourself.

Or can you do this expand? I think that there is something, hmm, even aesthetically bad in waste. And I think, that, um, one of the worst things that you can waste, these are your gifts, your, um, skills, qualities, things, in which you are uniquely good, things that you can you do for others that you may , you can do it, but others cannot. For me one of biggest challenges was to try understand how best use these skills. Firstly, find out what they are represent that easier said than done do, and then understand how you can you them use.

You know, there are two ways, I think. First, you use them very clean and genuine, and you are not trying integrate, hmm, your work with how you use yours gifts. And that would be something like, you know, a person who has a day job work to to support one's own skill or something like this. And then another one, maybe more the ambitious version is an attempt to combine, uh, commerce, uh, yours work with your talents. And you know, I I think, uh, this is falls into the topic of "whether you should do it with his passion." AND, and I think that this really difficult, but you told me something, what is it that you you spend more part of my time, really has, for example , light and use your genius and talent.

AND if you don't do, then it is clearly not what you should do to spend more part of your time. AND so I think there is intermediaries for this, for example, is there I think people are receive a lot pleasure from of your work, is it very strong an indicator that you combined these two. Well, how do you think, what will the future look like finance in the 80s, and the last era was built by these people from KKR who mostly engaged in ransom assets from using leverage?

Yes. Although these companies, obviously, really important and truly big, but they were founded a long time ago, and in in many cases they are still managed people who were founders or close to founders by age. How, in your opinion, will look like this wave of finance? The founder is incredibly important, and, um, founding act incredibly important in any business, country or organizations. Um, so I think it's remarkable, that, as in the present paradigm in which we we live, the largest and most important financial firms arise from culture redemption at the expense of debt, which, first of all, everything is an idea, caused by debt.

It financial engineering. This is, um, mining. activity, because the main goal is to do something more profitable. And I don't I'm trying to reduce the ransom due to debt. I am not I think they are like that. evil, as people say, but the idea is that the main one is using debt and financial engineering, to to earn a lot money in this way, that the quality of the business, perhaps, is auxiliary for basic trade. Ahem , and these are the founders, you know, who is founders and founding acts these big companies today.

And therefore, you know, now that Apollo, Blackstones and KKR this world, um, you know, I I think that many cases of ransom from using leverage is very a small part of that, what are they doing today, but I think that it's still the same, as in the main culture. And one thing, which we already talked about were thinking before, this is how will look the next 20 or 30 years, when these companies, the largest financial companies in the world, their founding act was investing in share capital.

This is a power law. This is extremely optimistically. It largely qualitative. Um, do you know what this is? What would Blackstone look like? and Apollo, if it were the main grain on beginning, you know, creating a company? Hmm, and I don't have a great one. answers. I just I think it's remarkable, you know, just like that which is joint-stock funding is available much newer idea than debt financing. AND, you know, joint stock financing, obviously, much a more optimistic idea. This, um, it's not limited by benefits.

And that's why there are all sorts of philosophical ideas regarding one's own capital versus debt. And the debt is much older, and, you know, debt, obviously, has very controversial past as to whether there is he is generally moral good. Hmm, and that's why I, you know, I think there is the idea that if the essence of finance was in these crazy optimistic people against people who can be more conservative, more concerned negative consequences, more concerned that, maybe one of ways of looking at this is a transition from quantitative to high quality.

Vanta automates safety and conformity requirements for over 16,000 fast-growing companies like Ramp, Curser and Harvey, providing them around the clock audit readiness. This is a platform of trust agents number one, and now she helps to companies such as yours, follow risks that manifest during audits of your suppliers, your tools artificial intelligence and all yours environment. Everyone new tool, on which is registered your team, everyone supplier who enables functions artificial intelligence, –this is an opportunity for for something to go wrong not so. And most security programs are not were created for growth rate artificial intelligence.

Agent Vant works as engineer 247 GRC in background mode, finding problems, developing for you correction and reducing time assessments suppliers up to 50%. Regardless of whether are you fast-growing startup or global company, Vantaa helps you to deserve and prove trust. Invest as the best listeners. Get a special offer from $1000 discount USA at vanta.com/invest. Ridgeline –this is the first complex accounting system with built-in artificial intelligence for firms with management investments. Accounting portfolio, coordination, reporting, trade and compliance requirements on one unified platform. Companies refuse to obsolete technologies and moving to Ridgeline because of how much functions of artificial Ridgeline intelligence ahead of any what other software provision for management investments.

I heard from many investment managers about artificial intelligence, and they are approximately are divided into two camps: some not know what to start at all, but others are convinced that can create own system management orders for weekend. Reality such that management investment firm will always require management, control and a single source reliable information for your data. And none enthusiasm for artificial intelligence will not change this requirements. Ridgeline built specifically on this foundation, therefore I believe that firms that will achieve success in the era of artificial intelligence, will be those who will work on a single platform Ridgeline.

If you take it seriously to your strategy companies regarding artificial intelligence, Ridgeline has to be part of this conversations. You can order demonstration on ridgeline.ai. What else differences between you interested in between finances of the Eastern and Western coast? People who they are doing this, optimism vs. no pessimism, but realism or orientation towards dollar. There is a share truth in caricature, that the east coast is extractive, pessimistic, oriented towards decrease, and western the coast is naive, stupid, uh, unpretentious, uh, you know, I think that's true to a certain extent.

Uh, and I think they are merging now. Uh, and I think that's not by chance, what, uh, west coast definitely devours the east coast. Venture capital created the largest companies in world, and private investments–no. Uh, and if private investments were made, then they mostly passed through, uh, acquisition and again yes, financial engineering. So you can to deny that venture capital– this is much better strength for the world. It, you know, this tiny one asset class that created all the most important things in world. Uh, that too kind of, uh, civilizational technology that is that you ready to give to young people millions of people dollars to to try very hard speculative idea practically without any consequences or negative consequences if it doesn't work .

Uh, so it's obvious amazing power. I I think it happened. very interesting change, hmm, compensation between east and west. When I was growing up, I understood, what, um, you know, on the Wall -street would pay you huge sums cash every year. Hmm, in you wouldn't be there constant value shares, but you would pay a lot liquid money quite regularly. AND in the West the coast was like this the idea that you would be rich in paper. IN I would have you, hmm, equity, which maybe it would be a huge win in some distant place future.

Hmm, me too I think it's interesting that what can I do to claim, hmm, and I would argue that these changes have begun happening now. Whereas, as on Wall- street, because everyone these companies have become public, uh, you know, on Wall Street you get compensation for RSUs, and you think like a company, and you know, maybe especially in the upper part of the company you worry less about that the action in any to which one fund, and you are more concerned share price and the company's results in whole.

And then, and what? interesting, in Kremnieva valley it's almost moved to annual cash basis. But considering how these markets, you know, companies remain private, create these mature secondary markets, uh, and there are these, you know, places like this- facto annual auction are becoming almost parallel liquid market. So, in Silicon Valley valleys you really pay huge amounts in cash, and I I think we saw this, of course, with artificial intelligence, and even, you know, with the purchase venture firms, with exit from contracts with general doctors, and everyone these things, where everything is actually happening more oriented for money, more liquid, more, more, well, maybe, no more oriented towards money, but definitely more liquid, more selfish.

And I I think that I always are interested in these structural shifts and how they are starting to change things where, um, you know, uh- Well, the Valley is a place, where you are liquid, and you annually receive cash, and you move from the company to the firm, and, uh, and, and you know, more thinking about long-term perspective and value enterprises. If you add all this up, where are you looking opportunities? Do you have such an interesting mandate, because you can to conclude an agreement on growth of shares in venture style.

You could make a deal in the style of a private capital for special situations. You are historically during its careers invested in dozens of effective software companies. Um, I think you still wisely avoided companies that could to be driven into the thick of things cloud code or something like that, but nevertheless, I think, Are you still wondering where? there may be value in software provision. How are you? Come as clean. investor like you approaching this very strange high level uncertainty? We mostly sat aside. Um, we are very lucky to have such a wide mandate that we can do that consider.

Perhaps, single consensus point of view—it's niche apocalyptic vision of some the main fanatics in laboratories. Um, but beyond that, I think this really something like jumping from with a ball. Therefore, it is difficult say. I think that one thing I could to say in general, this what the markets lack many nuances. I I think you know that SAS —this is a business model. It no, um, that's literal just a business model this idea when you usually pay for person per month or per year for access to tool that helps you use computer.

Hmm, I I think that this in a sense SAS has great problems. But I don't I think that for many of these companies that, you know, today really sold through fear, it's real that which in general important for business. This is actually interesting. for me. Recently I wrote a post about the idea , which, for example, public manager, who holds a long position, uh, mag 7, you know, without taking specific point view of the agreement, is probably good capital distribution, because sometimes you just need to do really obvious thing and simple follow consensus.

Consensus, you know, usually correct. Hmm, and you know, one of the resistance, which I received, this is what these things, you know, they the largest companies in world. They are appreciated perfect, but in my opinion opinion, underestimate the fact that the 52-week variance for these things are almost 100%for largest companies world. So they not appreciated at all good. And the market is lacking extraordinary nuances . I think that this goes back to that, what we talked about, that is, you know, someone smarter than me could draw much clearer a picture.

But there is something related to passive streams and marginal price securities, and that which affects the marginal price of valuables papers, these are posts in group chats that random people write about what algorithm selected. I have meaning that such how am I really never before about this I didn't think so, but... algorithm, frankly speaking, AI, because that's what I am I understand, that's what moves, um, by the majority algorithms, uh, now on Twitter and YouTube etc., the market sets the price in in a very real sense, because he chooses a narrative that wants show people, and then these people price-setting based on this.

And therefore, You know, I just I think this is another one. the lesson that is because the markets ineffective, no no nuances. Hmm, so, you know, that's what we see today. I I think there is many mistakes in both sides. The most honest thing they can do to do a lot managers, this wait, but they structurally unable or do not want it to do, so you just hoping for the better and invest capital, and this is its own kind of problem on tomorrow. Hmm, and that's why I I think that a lot things on private markets still are evaluated irrationally so in a way that this absolutely not related to quality business, but rather is function only structures stimulating funds.

You mentioned that SAS is just a model, and in it There is good and bad in everything. . What do you think about this? tendency to excessively large capital expenditures, e -e, tokens, assets real world, like- this is a new genre companies, which, seems to have become truly dominant. I recently looked at our portfolio, me I was wondering what percentage not compose clean beats, and this is somewhere in the 60s percent, it is not just software software, based on the market the value of our investments.

I was surprised that this very high percentage, while venture capitalists historically were the same as everyone else software software over the last 10-15 years. What do you think? about this class, about this trend, about this business class, about lower gross margin, Do you know about such things? One of the ways look at this, hmm, this is what we were actually in the end, let's say, 2016, 2017 years when profitability venture capital was very high, and now we see that 20 years of profitability venture capital was very good, and therefore it is logical that capital will be to enter the classroom assets.

Problem is that venture capital market largely limited by the fact that number, hmm, great businesses that are created, are relatively fixed, probably, I think, after, um, will appear, how many there are wonderful founders. I think the number simply limited; all more and more capital flows into venture business, actual number companies limited, therefore it is necessary invest more money in the same number of companies. AND , hmm, it happened a real problem , hmm, directly before artificial intelligence, etc. , and exactly what money can be invested in B2B software business, especially when, on unfortunately, companies are becoming , hmm, cheaper and cheaper cheaper for beginning.

So, you know, functionally, what are you have you seen and what are you still you see to some extent, but in fact the whole this capital is simply went to landowners and, um, to compensatory packages. So it was the real problem, which is that , you know, capital hates it when he blocked. He is like water. He wants to find the most effective way , and it was blocked because he wanted to join venture business, because there was a higher retrospective profitability. But he was just limited.

You can invest only a certain amount the amount of money in these companies, and you know what exactly what inspired me to create my fund, this vision of the problem, which consisted in the fact that the amount of money that these companies attract, not related to the amount money that they needed. And then, you know, almost like, for example, DSX Machina, suddenly two appeared large categories that could just absorb this capital, etc. And I I truly believe that in in a sense such businesses and assets are sponges for capital, and what is the excess if, you know, in that era we had time negative interest rates rates, etc., capital has to go somewhere, and if he has nowhere to go, he will create a place where he has to go.

And I think that there is a very blessed one, uh, the development of these businesses with high capital expenses, artificial intelligence, the best project with high capital expenses, and, of course, everything hardware software. Um, and therefore, I think that in in a sense it is possible to say that the markets capital desperately were looking for a place to to go, where, where to invest capital, but there was no room; and therefore these companies are almost were created below by capital flow, which, in my opinion, is somewhat differs from narrative than that, on what is watching most people.

So this is a kind of philosophical view, economic view. I I think it's partly SAS so much today punished in the market, because it was an idea sales copy line, essentially. This is what represents software product. AND marginal copy of a line very close to zero. So, um, with zeros marginal costs , the thing you are selling, hmm, it must be very profitable. Vision was that in you will be tall initial costs, and then you will have, um, very high gross margin and hopefully one day very high net margin.

Although net profit, it seems never materializes, while private capital will not receive until hands things, um, and not will replace the clean profit, this era is largely simple by coincidence, as- Here are the lines for sale. AND now I think we We live in an era when we sell calculation. AND selling calculations, Um, you, can't you? write a request one once, and then sell copies result; um, you must be performed calculation every time, therefore limit expenses, obviously, not are equal to zero. And I I think that's it.

fundamental, a huge change in software provision. And I I think this means, that this era of high gross margin as norms will simply disappear. And what makes up for it, I I think so, um, lower gross margin, much less pure margin and just much larger scale. And I think that this is what you see, and precisely what capital flows to leading suppliers of this scale. I think you know, it would be it is inconceivable that 10 years ago we talked about companies with market share capitalization in three- four trillion dollars.

I believe that This is partly due to with inflation. But, you know, another one part of this is dynamics of scale, and I think that will definitely be to say that we have there will be companies worth 10 trillions of dollars etc. So because margin drop all profits will be to be charged for account of scale, because, obviously, low margin and low scale–this not very good business. So, perhaps, That's a bit harsh. , the Walmart effect in software provision, which is that, uh , you know, I think that the future looks like low gross margin, very thin clean margin, huge scale, and this, probably a problem for, uh, you know, if SAS supplier is family store, like- here is Walmart, which comes to town.

IN You have this funny one. the idea that, uh, the whole the myth of how hard it is beat the market, yes so to speak, no matter how you defined the market, uh, is false. I'm curious, how did you explain that, it seems to have become something like postjack Bogle. One from deep-rooted The truth of the market is because it is extremely hard to beat market, so you not even worth it try. You should just give up from participating in the battle. I I think you have it all.

another opinion on this reason. Yes, I would. chose two different approach options. On- First, I believe that Buffett and Munger were my main ones teachers from investment. Buffett says he wants to his state outside Berkshire was included in S&P. It his advice is broad to the public. So, I think, people perceive it as Buffett says, that you can't beat the market. I am not I think he has it. in mind. I think that he says to the average to the person that you are not must try beat the market.

IN this statement implicitly excluded any active investor. Perhaps, anecdotal aspect will be that Buffett says, "You must invest all "your money in S&P." It the most rational thing to do you should do. WITH on the other hand, has its own empirical argument that is that majority professionals even not beating the market after taking into account commissions. Uh, and that's something like a wonderful, This is a double whammy. , you know, baptized father of investing says: "Don't try ", and then, it seemed b, the smartest people with the best incentives in the world are not can do this.

And then another thing, I I just think that, uh, I think that for professional financial manager, uh, and this a kind of paradox with Buffett, is to because for professional financial manager is very difficult outperform the market, because you have all these other factors that the average person doesn't have human. And this is something on kind of argument Peter Lynch. I am everything I think more that Peter Lynch was just a genius at this. Um, uh, that is, yes, when you professional manager , in general you have all these duties.

You You run a business. IN you have clients who need support satisfied. Therefore I I actually think that professional finance manager harder to beat the market, than average amateur. How many people you know who bought bitcoin and reached really successful, or bought a Tesla, and then bought Tesla shares, or bought an Apple computer, and then bought Apple shares? And you can't manage a hedge fund in this way, but they surpassed, you know, just doing it. AND so I think there is a bit of a strange thing when none of the tips separately is not incorrect, but it's not that difficult, how people think, surpass, um, or achieve the best results than in average.

Well, there is this one the idea that intertwined with all sorts of others things that, in my opinion, opinion, in a certain way tarnish this spot vision. I would like to ask about the LP point of view and, according to basically, what would you do, if there were LPs, what would you do? were looking for. LPs are often asked me, where they should go invest your money, which managers are good, should they invest in this stock. And, uh, one thing that I was amazed, that's what which, in my opinion, these things are needed to treat something cynically, perhaps, this not exactly cynical, but just more realistic: this is, first of all after all, business, and, you know, their product –this is profitability, but they are a business, therefore you must understand what you are client.

For example, question: "Where should I go?" deposit your check for 500 thousands?”–probably not it is worth investing in , you know, marginal fund growth by five billions of dollars. But I really often asked: "Does Should I invest? you know, one or two millions of dollars in this fund? AND The answer is: "Well, You know, this is probably there will be a good fund, but could you please find something much the best that can be done to do with this a million dollars? Perhaps. Hmm, and this sounds obvious, but in fact, this is not true.

AND I think people don't understand that, in essence, , if you are a principal, let's say if you principal who is not can write checks the size of sovereign or institutional debt, you are completely different customer, and business is not intended for serving you as a client. For example , growth fund, probably great place if you need somewhere place 100 millions of dollars. It probably very, very nice place, but it's not very good place for placing a check for 500 thousand dollars. If your business tuned to service sovereign debts, large funds, etc., your product is simple differs from that you are you going to to serve someone smaller.

And this begins with the fact that what, well, if you have a small check that you Are you doing? And I think that this is where the work is managers- beginners really underestimated. Um, uh, me too I'm looking for, you know, basically , places where the manager most closely related to profitability, or because profitability is critically important for future funds, or that's how they are are going to earn all your money. Are there any features of the situation? managers- beginners, which you find interesting or attractive so or otherwise?

This is probably similar to how I am I look at everything, but I I think, you know, especially for novice manager when you really just guarantee person, I think that people don't care will fail. They probably prevail, uh, on In my opinion, they prevail investment thesis and track record etc., and underestimate just facts about a person. You know, I I think we are with you. we both firmly believe in the idea that how you do one thing, and so on you do everything else. AND so, um, I think that the more you can to investigate, you know, I I think it's personal.

financial situation the manager is incredibly an underrated thing, about which is worth asking, whether wrong? For example, if you have several hundreds of millions on bank account , and you raise a fund in amounting to 30 million dollars, that's a lot differs from when someone has a million dollars for bank and collects 100 millions of dollars, to, you know, do something they are on trying to earn the most money. It two very different places for starters underwriting. One of my ideas on this is whether someone is looking at something up or down.

The idea is this: take one and the same, let's say two funds 50 million dollars. One from the one who has 500 thousand dollars for bank, and the other from the one who has 500 million dollars for bank. It is clear that they will be there to treat very, very differently. For the last one, for person out of 500 millions of dollars, 50 million fund dollars will be like this. Toy, a toy, yes, and again yes, not a toy intended for positive effect, as if a toy can to be very even better because it hold more loosely.

She takes less risk. You will be less paralyzed a huge amount dollars. I feel that it is generally not too well recognized. And, um, you see this constantly, for example, in new endeavors. If you manage something that, let's say, by two or three zeros more than you have, in this has some monumentality, which is a little scary. AND, you know, you can scale it up to maximum. Let your business is worth a hundred million dollars from a fund of 10 billion dollars. It's simple. something big, scary.

And I don't care who you are. when you do rates, which, you know, an order of magnitude larger, than any amount money you ever had any. There is simply psychological factor , compared to that, when you place bets , that is, you know, uh, which may be insignificant. And I think, what is this too goes back to that, which partly to people easier to beat individual people, because it's easy, you know, easy get a discount on shares with very a small fraction your clean capital that you don't feel the need explain, and what you will not be evaluated later than it should to be associated with a certain amount in dollars, which exceeds yours current expenses, and this will affect your track record, and you will have to explain this, and all these other factors that not related to whether Do you think this is good?

investment? Or, you and I always do. we are interested in what I am I call it the underbelly. finances. And you have this funny idea about feudal system, which arises in the world SPVS and large private companies. Can you share this idea? There's this funny idea. I I mean, this is to some extent specifically for laboratories, but this also wider, much broader concept. I think, we seem to be reproducing feudal system with first principles, where there are lords, hmm, Elon, hmm, Zuckerberg, Dario Sam, and they're like...they they can seem to create the earth and nobility, distributing appropriation, because these appropriations are something like the best, hmm, general...hmm, the best example generation that moves to another company.

You know, you you get these allocation to SpaceX or in Whimo or something, and you can charge for this huge commissions, and this is something on like completely synthetic of the product that represents something like an arbitrary number. Hmm, again, they they know you don't have money, so they they know that you are their fill in. And then you you can go out and, by in essence, to say: "I issued, type, act on, like, literally, as if The king gave me 500 acres, type, type, in to their country, and, you know, Elon gave me 100 million dollars for distribution to SpaceX", and you can go out and charge a fee and to make money from this a lot of money.

And there is such a thing questions, such as whether you have you distribution? And I I think it's me. interesting because it is something like pure relational, fully synthetic thing that , I'm not sure, once existed earlier, or, of course, not on this scale and the size when you you can, for example, thanks to his relationships, get this land property, and then to hand it over to the sovereign or fund, and they you will be paid for this access, like clean, um, paid access. But, maybe a difference is that, you know, you can say that it is simple brokerage activity, but the difference is obvious, is that, you know, brokerage activity is something like disposable transactions, but these distributions, you know, live forever.

Which is the most terrible? the payment scheme you seen in one of them? No obligation general director, 10% one-time advance payment fee with a certain structure transfer, in general, where are you just demand that you paid sums of money, that change lives, with zero risk, and then you too you get a huge profit. Another thing that they often don't have... I have seen several who no limit validity period. I know, that there were many such like SpaceX. I think that people do it 10 years ago, and, uh, I I know that there is, of course, some that are just picked up on it.

But I I mean, what should I do? to pay tribute to Capital, you are very happy to pay these 2% for what you worked with SpaceX for 15 years ago. Um, uh, so this is of a kind win-win situation. It is impossible. to say that all this badly. Just this It's kind of funny because it's not investment. This is not completely brokerage. It a completely different thing, which fully connected with insider access. And, of course, all this is fraud and bad behavior, which , in my opinion, related to all these bubbles and other things.

How are you? treat yourself productivity if Can't you say that? We have already talked. earlier about that content is really simple entertainment, not teaching. We shouldn't to deceive oneself with about this. Ago he mostly unproductive, that normally. This is entertainment. . How do you feel about how much you take care that to be much more productive than with the help of all these crazy tools? I certainly care about productivity. For me the most productive The thing is conversations that, I think it is a consequence relationships.

Therefore I do not I think that one of reasons why I decreased in reading books, there is something that I am friends with with many people, who read a lot books. Uh, and that's why I I think that if I could leave only one thing, these would be conversations with the people I I find them interesting. And, hmm , but I also think that I am unique. tolerant of, um, unpleasant and strange people. I think that this one of the reasons why me quite often asking, for example, "What is your media diet?" "?

and "Conversations"–my answer, and me it always seems that the answer is no suits people. And I I think it's because they are not friends with, for example, weirdos. For example, many my friends, I think, there are, um, people who they believe in at best strange, and at worst– unpleasant. If I I cannot predict What will the person say after? of how will meet her, I really like her. I like it. And this, obviously very high dispersion. Old Books are good. I read a lot old books in your life, but I think that YouTube remains underestimated.

On YouTube there are many really little-known things. YouTube remains peculiar Alexandrian our library time, perhaps any When. But yes, YouTube doesn't seems generative. I think , which is the only thing that generates, these are conversations. And you know, at the beginning of 2026, I I would say that chatbots can lull you to the generative mood. But if I I'll actually take a look. for the actions I took, then you can feel yourself truly productive after, for example, a good 2-hour chatbot session, but I don't really think so.

that they eventually so generative. If you think about wonderful things investment ideas, which one is correct balance between simplicity and complexity? If you think about those who you did it yourself, but also studied, I really think so. people really appreciate complexity for the sake of of the greatest complexity. I I think that a lot more investors are fond of playing on cleverness than play for money. So, you know, Personally, I think that it was a big field self-development for me, that is, smart The thing is not always that, that brings money, obviously.

Um, and that's why I I think you need to either say, what am I looking for investment ideas, which are so complicated, that no one has them does not implement, or they actually should be quite simple. I I believe more and more in simplicity, that is, you, You probably want to be Elon's long position Mask, you know, or this level of idea. I I actually think that the gift is in order to be able to sell this idea. I I think that a lot investment media actually serve to people who really good to decorate these ideas so that they felt differentiated and smart enough, so as not to see that actually it's simple Elon's long position or long position Bitcoin.

I am thinking about a guy I know, which exclusively is engaged in bankruptcies, and he earns a lot money, but it's very difficult and very difficult , but, you know, this a huge number work. This is dirty. It hard. That's a lot. risk and, uh, interpersonal things, and for me it's an example of how receive payment for complexity. While a good example simplicity is what you should just buy shares large companies, when they are on their own moving average 200-200 weeks, and I I like this idea.

because it is so simple. But it is true, one the story that I I really like it. is to to break through mess and get complete clarity regarding how to evaluate investments, from Richard Rainwater, who told about him, that you, in fact, come to him office with yellow notebook. Uh, you too write yours dissertation on one page, and then inform him, what percentage of your net worth you are you going to invest in agreement. And based on your dissertation on one page and percent net of the capital that she is going to invest, he says "yes" or "no" ".

And I think that this brilliant. I really am ...uh...people don't do that they do it because it's very hard. This is significantly complicates matters. On- first, it's hard to write convincing dissertation on page. Lot it's easier to do it in in the form of a slide show on 400 pages. And in- secondly, no one wants say: "Well, I I only invest 3% in this. your pure capital, you know." Uh-huh , and for me it is one of the simplest, the clearest examples of whether this a good investment, right?

no, what am I ever heard. One of, in my opinion opinion, natural leverage now is the ability extremely good to hire, what does it mean two things: attract amazing differentiated pool talents, and then to choose effectively from of this group. Yes, is that what you are talking about thought a lot, building your business, and it seems a skill that, if you they have mastered it well, would be incredible valuable in this era, especially when return from such talents like " outsiders", seems to be growing and is growing.

What are you learned about two stages of this process? Me especially interested in engaging unique pool talents. Perhaps, the most practical, on In my opinion, there is very easily accessible fruit, this is just a description vacancies. Hmm, I think so. that job descriptions are one of those things that are written for no one, so that no one reads them. And they are something on kind of document- symbols, as if he rather about whether there is job description, not about what is written in job description. So I tried to write such as would very responsive to a simple rule: "Um , you know, I was going to publish this in Twitter and LinkedIn.

Therefore I I think that everything you publish, it should be good separate by post, you know, it's not it could just be something what you didn't share if they didn't know me. Um, and this is the first, and the second , I think it was that, in my opinion, the most important thing in any which advertising the speech that he has there should be a job description, – this is disqualifying those you don't want see. And a nice thing in a controversial The statement is because, um, when it resonates, it is deep resonates with the person.

So I just I'm trying to think, What traits would I like? to see in someone, and I'm trying them again. to create, to to go back to that, how to do one thing, and exactly how to do everything, what will make them that the person who me interesting. Of course, what skills and experience were supposed to be key. I tried to write out features and ideas that would really inspired, and to need a person replied: "Wow, this the person really me understands, understands and brings people together mind.

One of the things, which I published, the funniest one, which caused the greatest reaction, it's "you ideological minority in the best school." AND me in this I like that this is fully open for interpretation. So, you know, I would met people who would be different, wouldn't they? Yes? Who would angry that I I just want school in top ten? It's nice that "schools "the best"–this fully ambiguous assertion. And you know, me in this I like it, hmm. I like this. that there are schools which, on in my opinion, definitely are among the top ten the best, and I I understand these people.

Uh-huh , but you can also simply to assert, what is your educational background the institution is included in top ten. AND I had several people from schools who, I would didn't say, there were some close, simple claimed this, and I thought it was wonderful. I asked people to take away, because they were something like: " Oh, I don't know if mine educational institution like this, I'm not going to to apply, this great, because I don't want to such people". And then ideological minority was really interesting.

I had a certain idea, but people gave I have all kinds of answers regarding ideology, because, you know, I wasn't necessarily politically oriented. Were all kinds of answers about what this is the person stood out in to your school institution. And that's why I I think that these The statements are wonderful because they are very ambiguous. They there may be...there are peculiar test on trust. And, uh, you know, I even received several posts like: " Hey, you know, I think that this is nonsense. You should hire me.

. I did not study in top ten schools. You are an idiot, and so am I. "I love this person." Exactly. So, I think that the more you can to make such statements where they cause such reaction, the better. THERE ARE- Well, and you seem to imagine, what would you have to do to do on interviews, to get all these different traits. Um, and yes, such statements, I think, very small used in these job descriptions. This is a cool idea- include an interview in the vacancy itself.

Me it seems like today underrated area research, which, I I know you are interested, - these are cultural and intellectual traditions that lie in based on the main movements. And I think that this , certainly true in this wave of technology. And that's not what it's about. do they talk a lot write. And I would like to so that you just talked about their interpretation key, uh, sets beliefs that stand for people and institutions that initiate the biggest wave technological changes, which we probably once Have you ever seen I am interested in incorrect estimates qualities and attributes ...uh, about things, people and places.

I am not I don't know if it's always like that. was true, but today it is true. I I think there are some, uh, qualities and attributes, which, you know, widely recognized and are evaluated effectively , let's say. Er, height, IQ , resume, etc. And then there are other features and characteristics that, uh, we just collectively decided not to be evaluated for Silicon Valley. People seem to underestimate philosophers and thinkers, and, uh, so-so mimemetic ideas that are at the heart of all of this. I think that there is a real philosophy, something on kind of neo-Buddhist utilitarianism, uh, which underlies technological developments in Silicon Valley.

AND this is interesting because you see it like Will Mussel, uh, take it. participation in SPF and FTX. THERE ARE thinkers like Nick Land, hmm, whose ideas? seeping under surface in the valley and affect everyone, but they are not required called. I have on meaning that now they were. Hmm, maybe to say the same about Curtis Yarvin. I thought it was amazing how for years it was possible hear Curtis' ideas from big mouths technological leaders, without naming them their names. There are such things like research influence and all these intellectual personalities, which I I think you know that.

just like, I think, hmm, uh -e, religious people's beliefs in general underestimated secular people with from the point of view of how much they important as pointer. I think hmm, in the valley in development of these technologies are as follows cultural and philosophical ideas underrated like you you know, I like it whether you like it or not, but models are very utilitarian. They have this strange mixture religious ideas from Judaism, Buddhism etc., and so on utilitarian bias, which is transformed on altruism, and, you know, people think something like: " Okay, you know, this simply cultural question, but these things have meaning." AND it seems to me that all this cultural epicenter in general very underrated, and he informs why these things are being built, and what worldviews to them inherent, and which worldviews inherent in people who they are being built.

Me It seems that, um, Wall- street in the 80s was some kind of vainglorious, hmm, almost pagan , strong and beautiful, or what the most important. In this is hedonistic aspect. There is openness that it is a little nihilistic, because everything comes down to only receiving money. It not the same concept. AND I think that's the point of this. is that technology perceive themselves as absolutely self-confident, that is what they create, are not controllable sin or exiled from greed or ambitions. They are expelled. from this one, you know, nominally altruistic idea about what we we create this thing, these products that uses the whole world.

This is to some extent positive, that on at first glance, true, but I think that this almost, almost pathologically, up to of what is not there recognition of all others factors. This is almost something like shadow. Um, and no no idea like that : if you work in finances, you you need to try, need to convert profits from finances for something worthy: in art, in architecture, in philanthropy, in culture in general or in the place where you live. None of this exists because I think that technology perceive themselves as, you know, the highest philanthropy is the business you are create.

I don't think so. that Silicon Valley today has the same reflective need justify, to document or even wash that, what are they doing, for example, attending parties with on the occasion of the book, art and all kinds other things. Um, me too I think it's like this. interesting, this is interesting difference, and I would like to, so that more people tried document this, because it's all there. All this crazy sex, drugs and rock and roll are present in to his own, boring- autistic, and culture, I I think very much underestimated, and religious belief, literally religious or pseudo-religious, but to fill this emptiness, as always when we Let's talk, I wanted to I wish we had more three hours.

Thank you for that. do it again with by me. Thank you for your time. . Thank you for inviting me. me. You know how small advantages accumulate from sometimes? This is true in investing and so on very true in how you manage your by the company. Your cost system–this your strategy capital distribution. RAMP makes it smarter than default. The best data, better solutions, better economy with sometimes. Find out how to do this on ramp.com/invest. In moderation your growth business Vantaa scales together with you, automating compliance with requirements and giving you the only reliable source information about safety and risks.

Learn more at vant.com/invest. The best companies that engaged in artificial intelligence and software provision, from OpenAI to cursor to perplexity, use Work OS, to get ready for work with enterprises by one night, not for months. Visit workos.com to avoid uninteresting work with infrastructure and to focus on your product. Ridgeline redefines technology asset management as real partner, not just supplier software software. They helped 5 companies times to scale , providing faster growth, smarter operations and competitive advantage . Visit ridgelineapps.com to to find out what they are can be disclosed for your company.

Each investment firm unique, and general AI is not understands your process. Rogo understands. It AI platform, specially created for Wall Street, connected to your data, understands your process and creates real results. Check them out at rogo.ai/invest.

Go deeper

• All Invest Like The Best episode guides