Chamath Palihapitiya argues that real global influence is held by roughly 150 men who control capital allocation rather than elected politicians or conventional tech CEOs. (9:55)
Social Capital targets a 50-year vision by 2045: employing 10 million people, impacting a quarter of the global population, and generating $1 trillion in cumulative profit through patient deep tech investments. (11:32)
Palihapitiya expressed deep guilt over building early social media systems, warning that short-term dopamine feedback loops are actively eroding civil discourse and tearing apart societal cooperation. (21:23)
Empirical data challenges the venture capital industry's claimed pattern recognition: fewer than 2% of Series A lead investors overlapped across major tech firms valued over $50B built since the 1970s. (37:30)
Detailed notes
## Background
Published on YouTube by the Stanford Graduate School of Business on November 13, 2017, this "View From The Top" session features Chamath Palihapitiya, founder and CEO of Social Capital. According to the page description, Palihapitiya discusses how capital serves as an instrument of change to make the world a better place, framing wealth acquisition and strategic allocation as a moral imperative for aspiring leaders.
## TL;DR
Drawing on his transition from a welfare-supported childhood to executive leadership and venture capital, Palihapitiya argues that capital is the ultimate instrument for driving systemic societal transformation. He delivers an unvarnished critique of venture capital's risk-averse culture and expresses profound personal guilt over social media's role in shredding society's social fabric. Outlining Social Capital's 50-year vision, he urges entrepreneurs to reject short-term dopamine loops and high IRR vanity metrics, advocating instead for slow, decades-long compounding directed at hard, existential problems like diabetes, education, and climate change. Ultimately, he challenges elite graduates to shed performative intellectual vanity, acquire substantial capital, and leverage that structural power to reshape global systems.
## Atmosphere & style
The session has an electric, provocative, and disarmingly blunt energy, driven by Palihapitiya's sharp profanity and refusal to indulge in standard Silicon Valley platitudes. The atmosphere shifts dynamically between uproarious student laughter at his candid industry roasts and dead-quiet introspection when he admits his guilt over early social media architectures and the psychological isolation that accompanies vast wealth. Watching the talk feels like sitting in on a private, high-stakes debrief where an insider tears down the polite mythologies of finance and tech to deliver an uncompromising, urgent reality check.
## Bulletin
- [09:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=595s) Chamath Palihapitiya argues that real global influence is held by roughly 150 men who control capital allocation rather than elected politicians or conventional tech CEOs.
- [11:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=692s) Social Capital targets a 50-year vision by 2045: employing 10 million people, impacting a quarter of the global population, and generating $1 trillion in cumulative profit through patient deep tech investments.
- [21:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1283s) Palihapitiya expressed deep guilt over building early social media systems, warning that short-term dopamine feedback loops are actively eroding civil discourse and tearing apart societal cooperation.
- [37:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2250s) Empirical data challenges the venture capital industry's claimed pattern recognition: fewer than 2% of Series A lead investors overlapped across major tech firms valued over $50B built since the 1970s.
## Key takeaways
- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=0s) Growing up on welfare reframed capital as an empowering instrument for change rather than an end in itself.
- [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=200s) Letting go of socioeconomic shame enabled clearer psychological focus on deliberate personal and professional growth.
- [05:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=302s) Early operational exposure to Sir Terry Matthews demonstrated the difference between using wealth to compound industry influence versus conspicuous consumption.
- [09:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=595s) Global power concentrates among elite capital allocators who respond purely to returns, making commercial success the most direct lever to enact systemic change.
- [11:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=692s) Meaningful enterprise creation requires swimming against Silicon Valley's quick-exit culture and embracing multi-decade compounding.
- [14:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=885s) Hard problems like diabetes management and human capital development demand multi-year resilience and patient capital rather than rapid pivots.
- [17:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1075s) The 'fail fast' methodology applies to behavioral consumer software experimentation, but proves ineffective for massive physical and deep-tech challenges like climate change.
- [21:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1283s) Early architects of social media platforms built short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that now threaten societal cohesion and civil discourse.
- [26:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1605s) True diversity requires individuals with unique, authentic worldviews backed by actual economic decision-making leverage.
- [31:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1867s) Traditional venture capital has grown risk-averse, warranting systematic, data-driven platforms that automate non-core operational functions for founders.
- [37:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2250s) Claims of superior intuition in early-stage venture are disproved by a sub-2% investor overlap among tech companies that scaled past $50 billion.
- [39:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2376s) Anchoring early investment funds with personal capital provides the insulation required to pursue patient, long-term impact bets.
- [43:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2585s) Utilizing public vehicles to deliver earlier liquidity can mitigate Silicon Valley's 20% annual turnover and incentivize talent to stay focused on hard problems long-term.
- [47:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2829s) Admitting 'I don't know' and embracing intellectual flexibility to change one's mind are vital traits for authentic, scaled leadership.
- [51:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=3104s) Under the half-life rule of business, rapidly built consumer platforms face equally rapid decay, whereas compounding at 15% annually over 50 years builds truly indelible enterprises.
- [51:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=3104s) Disconnecting from short-term personal social media feeds is essential to preserve the patient cognitive wiring required for complex commercial decision-making.
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=0s) Extreme Tipping and Reframing the Purpose of Money
The conversation opens with the interviewer highlighting a distinctive personal habit of Chamath Palihapitiya: he is renowned for being an extraordinarily generous tipper. Chamath explains that talking openly about this behavior is deliberate because he believes being candid gives others permission to be honest about money. His perspective on wealth stems directly from his childhood in a dysfunctional household supported by welfare. In his family, money was scarce, creating an intense atmosphere of strain and misery that contributed to his father’s severe depression and alcoholism. As he grew up amid that turmoil, he eventually confronted a fundamental question about whether money was truly important. While his sisters did not emerge from that upbringing with the same relationship toward capital, Chamath realized that he did not actually covet money for its own sake. Instead, he came to view capital as an instrument that could empower him to do whatever he chose.
That philosophy manifests vividly in how Chamath interacts with service workers at restaurants. When dining out, he looks at the staff—often brown-skinned people working exceptionally hard to craft hospitable experiences—and identifies with them deeply. While conventional patrons might show appreciation by posting online praise, Chamath rejects that substitute, pointing out: “But you can't buy food for your kids with a fucking YELP review.” On a meal that costs $300 or $400, where a waiter might anticipate a standard $40 tip, Chamath will frequently leave $500 or even $1,000. He describes how workers will sometimes chase him down outside, overwhelmed by an amount of money that can genuinely alter their week or month. Because bills are usually processed after patrons depart, the staff almost never know who left the money and cannot even pronounce his name, preserving an anonymity that he treasures. The sheer magnitude of his tipping has even created awkward social dynamics with his peers, prompting him to institute a blanket rule when dining out with friends: he simply insists on paying the entire bill to avoid any friction.
- **Family background:** Grew up on welfare in a dysfunctional home where financial stress fueled his father's depression and heavy drinking.
- **Tipping practices:** Regularly leaves $500 to $1,000 on dining tabs of $300 to $400, giving directly and anonymously to hard-working service staff.
- **Social friction:** His outsized gratuities caused enough tension with dining companions that he adopted a blanket policy to pick up the tab whenever going out with friends.
---
[03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=200s) Growing Up on Welfare and the Shift from Shame to Acceptance
Chamath describes how his childhood was defined by a desperate need for money rather than an abstract desire for it. His father suffered through extended stretches of unemployment, leaving his mother as the household’s sole provider. She worked tirelessly, first as a housekeeper and later as a nurse’s aide, spending hours on municipal buses because the family could not afford an automobile. When Chamath was old enough to get his first job at Burger King, he turned over his paychecks to his parents so the family could buy transit passes. Chamath attended an affluent high school outside of his designated district, and the contrast between his classmates' lives and his own caused him deep mortification. Whenever his high school peers appeared at the Burger King counter, he would feel an overwhelming surge of embarrassment and dread.
A decisive mental breakthrough occurred when Chamath chose to let go of the shame entirely. He recognized that his current socioeconomic reality was an unchangeable fact of his present, and that worrying about what others thought served no constructive purpose. Chamath describes that turning point: “And then at some point, it was this release moment where I was, this is my life. I can't do anything about it. This is what it is right now.” Once he accepted his reality, his shame evaporated, clearing psychological space for him to focus on what actually mattered and how he could deliberately build his future.
- **Mother’s occupations:** Worked initially as a domestic housekeeper and later as a nurse's aide to support the family.
- **First job:** Employed at Burger King, handing over his earnings to his parents to fund the family's bus passes.
- **Schooling:** Commuted to a wealthy high school outside his local catchment area, initially feeling acute humiliation when classmates saw him working fast food.
---
[05:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=302s) Newbridge Networks, Terry Matthews, and Money as an Instrument of Change
In the aftermath of the 1992 Los Angeles riots sparked by the Rodney King verdict, Canadian officials grew anxious that similar unrest could erupt among minority populations in Ontario cities like Toronto and Ottawa. In response, government initiatives were launched to help young Black and brown men find employment. Chamath capitalized on the moment by taking a stack of his father’s corporate rejection letters and systematically cold-calling every company on the list. One of those calls landed him an entry-level position at Newbridge Networks, an Ottawa-based telecommunications startup founded by Welsh-Canadian entrepreneur Terry Matthews. Matthews was a billionaire—a concept so foreign to Chamath at the time that he did not even know what the word meant, having never met anyone with even modest wealth.
Working at Newbridge gave Chamath a front-row seat to an aggressive, high-stakes operational culture. Matthews ran the business with a bold, risk-seeking posture, driving massive technical transitions such as rolling out frame relay switches, executing strategic acquisitions, and rapidly pivoting the company toward Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) networking. Chamath commuted on the bus until Sam Legg, the company's controller who happened to drive through Chamath's low-income neighborhood on his way to the highway, noticed him at the bus stop and offered him a ride. During those morning commutes, Legg explained how Matthews thought about capital allocation. Chamath realized that to Matthews, net worth was not about personal consumption; Matthews viewed market capitalization purely as an instrument of change, measuring his influence in billions of dollars deployed to remake industries.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Divergent Models of Wealth Manifestation
accDescr: A comparison between Terry Matthews who uses money as an instrument of change and Michael Cowpland who uses it for conspicuous consumption.
subgraph Matthews["Terry Matthews (Newbridge Networks)"]
M1["Market Capitalization"] --> M2["Reinvest in R&D and Strategic M&A"]
M2 --> M3["Pivot Entire Business: Frame Relay to ATM"]
M3 --> M4["Capital as an Instrument of Change"]
end
subgraph Cowpland["Michael Cowpland (Corel)"]
C1["Personal Wealth"] --> C2["Conspicuous Consumption"]
C2 --> C3["Messy Public Divorce and Trophy Wife"]
C3 --> C4["Covering Personal Residence in Commercial Glass"]
end
```
Chamath contrasts Matthews with Michael Cowpland, the flamboyant billionaire founder of Corel, another Ottawa tech company of the era. While Matthews focused on building and compounding, Cowpland engaged in brazen conspicuous consumption, going through a messy public divorce, marrying a trophy wife, and encasing his personal residence in the reflective glass taken from his commercial headquarters. The contrast between these two local titans taught Chamath how differently wealth could manifest. Choosing Matthews as his role model, Chamath realized that the key to success was not inventing everything from scratch, but studying and emulating high-functioning leaders. Chamath bluntly states: “There's not a lot of original thought here, there truly is not. We can all pretend we're all fucking geniuses, honestly, be good copiers.”
- **Catalyst for hiring:** Canadian summer youth employment initiatives launched out of concern over potential Rodney King-style racial unrest in Ontario.
- **First tech company:** Newbridge Networks in Ottawa, led by Sir Terry Matthews.
- **Commute mentor:** Sam Legg, controller of Newbridge Networks, offered Chamath rides and decoded executive-level decision-making for him.
- **Contrasting tech mogul:** Michael Cowpland of Corel, who used his fortune for showy lifestyle expenditures, in direct contrast to Matthews' focus on reinvestment and compounding.
---
[09:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=595s) The 150 Men Who Run the World and Allocating Capital
As Chamath expands Social Capital, his professional circle has evolved to include figures he once viewed from an awe-inspired distance. Interacting with them as quasi-peers has given him an unfiltered look at both the brilliance and the glaring dysfunction that exists at the highest tiers of global wealth. Seeing those flaws up close reinforces his daily discipline of choosing which behaviors to replicate and which to discard.
Chamath dismisses conventional political power, arguing that real authority does not reside with elected officials or even mainstream technology founders. Instead, global power is concentrated in an elite cadre of financiers who control capital flows and core assets. Chamath summarizes his worldview directly: “There are 150, and they're all men that run the world, period, full stop.” He observes that the system is structurally designed to perpetuate their own advantages and enrich their progeny. Rather than attempting to dismantle this architecture from the outside, Chamath's strategy is to beat them at their own game. Because these gatekeepers are driven purely by commercial returns, they will open the door to anyone who creates immense value. His long-term mission is to aggregate enough global capital to secure an unassailable seat at that table, use that leverage to reallocate assets toward his own worldview, and open access for others who have historically been excluded.
- **Concentration of power:** Asserts that approximately 150 men—not politicians or conventional tech CEOs—control the dominant assets and money flows that govern the globe.
- **Five-to-ten-year outlook:** Predicts high-profile tech founders will eventually be outmaneuvered or rolled over by the capital allocators pulling strings underneath.
- **Core strategy:** Gain admission to elite capital circles by demonstrating superior commercial execution, then use that accumulated capital to fund and implement his own vision of societal change.
[11:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=692s) Ambition and the 2045 Vision for Social Capital
Chamath Palihapitiya opens by cutting through conventional hesitations about influence and authority, observing that the people currently shaping the world do not care what anyone else thinks of their worldview. This realization led him to embrace an unapologetic posture: if others are willing to assert their vision, there is no reason he, or anyone in the Stanford audience, should hold back. Met with laughter and applause from the room, he punctuates the sentiment with a blunt challenge: “Why the fuck not?”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Social Capital 2045 Vision and Operating Logic
accDescr: Chamath Palihapitiya outlines the three core 50-year goals of Social Capital and the operational requirements needed to achieve them.
subgraph Goals["2045 Core Ambitions"]
G1["Employ ≥ 10 Million People"]
G2["Positively Impact ≥ 25% of World Population"]
G3["Generate ~$1 Trillion Cumulatively"]
end
subgraph Strategy["Execution Strategy"]
S1["Must Be Driven by Technology"]
S2["Tackle Hard, Non-Obvious Problems"]
S3["Compound Patiently Over Decades"]
end
Goals --> Strategy
Strategy --> Out["The Modern Face of Capitalism"]
```
When asked to unpack his worldview through the lens of Social Capital’s 50-year milestones, Chamath details his specific ambitions for the year 2045. His targets are threefold: employing at least 10 million people through the companies Social Capital owns, positively impacting at least a quarter of the global population, and generating roughly $1 trillion in cumulative profit. Reaching those benchmarks, he argues, would establish Social Capital as the modern face of capitalism for the next half-century. Achieving that scale requires an uncompromising reliance on technology, as no traditional brick-and-mortar model could ever attain such reach.
Building enduring, generation-defining enterprises demands swimming against the dominant current of Silicon Valley. While the tech ecosystem celebrates rapid execution and immediate exits, Chamath characterizes that mentality as a shortsighted rush that fails anyone trying to build something lasting. Genuine compounding takes decades, demanding an uncommon degree of patience, intellectual resolve, and pain tolerance. To illustrate that extra gear, he recounts a morning couples workout with his wife, former Golden State Warriors forward David Lee, and Lee’s fiancée, professional tennis star Caroline Wozniacki. Watching elite professional athletes tackle a grueling treadmill workout, Chamath noticed that at the exact point where an ordinary person gives up, an elite competitor's brain shifts into overdrive to unlock another burst of effort. He argues that entrepreneurs and investors must cultivate that exact same refusal to quit when building long-term companies.
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “I think if we do that, we are the modern face of capitalism for the next 50 years.”
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “You gotta be in the flow for decades, that is hard.”
---
[14:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=885s) Playing the Long Game: Diabetes and Human Capital
Chamath explains how this relentless perseverance applies directly to venture building, referencing Social Capital’s intensive quarterly portfolio reviews where the firm stress-tests its foundational strategies. He points to his investment in a diabetes management company as proof of the long timeline required for meaningful innovation. The cause was personal: his father passed away from diabetes three years earlier, the majority of his relatives suffer from it, and he carries the genetic markers that make him disproportionately predisposed to the disease. Despite his personal passion, the business required seven grueling years of capital infusions and persistent doubt just to reach commercial viability.
Pushing through that multi-year slog meant overcoming the fear of failure and continually cutting checks when conventional wisdom urged abandoning the project. That resilience eventually paid off: the company now manages care for one million diabetic patients. Chamath reflects on the quiet, uncelebrated value created for children whose family lives are spared the disruption of seeing a parent forced onto dialysis or waiting for an organ transplant. He contrasts that profound social and economic utility with Silicon Valley’s shallow obsession with quick metrics—rushing to hit five or ten million users only to flip the company for a quick payout and short-term prestige.
The same philosophy guided Social Capital’s investments in education, an area widely written off by venture capitalists as an uninvestable sector. For three years, the firm’s education bets looked like a total train wreck. Rather than viewing the category through the narrow lens of traditional schooling, Chamath approached it as human capital development. As a capitalist, his objective was not sentimental empathy, but leveling the playing field so that talented individuals everywhere have a fair shot to compete, allowing investors to back the ultimate winners from a global talent pool rather than just elite university graduates. Holding that course required repeatedly defying his own partnership to double down on struggling portfolio companies instead of walking away.
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “The easy answer is to walk away, the hard answer is to double down, we have to support this business.”
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “So part of what we're trying to do to achieve those goals is take really big audacious points of view on the world and then train ourselves to be patient.”
---
[17:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1075s) The Illusion of "Fail Fast" and the Trillion-Dollar Climate Opportunity
When the moderator asks how deep, patient bets reconcile with Silicon Valley’s revered "fail fast and learn" dogma, Chamath draws a sharp distinction between consumer software and meaningful technological progress. He contends that the fail-fast approach only makes sense in consumer Internet businesses whose primary objective is manipulating human psychology. Because human behavior is erratic, consumer platforms must experiment rapidly to discover how to trigger predictable neurochemical reactions and deliver rapid dopamine hits. While noting that Facebook mastered this dynamic brilliantly—alongside Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Twitter, and WeChat—he stresses that rapid behavioral manipulation has zero relevance to cracking hard, physical problems.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Fail Fast vs Methodical Deep Tech
accDescr: Contrast between the consumer internet fail fast approach and the long-term methodical approach required for hard problems.
subgraph Consumer["Consumer Internet Model"]
direction TB
C1["Psychological Manipulation"] --> C2["Rapid Experimentation"]
C2 --> C3["Dopamine Hits / Quick Exits"]
end
subgraph DeepTech["Hard Problems Model"]
direction TB
D1["Methodical Point of View"] --> D2["Patient Capital & Resilience"]
D2 --> D3["Systemic Impact & Trillion-Dollar Scale"]
end
```
Failing fast cannot cure cancer through precision medicine, halt chronic disease, or educate billions of people. Those breakthroughs require an explicit point of view, methodical execution, and multi-year resilience. Chamath emphasizes that taking on these daunting, capital-intensive problems is precisely where the greatest economic fortunes of the next half-century will be unlocked. Because most investors shy away from them, the competitive landscape in deep technology is wide open, leaving enormous white spaces free of market competition.
To illustrate the market’s distorted priorities, Chamath takes aim at capital allocation around climate change. Setting aside academic squabbles over historical temperature cycles, he argues that the practical reality is undeniable: global biodiversity is collapsing, rising sea levels will submerge populated lands, human populations will be forced into dense geographic concentrations, and food supply chains are facing catastrophic disruption. Yet instead of pouring capital into mitigating an existential threat—which would inevitably mint the world's first multi-trillionaire—venture funds channel billions into frivolous convenience applications. He mocks the flood of funding tracked on Crunchbase for on-demand weed and brownie delivery services, warning the audience that if capital markets continue prioritizing trivial novelties over planetary survival, the next generation will be unable to hand down a habitable, predictable planet to their children.
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “I think that that fail fast approach works in consumer Internet businesses, but I don't think it works for anything that really matters.”
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “If you talk about where all of the gains, where all of the value will be created over the next 50 years, it'll be in those hard things.”
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “Go and look through Crunchbase and all the shitty, useless, idiotic companies that have gotten funded doing garbage like that.”
---
[21:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1283s) Ripping Apart Society: The Guilt of Social Media's Architects
Turning the conversation back to the psychological manipulation inherent in social media, the moderator asks Chamath about his own soul-searching, given his instrumental role as an early senior executive at Facebook. Chamath responds with raw candor, stating bluntly that he feels “tremendous guilt” over the industry he helped construct. He reflects that while early platform architects comforted themselves with public assurances that negative side effects would be minimal, the team harbored an unspoken intuition deep down that their creations could unlock dark societal consequences.
The reality, Chamath asserts, has escalated far beyond what early builders envisioned: the consumer tools tech leaders built are now actively shredding the core social fabric that allows human society to function. By engineering short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops, the tech industry has systematically eroded civil discourse, crippled basic cooperation, and accelerated the proliferation of misinformation and untruths. He issues an urgent plea to the Stanford students in the room, warning them that as the world's future leaders, they must recognize that feeding this beast will result in their own destruction. He insists that this crisis goes far beyond superficial scapegoats like foreign political ads—it is a borderless, systemic breakdown of how people communicate and perceive truth.
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “I feel tremendous guilt.”
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “It literally is a point now where I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works.”
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works.”
- Chamath Palihapitiya: “This is not about Russian ads. This is a global problem.”
[23:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1385s) Social Media, Societal Erosion, and Intellectual Independence
Chamath Palihapitiya warns that society has entered an alarming state of affairs, asserting that social media platforms are actively eroding the basic foundations of interpersonal human behavior. Lacking an easy systemic solution, Palihapitiya explains that his personal remedy has simply been total abstention. Despite the significant social friction it causes among his peers, he has barely posted on Facebook—fewer than ten times, perhaps only two or three, over the span of seven years. He reflects that he innately resisted being programmed and tuned the tools out, though he laments not confronting the phenomenon head-on earlier. To illustrate the terrifying real-world fallout of unverified digital virality, he cites incidents in India where false WhatsApp rumors about child kidnappings caused vigilantism and horrific lynchings of innocent people. He warns of the catastrophic danger when bad actors wield these mechanisms to manipulate massive populations at scale.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Social Media Feedback Loop
accDescr: Cycle showing how short term dopamine signals create brittle popularity and drive repeated posting.
A["Curate Life for Perceived Perfection"] --> B["Short-Term Signals: Hearts, Likes, Upvotes"]
B --> C["Conflate Signals with Value and Truth"]
C --> D["Feel Vacant and Empty (Brittle Popularity)"]
D --> E["Vicious Cycle: Compulsion to Seek Next Fix"]
E --> A
```
Compounding the problem is individual human psychology: users obsessively curate their lives around a manufactured image of perfection, chasing short-term feedback signals like hearts, likes, and thumbs-up. Users mistake this brittle popularity for authentic value and truth, only to end up feeling more vacant and empty than before, trapped in a relentless compulsive loop for validation. When asked whether he feels personal guilt over his contribution to building these mechanisms, Palihapitiya acknowledges his success while asserting that Facebook overwhelmingly creates net positive good. However, his focus has shifted toward controlling what he can: barring his children from using social media, cutting off his own usage, and deploying his capital into climate change, education, and diabetes. He cautions the Stanford GSB audience against believing their elite status makes them immune:
> “You're probably the most likely to fucking fall for it, because you are fucking check boxing your whole God damn life.”
- In India, hoaxes spread via WhatsApp led directly to vigilantism and public lynchings after villagers feared child kidnappers were among them.
- Over two billion active users are caught in short-term dopamine loops that distort mutual human perception.
- Palihapitiya's strict household rule completely prohibits his children from using social media platforms.
---
[26:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1605s) Capital as Power: "Get the Fucking Money"
Addressing political turbulence such as the Trump administration's immigration policies and the friction between government and commerce, Palihapitiya offers blunt guidance to aspiring business leaders: acquire capital. He dismisses passive liberal hand-wringing about wealth as ineffective, arguing that financial resources govern human behavior predictably across both developed and developing societies. Because capital is inevitably going to be generated and distributed, individuals possessing a unique worldview must fight to control it rather than leaving the levers of power exclusively to others.
> “Money drives the world for better or for worse.”
In Palihapitiya's framework, true diversity is not about corporate quotas or cosmetic racial tokenism; it is the presence of individuals with distinct life journeys holding actual economic leverage. Without capital, an individual's worldview is entirely irrelevant; backed by capital, it becomes an instrument of systemic power. He points to the Koch brothers as an example of methodical operational genius: regardless of whether one agrees with their political worldview, they systematically compounded capital, institutions, and influence over decades to imprint their beliefs onto society. He challenges the audience to name a single progressive counterweight that matches the Kochs' institutional discipline and scale. To impact the world, future leaders must acquire capital without surrendering their core values:
> “Literally that simple, get the fucking money.”
- Diversity defined by Palihapitiya focuses on diverse, authentic worldviews backed by real economic decision-making rather than headcount quotas.
- The Koch brothers serve as an operational model for how patient, decades-long compounding of capital successfully shapes national policy and institutions.
---
[31:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1867s) Venture Capital Cowardice and the "AWS of Business"
Turning his attention to the venture capital industry, Palihapitiya describes VCs as an ineffective class of capital allocators. Though well-intentioned, they behave like soulless cowards once awarded early success. Rather than taking risks to propel progressive technological transformation, investors treat their initial wins like gold stars, turning risk-averse to protect their power, social status, and board seats. This timid mindset results in arbitrary, parochial habits, such as refusing to invest in startups located further than a 15-minute drive away. He ridicules this parochialism by imagining if Mark Zuckerberg or Google restricted their products to work only Monday through Friday from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM with summers off.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Venture Capital Mindset Shift
accDescr: Evolution of a VC from taking risks to becoming a risk-averse retardant to progress.
subgraph EarlyStage["Early Success"]
A["Secure Initial 'Gold Star'"]
end
subgraph Entrenchment["Defensive Posture"]
B["Cling to Status & Seat of Power"]
C["Shift to Risk-Off Mentality"]
end
subgraph Outcome["Systemic Impact"]
D["Act as Retardant to Progressive Worldview"]
end
A --> B
B --> C
C --> D
```
Palihapitiya argues that venture capital must be reinvented to become global, data-driven, continuous, and systematic. Just as Amazon Web Services revolutionized company creation by abstracting away the operational headache of physical server racks, modern venture investing must eliminate operational friction for founders. In 2007, early skeptics laughed at AWS, yet within a decade, any software startup failing to build on top of cloud infrastructure became obsolete. Palihapitiya envisions building automated, standardized software abstractions for all non-core business functions, freeing founders to apply their capital directly to fundamental product innovation.
> “Venture is basically just a bunch of soulless cowards.”
- Around 2007, tech teams manually racked servers in physical data centers before AWS abstracted infrastructure behind APIs.
- Next-generation venture firms must operate on algorithmic, objective, 24/7 models rather than geographic convenience and gut instincts.
[35:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2119s) Abstracting the Facebook Growth Engine into an API Platform
Chamath Palihapitiya argues that what his team pioneered at Facebook represents an urgent necessity for every modern business: abandoning the traditional reliance on political capital, anecdotal hunches, and internal social maneuvering in favor of an unemotional, precise, and rigorously data-driven operational engine. To achieve that transformation, Facebook built extensive data infrastructure to collect granular metrics, uncover both obvious and non-obvious optimizations, and systematically drive growth. Social Capital aims to productize and abstract that exact operational muscle so founders can access it as a turnkey service. In this model, an entrepreneur building a company will rely on Amazon Web Services (AWS) for computing infrastructure and socialcapital.com for analytical insights, operational primitives, and algorithmic guidance delivered through application programming interfaces (APIs).
By ingesting operational telemetry across a vast portfolio, Social Capital can cross-pollinate learnings—detecting an optimization discovered in a remote corner of one company and instantly deploying it to reduce churn or acquire customers more efficiently for another. Chamath sees this platform approach as ushering in a more progressive, resilient form of capitalism. Rather than relying on human gatekeepers picking founders who fit traditional demographic patterns, capital and data capabilities can be deployed systematically. This dynamic allows for the emergence of millions of highly profitable, efficient businesses with exceptional revenue-per-employee ratios, challenging the prevailing economic reality dominated by four or five mega-cap corporations.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Data-Driven Startup Acceleration Model
accDescr: Diagram contrasting traditional intuition-based venture support with Social Capital's automated data and API infrastructure.
subgraph Traditional["Traditional Venture Model"]
A["Subjective Gut Feel"] --> B["Bespoke Advice"]
B --> C["Isolated Portfolio Silos"]
end
subgraph Automated["Social Capital Systematic Model"]
D["Company Telemetry via API"] --> E["Cross-Company Aggregation Engine"]
E --> F["Algorithmic Solutions (Churn & CAC)"]
end
```
[37:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2250s) Debunking Venture Capital’s Myth of Pattern Recognition
This systematic, software-driven vision rattles the legacy venture capital industry because it directly threatens how traditional investors justify their existence. Chamath frames this as a classic innovator’s dilemma: venture capitalists claim their primary edge is an internal, intuitive pattern recognition, but empirical market data decisively disproves that assertion. To demonstrate the point, he presents a striking historical metric: of all the major technology businesses valued above $50 billion or $60 billion built between the founding of Microsoft in the 1970s and the present day (such as Google and Uber), fewer than 2% of their Series A investors overlapped.
Given such negligible persistence of success at the earliest stages, Chamath argues that the venture community's claim of having an innate eye for talent is pure theater. Instead, early partners sit in privileged seats with high deal volume and scarce capital during an unprecedented wave of technological expansion; simply hitting one outlier out of twenty makes an investor look like a visionary. Chamath refuses to engage in what he considers an industry-wide delusion, stating: “So if anybody looks at you and tells you they know what the fuck they're doing, they're lying.” He rejects the concept of stumbling blindly into winning investments only to retroactively claim genius, insisting instead on engineering repeatable, systematic capabilities.
- **Venture overlap metric**: Under 2% overlap among Series A lead investors across all tech companies founded since the 1970s valued over $50 billion to $60 billion.
- **The structural reality**: Returns in legacy venture are primarily driven by access to precious capital and strong macroeconomic and technological tailwinds rather than bespoke personal intuition.
[39:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2376s) Playing the Capital Game to Win Influence
When the moderator asks whether this systematic methodology is what allows Social Capital to commit patient, long-term capital to difficult sectors like healthcare and education, Chamath offers a blunt correction: that patience is enabled entirely by his personal wealth. Because he does not depend on outside management fees to survive, he anchored the strategy with his own money first. “So the first fucking billion dollars is mine, and then I have to prove it and then other people glom on,” he explains.
He maintains an unsentimental view of external institutional limited partners. While initial backers might care about the firm's broader societal mission, Chamath acknowledges that as the firm scales toward hundreds of billions of dollars under management, the majority of that capital will care strictly about financial returns. He welcomes that mercenary alignment without hesitation. For Chamath, accumulating massive scale is a deliberate strategy to acquire structural leverage: “I will play the goddamned game and I'll win, because I want the money.” The capital serves as an instrument to expand his personal influence and execute his long-range vision on his own terms.
[40:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2440s) Isolation and the Threat of Power
Asked frankly how he prevents such concentrated power and wealth from corrupting him, Chamath admits he does not have a definitive safeguard. The sheer scale of his ambitions—orchestrating massive fundraises, redesigning venture investment into a scalable platform, and anticipating systemic market shifts—has left him increasingly isolated and trapped inside his own mind. He finds it progressively harder to relate to others, acknowledging that his participation in public forums like the Stanford talk is partly a selfish exercise to keep himself grounded.
To combat arrogance, Chamath forces himself to actively recall his working-class beginnings, such as earning $4.55 an hour at Burger King and taking a $50 paycheck directly to buy monthly bus passes. Reflecting on those memories helps him reconnect with his roots as an earnest individual trying to do good. Having observed the behavior of the ultra-wealthy elite firsthand, he cautions that maintaining integrity at the highest levels of global finance is an extraordinary psychological challenge: “It's very easy to end up really drunk with power, it's really hard.”
[43:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2585s) Q&A: Public Vehicles, Liquidity, and Silicon Valley's 20% Churn
During the audience Q&A session, a second-year Stanford MBA student named Dana asks Chamath to explain his strategy behind launching a public investment vehicle (a SPAC) and how managing public capital differs from running a private fund—humorously pressing whether it is simply another mechanism to harvest capital. Chamath embraces the question, explaining that after spending years at Facebook shaping consumer psychology, he now wants to re-engineer the financial incentives that govern corporate longevity and employee retention.
Counterintuitively, Chamath contends that providing early liquidity to private companies enables them to remain patient over the long run. In Silicon Valley, high attrition rates mean roughly 20% of a typical company’s staff departs annually, resulting in total employee turnover every five years. This constant churn discourages employees from tackling foundational, decades-long societal problems, incentivizing them instead to manage their careers like a portfolio by hopping jobs every 18 months. By using public vehicles to deliver predictable liquidity and fair compensation much earlier in a company’s lifecycle, founders can motivate talented people to stay for seven to ten years:
> “So part of this vehicle is trying to turn back the incentives towards people staying at companies longer which I think is going to be required if you're going to try to solve hard problems.”
[46:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2769s) Q&A: Disciplined Capital Allocation and Investment Drift
A second MBA student, Carolyn, asks Chamath how Social Capital enforces internal discipline and knows when to walk away from follow-on fundraising rounds when an aggressive, hyper-competitive posture threatens to push an investment thesis too far. Chamath discloses that his partnership had spent the preceding day debating that exact operational vulnerability, acknowledging several past investments he deeply regrets because they were pursued for purely opportunistic financial motives.
Chamath explains that while he does not object to taking purely mercenary, return-driven bets, Social Capital failed to execute those specific investments with reliable precision or downside protection. The team lacked a clear, predictable edge ensuring they could double their capital and exit safely. He warned his team that allowing opportunistic, poorly vetted deals to seep into their portfolio erodes institutional standards, emphasizing that investment frameworks must not be permitted to bleed or dilute over time.
[47:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2829s) The Organizational Struggle of Mission vs. Capital and the Power of Saying "I Don't Know"
Chamath Palihapitiya reflects openly on the unresolved tension within Social Capital regarding when to stay mission-driven versus when to cut losses. It is remarkably difficult for an organization to decide when to double down on an initiative that is currently failing versus when to walk away because the market timing simply is not right. He admits he does not have a clear answer, and points out the dangerous psychological feedback loops: if an early bet like a diabetes company succeeds wildly, it might embolden the 101st hire at Social Capital to conclude they should aggressively back any struggling thesis, writing checks until the firm finds itself $50 million deep into a dead-end venture. The central question Chamath obsesses over is recognizing when perseverance turns into unconstructive decision-making: “I don't have a really good answer but it is the thing that I think about the most when do you know how do you know to keep going for?”
He expands on this vulnerability to deliver a broader critique of American professional culture, which he views as obsessed with posture and projecting omniscience. Being unable to admit ignorance fundamentally limits learning and growth. Chamath urges the Stanford audience to embrace the phrase "I don't know," arguing that when someone is willing to state that plainly, it signals authentic self-awareness and quiet confidence rather than weakness. He cautions the students against adopting it merely as an empty performance tactic, insisting that if they are going to use it, they must genuinely own their lack of knowledge.
- The internal debate at Social Capital centers on avoiding emotional biases that could lead to pouring tens of millions into failing projects under the guise of an uncompromising mission.
- Chamath diagnoses American culture as plagued by a performative need to have an answer for everything: “Everybody doesn't know everything. How the fuck can you ever learn?”
---
[49:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2958s) Unpacking Past Insecurities, Waterloo Connections, and the Power of Changing Your Mind
A first-year MBA student steps up to the microphone, sharing that he, too, is a Canadian who attended the University of Waterloo, worked his first job at Burger King, and views Chamath as a role model. Chamath jokingly reacts in disbelief to the uncanny resemblance, bantering with the room: “You're like my fucking brother... Are you planted, are you an actor?” The student then asks about a past comment Chamath made at Harvard Business School (HBS), where he claimed MBA graduates are structurally disadvantaged when seeking capital for entrepreneurship, asking whether he still holds that view.
Chamath directly repudiates his previous stance, explaining that his earlier HBS remarks were an expression of his own deep-seated insecurities about lacking a graduate degree. He had historically felt inferior to people holding elite business credentials, and spouting off against MBA founders had simply been an attempt to soothe his personal biases. Today, he views traditional credentials as neutral—what matters is demonstrating real underlying capability independent of those pedigree signals. Chamath takes this admission a step further, extolling the virtue of intellectual flexibility. While frequently changing one's mind can make personal life and marriage rocky, he considers it an indispensable asset in leadership. The greatest leaders possess the humility to capitulate on previous stances because their only goal is finding the ground truth.
- Chamath admits his past anti-MBA remarks at Harvard Business School were rooted in feeling inferior for not having an advanced degree.
- He emphasizes that elite leaders prioritize correctness over stubborn consistency: “Change your mind all the time. And it's amazing, again, where you'll find really good scaled leaders want the right answer. And they're fine with capitulation, they're fine with change.”
---
[51:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=3104s) Fast Half-Lives, Slow Compounding, and Rewiring the Brain Away from Social Media
In the final audience question, a student asks for the best way to amass capital today on a "risk-adjusted basis." Chamath immediately laughs off the corporate phrasing, retorting that anyone worried strictly about risk-adjusted returns should just go buy government bonds. Pivoting to serious corporate strategy, Chamath points to Jeff Bezos as the model for building the world's most indelible company through the magic of slow compounding. Chamath introduces his theory of business half-lives: the speed at which a company is erected dictates the speed at which it will collapse. If a social consumer platform takes 8 to 12 years to reach its peak, it will typically take that identical span of time to unravel—a decline he suggests may already be occurring across major tech platforms due to regulatory scrutiny and consumer fatigue.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Fast vs Slow Compounding Models
accDescr: Contrasts short-term dopamine-driven business creation with patient, slow compounding value creation.
subgraph FastTrack["The Fast-Feedback Trap"]
A["Social Media & Fast Dopamine Loops"] --> B["Superficial Logic & High IRR Chasing"]
B --> C["Rapid Growth: 8–10 Years"]
C --> D["Fast Half-Life Decay & Regulatory/Market Collapse"]
end
subgraph SlowTrack["The Slow Compounding Engine (Bezos Model)"]
E["Turn Off Social Media Apps"] --> F["Rewire Brain for Long-Term Focus"]
F --> G["Tackle Hard, Practical Problems"]
G --> H["Patience: 'It's hard, I don't know yet'"]
H --> I["Moderate Growth (15% per Year)"]
I --> J["Indelible Scale: ~$250B+ Over Decades"]
end
```
Chamath argues that amassing real, generational wealth requires solving difficult, practical problems slowly and methodically. He dismisses high internal rates of return (IRR) as empty vanity metrics, observing: “I have friends who run other organizations, and they're like, we posted 92% IRR, and I'm like, well you can't eat IRR.” High short-term yields corrupt rational judgment and long-term discipline. Instead, he would far prefer to compound capital at a steady 15% annually over 50 years, yielding upwards of $250 billion. Achieving this mindset, however, requires radical behavioral discipline: aspiring entrepreneurs must disconnect from social media apps. He warns that spending hours a day posting mundane personal updates to elicit instant gratification directly warps the exact brain circuitry entrepreneurs rely upon to make high-stakes commercial decisions. You cannot operate one short-term dopamine-fueled brain for your personal life and expect a patient, long-term mind to take over when building an enduring business.
- **The Half-Life Rule of Business**: A business will be dismantled over the exact same time horizon it took to construct; hyper-rapid consumer software platforms run the risk of equally swift downfalls.
- **The Compounding Math**: Chamath highlights that steady, patient execution compounding at 15% annually over 50 years results in staggering long-term capital creation (around $250 billion).
- **Cognitive Rewiring**: Chamath deliberately avoids social apps to prevent dopamine loops from corroding his commercial patience, echoing Steve Jobs' historical aversion to social media: “Acknowledge that these things, where you're spending hours a day, are rewiring your psychology and physiology. In a way, that now you have to use to go and figure out how to be productive in the commercial world.”
## Notable quotes
> [21:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1283s) The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works. — Chamath Palihapitiya
> [17:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1075s) I think that that fail fast approach works in consumer Internet businesses, but I don't think it works for anything that really matters. — Chamath Palihapitiya
> [31:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1867s) Venture is basically just a bunch of soulless cowards. — Chamath Palihapitiya
> [26:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1605s) Money drives the world for better or for worse. — Chamath Palihapitiya
## Mentioned
Chamath Palihapitiya, Social Capital, Terry Matthews, Michael Cowpland, Sam Legg, Newbridge Networks, Corel, David Lee, Caroline Wozniacki, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Koch brothers, Burger King, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Twitter, WeChat, Crunchbase, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google, Uber, Microsoft, Stanford Graduate School of Business, University of Waterloo, Harvard Business School
## Video description
During his View From The Top talk, Chamath Palihapitiya, founder and CEO of Social Capital, discussed how money is an instrument of change which should be used to make the world a better place. “Money drives the world for better or for worse. Money is going to be made and allocated – you have a moral imperative to get it and then use it to make a difference.“
Find more conversations with global business leaders on "View From The Top: The Podcast." https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/view-top-podcast
Social Capital 创始人兼 CEO 查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚谈金钱作为变革工具
结合自身从依靠社会福利的童年走到企业高管与风险投资家的历程，帕里哈皮蒂亚指出，资本是推动系统性社会变革的终极工具。他对风险投资界规避风险的文化进行了直言不讳的批评，并对自己参与构建的早期社交媒体在撕裂社会结构中所扮演的角色表达了深切内疚。在阐述 Social Capital 的50年愿景时，他敦促创业者摒弃短期多巴胺反馈循环和虚荣的高内部收益率（IRR）指标，转而支持针对糖尿病、教育和气候变化等棘手存亡问题的数十年长期复合积累。最终，他呼吁精英高校毕业生摒弃表演式的智力虚荣，获取大量资本，并利用这一结构性力量去重塑全球体系。
查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚认为，真正掌控全球影响力的是控制资本配置的约150名男性，而非民选政客或传统科技公司的首席执行官。 (9:55)
Social Capital 确立了到2045年的50年愿景：通过对深科技的耐心投资，雇佣1000万人，惠及全球四分之一的人口，并创造1万亿美元的累计利润。 (11:32)
帕里哈皮蒂亚对自己协助构建早期社交媒体系统表示深感内疚，并警告称短期多巴胺反馈循环正在积极侵蚀公共理性讨论并撕裂社会协作。 (21:23)
实证数据对风险投资行业声称的“模式识别能力”提出了挑战：自20世纪70年代以来创立且估值超过500亿美元的大型科技公司中，A轮领投机构的重合率不足2%。 (37:30)
Reading summary
Chamath Palihapitiya argues that real societal leverage requires aggregating massive capital to solve hard, generational problems rather than chasing short-term consumer software trends. Reflecting on his welfare background and tenure at Facebook, he advocates replacing intuitive venture investing with systematic, patient capital compounding.
Capital as an Instrument of Leverage (5:02)
Growing up on welfare in a household marked by financial instability, Palihapitiya concluded early that capital should not be pursued for personal consumption, contrasting Terry Matthews' reinvestment strategy at Newbridge Networks with Corel founder Michael Cowpland's conspicuous spending. Palihapitiya asserts that real global influence does not rest with elected officials or technology founders, but with approximately 150 men who manage dominant capital flows. Rather than attempting to challenge this architecture from the outside, he urges emerging leaders to amass capital to secure decision-making power and reallocate resources toward overlooked populations and priorities.
Patient Compounding Versus Rapid Consumer Software (17:55)
Palihapitiya dismisses the Silicon Valley dogma of 'failing fast' as applicable only to consumer internet businesses designed to trigger neurochemical dopamine responses. He contends that urgent systemic challenges—such as climate change, human capital education, and chronic diseases like diabetes—require decadal capital horizons, methodical resilience, and pain tolerance. While funds pour billions into convenience delivery startups, Palihapitiya maintains that tackling fundamental physical and societal problems will generate the greatest commercial fortunes over the next half-century, including the world's first multi-trillionaire.
Social Media, Dopamine Loops, and Guilt (21:23)
As an early executive at Facebook, Palihapitiya expresses deep guilt over constructing mechanisms that he argues are actively unraveling civil discourse, mutual trust, and societal cooperation. Pointing to real-world consequences such as mob lynchings in India triggered by false WhatsApp rumors, he warns that short-term validation loops leave users isolated and vulnerable to manipulation. To safeguard his own cognitive focus and family, Palihapitiya strictly prohibits his children from using social media platforms and has nearly eliminated his personal posting activity over seven years, cautioning that rapid feedback cycles destroy the patience required for sound commercial leadership.
Systematizing Venture and Abstracting Operations (35:19)
Palihapitiya critiques conventional venture capital as an entrenched, risk-averse industry reliant on the false pretense of intuitive pattern recognition. He notes that across major technology firms founded since the 1970s valued above $50 billion or $60 billion, fewer than 2% shared the same Series A lead investors, indicating that returns stem from privileged access and macroeconomic tailwinds rather than bespoke foresight. To counter this, he outlines an operational model that abstracts business growth, data analytics, and operational telemetry into APIs, allowing founders to run non-core operations as automated utilities analogous to Amazon Web Services.
Incentive Structures, Liquidity, and Half-Lives (43:05)
Addressing organizational design, Palihapitiya argues that Silicon Valley's typical 20% annual employee turnover forces workers to jump jobs every 18 months rather than staying to crack complex societal issues. He positions public investment vehicles, such as SPACs, as mechanisms to provide earlier liquidity and fair compensation, realigning incentives so essential talent remains committed for seven to ten years. He frames this against his half-life thesis of business: enterprises erected rapidly on transient consumer trends decay at that same accelerated rate, whereas building enduring institutions requires accepting lower annual returns, around 15%, compounded steadily over decades.
Palihapitiya acknowledges that concentrating power carries a severe risk of isolation and hubris, offering no definitive personal safeguard beyond remembering his origins earning $4.55 an hour at Burger King. Social Capital faces an ongoing, unresolved operational tension: determining when rigorous persistence in mission-driven investments transforms into undisciplined capital allocation that bleeds enterprise value.
## Background
该视频由斯坦福商学院（Stanford Graduate School of Business）于2017年11月13日发布在YouTube平台的“View From The Top”领袖论坛系列中。视频记录了Social Capital创始人兼首席执行官查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚（Chamath Palihapitiya）的现场演讲与对谈，重点探讨了金钱作为推动世界积极变革的工具，以及商业领袖获取资本并用其解决重大现实问题的道德责任。
## TL;DR
查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚通过回顾自己从领取福利救济的贫困家庭到掌舵百亿资本的逆袭历程，深刻阐述了将金钱视作推动社会变革杠杆的财富哲学。他尖锐抨击了传统风投的怯懦与短期主义，反思了早期参与打造社交网络所引发的多巴胺成瘾与社会撕裂，并表达了深层的负罪感。围绕Social Capital的五十年愿景，他提出必须打破消费互联网的浮躁陷阱，利用数据系统与底层抽象去攻坚糖尿病、教育不公及气候变化等万亿美元级别的硬核难题。最后，他告诫未来的商业精英必须学会坦然承认“我不知道”，坚守慢速复利并警惕算法对心智的侵蚀，以真正的长期主义重塑现代资本主义。
## Atmosphere & style
整场对谈风格极其辛辣直接、毫无掩饰，查马斯频繁使用接地气的粗粝词汇撕碎精英名校的虚伪滤镜与华尔街行话，极具冲击力。现场气氛在黑色幽默的大笑与近乎窒息的深刻自省之间剧烈拉扯，当谈及早期社交产品对社会的毒害以及对自身被权力腐蚀的恐惧时，他的真诚与脆弱感扑面而来。整场交流既像是一场现实主义商业枭雄的野心宣誓，又如同一位走出贫民窟的过来人对名校天之骄子进行的一场醍醐灌顶式的灵魂拷问。
## Bulletin
- [09:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=595s) 查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚指出全球经济核心由极少数掌握资本的精英拉动，若想践行自身的世界观，获取资本是一项道德责任，只有手握资本才能打破既定规则。
- [11:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=692s) Social Capital 确立了到 2045 年累计雇佣超 1000 万人、影响全球 25% 人口并创造 1 万亿美元价值的长期目标，致力于成为现代资本主义的新标杆。
- [21:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1283s) 查马斯公开反思社交媒体的危害，直言以多巴胺为导向的短期反馈回路正在瓦解社会理性对话与信任基础，呼吁未来的领导者在神经生理层面戒断即时反馈机制。
- [31:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1867s) 传统风投被抨击为缺乏数据支持的“顺风车投机者”；Social Capital 计划像 AWS 抽象云计算底层一样，通过数据系统与 API 将创业增长赋能产品化。
## Key takeaways
- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=0s) 从极度贫困的成长创伤走向坦然接纳现实，金钱不再是炫耀或贪恋的标的，而是撬动社会变革与赋能他人的核心工具。
- [07:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=433s) 通过对比纯粹炫耀性消费与专注商业复利的两位亿万富翁，确立了“置身高水准人群并直接模仿其卓越决策”的人生跃迁方法论。
- [09:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=595s) 政治人物多为台前傀儡，世界核心运转由掌握巨额资本流动的少数人主导；唯有靠顶尖战绩杀入牌桌，才能真正掌握分配规则的话语权。
- [11:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=692s) Social Capital 锚定 2045 愿景：依靠慢速复利打造经得起考验的实体硬科技业务，实现雇佣千万员工与万亿产值的现代资本主义范式。
- [17:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1075s) 硅谷奉为圭臬的“快速失败”模式仅适用于操纵多巴胺的消费互联网，真正重大的全球性危机（如气候、糖尿病）必须依靠长期主义的系统攻坚。
- [21:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1283s) 作为早期核心缔造者之一，查马斯对社交网络摧毁理性交流、撕裂社会信任深感负罪，并采取自身与子女全面停用的严厉防御策略。
- [23:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1385s) 社交平台上的点赞与虚荣不过是脆弱的即时多巴胺诱饵，人们若缺乏自知，极易沦为被算法和既定评价标准编程的傀儡。
- [26:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1605s) 直面残酷现实法则“去把钱拿到手”：资本是推进意识形态的硬通货，真正的多元化是让底层挣扎过的人掌握核心资本调配权。
- [31:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1867s) 传统风投资本家多为规避风险、护城守旧的平庸之辈；统计数据表明极少有机构能依靠主观“模式识别”持续投中超级巨头。
- [35:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2119s) 借鉴 AWS 封装基础设施的革命性逻辑，将 Facebook 的数据驱动与增长系统封装为标准化工具，普惠海量高效的小型创新企业。
- [39:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2377s) 随着财富与权力急剧膨胀，个人会陷入极端的精神孤独；保持对底层奋斗记忆的真诚回忆，是抵御权力腐蚀的内在锚点。
- [43:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2585s) 硅谷企业高达 20% 的年化离职率严重阻碍核心攻坚，利用 SPAC 等公开上市载体提前注入流动性，能够稳固团队实现 7 至 10 年的长周期深耕。
- [47:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2829s) 投资决策难以精准界定使命坚持与理性止损的边界，坦然承认“我不知道”背后展现的是罕见的自我觉察与深层自信。
- [49:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2958s) 规模化顶尖领导者的核心特质是“乐于改变想法”，绝不执着于虚荣与面子，唯以寻求客观正确答案为最高导向。
- [51:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=3104s) 商业价值存在对称的“半衰期定律”：快钱堆积的短期 IRR 无法饱腹，唯有以 15% 的稳健年化长期慢速复利，方能铸就抗风险的基业长青。
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=0s) 小费背后的成长创伤与同理心
访谈一开始，主持人提到查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚（Chamath Palihapitiya）在业内以给小费极其慷慨而闻名，并询问他这一习惯背后的缘由。查马斯坦诚表示，公开谈论这些经历能让其他人感到坦然与释怀。他回忆起自己在一个靠领救济金度日的极度功能失调家庭中长大的经历，这种贫困引发了一连串糟糕的人生困境。在那个家庭里，金钱是所有压力与冲突的焦点，长期的经济拮据导致父亲患上严重的抑郁症并开始酗酒，整个家庭环境充斥着压抑与混乱。在成长过程中，查马斯曾反复思考金钱到底重不重要。与他的姐妹们不同，他幸运地走出了这种阴影——他不再盲目贪恋金钱，而是开始将金钱视作一种能够赋予自己力量、去实现目标的工具。
当这种金钱观映射到日常生活中时，便体现为对基层服务劳动者的深刻共情。查马斯提到，当他走进一家餐厅，看到那些和他一样有着棕色皮肤、辛勤工作以创造美好体验的普通人时，他无法接受仅仅留下一条无足轻重的评价来表达感谢。正如查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚所说：“但你没办法用一条该死的 Yelp 好评来给你的孩子买食物。”（“But you can't buy food for your kids with a fucking YELP review.”）对他而言，直接给予现金小费才是最切实的支持。
查马斯描绘道，有时候在一顿三四百美元的账单上，他会直接留下500甚至1000美元的小费。当服务员原本只预期收到40美元，却意外发现如此丰厚的赠予时，那种改变当下的冲击感常常让他们感动得走出来致谢。查马斯直言这甚至让他自己都有些情绪激动。这种隐名的慷慨给了他极大的快乐，尽管99%的情况下服务员根本叫不出他的名字、不知道是谁给的小费，他也完全不在意。然而，这种习惯在朋友聚餐时也引发过尴尬和紧张，后来查马斯干脆立下规矩：只要一起出门吃饭，全部由他来买单，以此简化所有复杂的人际拉扯。
### [03:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=200s) 从汉堡王到纽桥网络：贫困接纳与金钱观的重塑
谈及如何从极度匮乏走向不贪恋金钱却善用其力量的境界，查马斯回顾了自己的青年时代以及运气与能力的交织。由于父亲长期失业，母亲成了全家唯一的经济支柱，先后做过管家和护士助手，每天辛苦奔波。家里长期没有汽车，全家人无论去哪里都只能坐公交车。查马斯的第一份工作是在汉堡王（Burger King）打工，他把赚来的钱全数交给父母用来买全家人的公交月票。当时他通过特殊途径进入了一所并不属于他所在学区的富人高中，看到身边的富家子弟，他曾为自己在汉堡王打工感到极度羞耻，每当有高中同学路过快餐店，他心里便充斥着痛苦与窘迫。
这种心理折磨直到某一天迎来了彻底的释怀时刻。查马斯突然想通：这就是自己当下无法改变的生活现实，与其痛苦逃避，不如坦然接受。一旦放下了耻辱感，他的内心获得了极大的自由，开始思考真正重要的事情。转机出现在洛杉矶爆发大规模种族骚乱（罗德尼·金事件）之后，加拿大政府担心多伦多和渥太华等城市也爆发类似骚乱，紧急设立项目为黑人和有色人种青年提供就业机会。查马斯找出了父亲收到的所有求职拒信，挨个打电话自荐，最终渥太华蓬勃发展的科技圈中一家知名电信初创公司录取了他。
这家公司就是由传奇亿万富翁特里·马修斯（Terry Matthews）创立的纽桥网络（Newbridge Networks）。当时查马斯对“亿万富翁”这个概念完全没有认知，甚至连“千元户”都没见过。尽管在组织架构上他与特里相隔九级汇报关系，但特里身上强烈的冒险精神和动态管理深深震撼了他。在公司流传的传奇轶事中，你看不到任何挥霍性消费，全是雷厉风行的商业决策：推出帧中继（Frame Relay）交换机、展开企业并购、以及果断将整个业务重心转向异步传输模式（ATM）。
在纽桥网络工作期间，一次纯粹的运气彻底改变了查马斯的视野：
- 纽桥网络的财务主管（Controller）萨姆·莱格（Sam Legg）每天从高档社区开车经由查马斯所在的贫民区上高速公路。
- 萨姆经常在公交站台看到等车的查马斯，随后在公司内部也注意到了这个年轻人。
- 萨姆主动停车邀请查马斯搭便车，并在通勤路上为他深入拆解特里·马修斯背后的商业决策逻辑。
### [07:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=433s) 金钱是变革的工具：两种富豪的对照与“卓越模仿者”哲学
在与萨姆·莱格的日常交流中，查马斯彻底重构了对金钱本质的认知。在特里·马修斯眼中，金钱是推动变革的杠杆与工具——每增加几十亿美元的市值，就意味着拥有了相应体量推动世界改变的能量。与之形成鲜明对照的，是当时渥太华另一家知名科技公司 Corel 的创始人迈克尔·考普兰德（Michael Cowpland）。考普兰德同样是身家数十亿的富豪，却将财富用于完全不同的生活方式：经历混乱的离婚、迎娶年轻貌美的妻子，甚至将自己公司大楼上的反光玻璃直接搬去装饰自己的私人豪宅。
面对90年代这两位同处一地的成功科技巨头，查马斯清晰地确立了自己的目标：他不想成为炫耀消费的暴发户，而是渴望成为像特里·马修斯那样纵横四海、不断复利增长并在世界上做酷事的商业领袖。为了实现这一跨越，查马斯找到了最直接的方法——模仿。查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚直率地总结道：“置身于高水平、高素质的人群之中，然后照搬他们所做的事情就行了。”（“Be around high functioning, high quality people and just copy the shit that they do.”）
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 查马斯对金钱观的认知演进
accDescr: 展示查马斯从早期的贫困创伤，到对比两位亿万富翁，最终形成复制高水准人士并视金钱为变革工具的过程。
subgraph Origin["成长背景与认知突破"]
A["贫民区成长与福利救济"] --> B["汉堡王打工与接纳现实"]
B --> C["进入纽桥网络 (Newbridge Networks)"]
end
subgraph Dichotomy["财富表现形式的鲜明对比"]
C --> D["特里·马修斯 (Terry Matthews)<br/>金钱是变革的工具"]
C --> E["迈克尔·考普兰德 (Michael Cowpland)<br/>炫耀性消费与私人享乐"]
end
subgraph Philosophy["核心方法论与演进目标"]
D --> F["模仿高水准人物的思考与决策"]
F --> G["成为超级复利者 (Mega-Compounder)<br/>聚集资本以变革世界"]
end
```
查马斯指出，世界上绝大多数人都在装模作样扮天才，但现实中并没有那么多独创思想；与其故弄玄虚，不如成为一名优秀的模仿者。观察高素质人群的成功做法加以复制，同时审视那些拙劣愚蠢的行为并引以为戒，这就是一套简单而有效的行事准则。如今随着 Social Capital 业务规模不断扩张，查马斯接触到了越来越多全球顶层的权贵人士，这些曾遥不可及的人现在与他面对面交流并视他为准同行。在他们身上，查马斯既看到了惊人的卓越，也目睹了极端的心理失调与混乱，这促使他不断微调自己的决策标准，审视自己究竟该吸收什么、抛弃什么。
### [09:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=595s) 掌控世界的150个人与跻身权力牌桌的野心
谈及将“金钱作为变革工具”与他在 Social Capital 的实践相结合时，查马斯发表了对全球权力结构极为尖锐的看法。他直言不讳地指出，外界看到的政治不过是表象，政客们不过是提线木偶，真正掌控这个世界运行逻辑的，是隐藏在幕后的极少数人。查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚强调：“大约有150个人掌控着这个世界，任何想从政的人，全都是他妈的傀儡，好吗？”（“Look, here's the thing, there's about 150 people that run the world. Anybody who wants to go into politics, they're all fucking puppets, okay?”）
查马斯进一步阐述了这套权力体系的核心特征与他的战略构想：
- 这150个掌控世界的人全都是男性，他们控制着全球绝大多数核心资产与资本流动，并且他们不是硅谷的科技创业者。
- 在未来五到十年内，这些在幕后真正拉动绳索的人将会洗牌并压制表面上的科技新贵。
- 整个世界体系的设计是不公平的，其运行机制天然偏向这批掌权者及其后代家族的利益传承。
面对这种既定现实，查马斯的策略并非试图在体制外将其推翻，而是必须先通过商业战绩杀入这个核心圈子。查马斯认为，这些幕后大佬本质上是极其现实的“商业野兽”（commercial animals）。最初他们可能出于好奇而向他敞开大门，但只要他能证明自己不仅能把事情做好，甚至比他们做得更好、能为他们创造价值，他就能在权力牌桌上稳稳立足。一旦获得了入场券，他便可以反手为更多后来者打开大门。查马斯总结道，他现在的终极目标就是汇聚并掌控足够庞大的全球资本，按照自己的世界观重新配置这些资金；他并不标榜自己的世界观绝对正确或完美，但那至少是他自己的主张，足以抗衡那150个男人塑造的世界。
### [11:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=692s) Social Capital 的 2045 愿景：重塑现代资本主义
Chamath Palihapitiya 延续上一段的激情直言，那些掌握权力的人根本不在乎别人怎么看待他们的世界观，“既然如此，为什么不能是我？为什么不能是你们中的某一个？”当被问及 Social Capital 的五十年长期目标时，他勾勒出了到 2045 年的明确野心：旗下企业累计雇佣至少 1,000 万人、积极影响全球四分之一的人口、并累计创造约 1 万亿美元的价值。Chamath 认为，如果能够达成这些目标，他们就将成为“未来 50 年现代资本主义的典范”。
要实现这一野心，必须完全依赖科技。他强调，传统的实体业务（Brick and mortar）根本不可能达到如此庞大的影响力和规模。更关键的是，必须有能力打造经得起时间考验的事业。这类业务本质上非显而易见且极其艰难，其规模以非常缓慢的速度进行复利增长。这与硅谷主流那种“快速启动、快速变现、赚一笔就跑”的逻辑完全背道而驰；想要在这个过程中屹立几十年，极度考验人的耐力、决心和智力洞察力。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 2045 Ambition Goals
accDescr: Three core pillars of Social Capital's 2045 vision
subgraph G["Social Capital 2045 核心目标"]
A["雇佣规模<br/>10,000,000+ 员工"]
B["社会影响<br/>覆盖全球 25% 人口"]
C["经济价值<br/>累计创造 1 万亿美元"]
end
```
- **目标就业人口**：旗下控制的企业雇佣至少 1,000 万人。
- **全球影响广度**：正面影响全球至少 25% 的人口。
- **累计创造财富**：累计创造约 1 万亿美元的经济价值。
- Chamath 总结道：“I think if we do that, we are the modern face of capitalism for the next 50 years.”
---
### [13:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=825s) 职业运动员的韧性与糖尿病业务的漫长攻坚
为了解释什么是在逆境中死磕的毅力，Chamath 分享了当天早晨的一段趣事。通过金州勇士队（Golden State Warriors），他与前 NBA 球星大卫·李（David Lee）结下了深厚的友谊。大卫·李当时刚与职业网球名将卡罗琳·沃兹尼亚奇（Caroline Wozniacki）订婚，两对伴侣清晨一起在健身房训练。在跑步机的高强度挑战下，身为普通人即便自认身体素质不错也早想放弃，但职业运动员的大脑却直接进入极速运转状态，爆发出了更高维度的耐力。
Chamath 将这种咬牙坚持的特质投射到了商业投资中。他在季度投资组合评审中反思了一家致力于糖尿病管理的初创公司。他的父亲三年前死于糖尿病，家族中多位亲戚患病，他自己也携带极易患病的基因，因此这个项目承载着深厚的个人情感。然而，这项业务整整熬了七年才初具生存能力。在这七年中，他克服了对失败的恐惧，不断追加注资，如今该平台管理着 100 万名糖尿病患者，避免了无数家庭陷入透析或器官衰竭的悲剧。同样，他的教育投资组合曾有整整三年像一场灾难，同行都警告不要碰教育，但他坚信教育的本质是“人力资本开发”（Human capital development），旨在让更多人站在公平的起跑线上。在整个社会普遍缺乏耐心的当下，他坚信只有敢于提出宏大观点并保持长期主义，才能做出真正有意义的事业。
- **糖尿病业务周期**：历经整整 7 年的煎熬才勉强具备商业可行性，目前管理着 100 万名糖尿病患者。
- **教育业务周期**：前 3 年惨淡如同“火车失事现场”（Train wreck），靠坚持翻盘为坚实的人力资本开发基石。
- 面对短视与退缩，Chamath 直言：“The easy answer is to walk away, the hard answer is to double down, we have to support this business.”
---
### [17:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1075s) “快速失败”的骗局与万亿级核心难题
针对主持人提出硅谷奉为圭臬的“快速失败并学习”（Fail fast and learn）理念，Chamath 直截了当地指出，这种模式只适用于消费互联网，对任何真正重要的问题都毫无作用。他剖析道，消费互联网的底层逻辑就是利用人性的弱点，通过快速试错摸清如何操纵用户心理，进而给用户喂食多巴胺。Facebook、Instagram、WhatsApp、Snapchat、Twitter 和微信都是这方面极其成功的案例。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Business Models Comparison
accDescr: Comparing consumer internet fail fast model vs hard problems methodical approach
subgraph B1["消费互联网业务 (Consumer Internet)"]
direction TB
M1["剥削心理机制<br/>Exploiting Psychology"] --> F1["快速失败迭代<br/>Fail Fast & Manipulate"]
F1 --> D1["即时多巴胺反馈<br/>Dopamine Hit"]
end
subgraph B2["硬核重大议题 (Hard Global Problems)"]
direction TB
M2["确立宏大观点<br/>Audacious Point of View"] --> F2["长期系统推进<br/>Methodical & Resilient"]
F2 --> D2["万亿级价值回报<br/>Trillion-Dollar Impact"]
end
```
然而，靠“快速失败”治不好糖尿病，精准医疗攻克不了癌症，也无法实现大众教育的普惠。真正的巨大商业价值和万亿美元回报恰恰藏在这些极其艰难的领域，因为这些领域的竞争几乎为零。他猛烈抨击了当前的资本市场偏好：当气候变化威胁着地球生物多样性、海平面上升迫使人口迁徙、全球粮食危机迫在眉睫时，绝大多数资本却涌向毫无意义的快销领域。Chamath 嘲弄道：“难道未来的重大突破会来自外卖配送？难道大家抽着大麻嗨了之后，最紧迫的需求就是叫人送块布朗尼蛋糕？”他正告在场的斯坦福学生，资本市场目前彻底失去了理智，如果不去解决气候变化等严肃危机，下一代人甚至不会拥有一个可稳定生存的地球。
- **被资本热捧的无聊赛道**：各类毫无门槛的食品外卖与快送服务（Food delivery apps）。
- **无人真正攻坚的宏大议题**：气候变化导致的海平面上升与人口集中迁移、生物多样性破坏、全球粮食供给短缺。
- Chamath 讽刺资本错配时评价道：“Go and look through Crunchbase and all the shitty, useless, idiotic companies that have gotten funded doing garbage like that.”
---
### [21:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1283s) 社交媒体对社会结构的撕裂与巨大负罪感
谈及利用人性心理的消费互联网，主持人将话题引向 Chamath 曾经深入参与创建的社交网络巨头，并询问他对于社交媒体引发反思的深层感受。Chamath 毫不掩饰地表达了内心的自责：“我感到巨大的负罪感。”他承认，当初在参与搭建这些产品时，大家内心深处其实隐隐约约知道可能会带来恶果，只是当时选择自我欺骗，坚称不会有什么严重的意外后果。
如今的情况远比预想的更加恶劣。Chamath 痛陈，他们所创造出来的基于短期、多巴胺驱动的反馈回路（Short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops），正在彻底摧毁社会的运作逻辑。公共讨论荡然无存、社会合作彻底破裂，取而代之的是虚假信息与谎言满天飞。他强调这绝不仅是所谓“俄罗斯水军买广告”的美国内部政治闹剧，而是一个全球性危机。他呼吁未来的领导者们认清这一现实，适时从这些工具中抽身踩下急刹车，坚决阻止这只被喂养的巨兽反噬人类自身。
- **负罪感根源**：参与缔造了基于短期多巴胺驱动反馈回路（Short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops）的产品机制。
- **造成的社会恶果**：公民理性讨论（Civil discourse）消失、社会信任与合作崩溃、虚假信息（Misinformation / Mistruth）泛滥成灾。
- 谈及社交媒体的危害时，Chamath 发出严厉警示：“The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works.”
### [23:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1385s) 社交媒体对人际关系的侵蚀与多巴胺恶性循环
查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚（Chamath Palihapitiya）直言不讳地指出，当前的社会状况极其糟糕，人与人之间相处的核心根基正在被严重侵蚀，而他自己也没有完美的解决办法。他采取的个人对策极其决绝：彻底停用这些社交工具。这种做法在过去的数年里甚至在他的朋友圈和社交圈中引发了巨大的摩擦与紧张。他提到，如果在 Facebook 上查看他的个人动态，他在整整七年间可能只发过两到三次动态，无论如何都不会超过十次。他坦言自己骨子里就不愿意被算法“编程”，因此选择主动屏蔽，但他此前并未正面直视这个问题的严重性；如今看到事态的发展，他感到无比沮丧。
为了说明这种工具在现实世界中引发的灾难性后果，查马斯举了印度村庄的真实案例：WhatsApp 上流传关于儿童被拐卖的虚假恶作剧信息，引发了极度恐慌，最终导致村民自发组织成私刑义警团四处抓人，造成无辜者被当街处以私刑。他警告称，一旦这种操纵被怀有恶意的人推向极端，他们便能够随心所欲地操纵成千上万的人口。与此同时，每一个普通人都在加剧这一危机——人们围绕着一种虚假的完美感来精心包装自己的生活，因为系统会用红心、点赞、大拇指等短期多巴胺反馈信号来奖赏你，而人们却误把这些信号等同于真实价值与真理。查马斯直言：“And instead what is really is, is fake, brittle popularity.” 这种脆弱且虚假的短期虚荣感，只会让人在狂欢之后陷入更加空虚的深渊，迫使人陷入“为了再次获得反馈而不得不发下一条”的恶性循环，而当这种心理机制被放大到全球 20 亿人身上时，后果不堪设想。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 社交媒体多巴胺循环与群体极化机制
accDescr: 展示用户在社交网络上寻求虚假点赞反馈并陷入恶性循环，以及虚假信息如何放大为线下暴力的流程。
subgraph UserCycle ["个体心理成瘾循环"]
A["精心包装的生活展示 (虚假完美感)"] --> B["短期反馈信号 (点赞、红心)"]
B --> C["误认虚假反馈为价值与真理"]
C --> D["短期快感消退，陷入极度空虚"]
D -->|"渴求下一次多巴胺刺激"| A
end
subgraph SocietalImpact ["群体与社会层面危害"]
D --> E["放大至数十亿用户群体"]
E --> F["虚假信息肆虐 (如 WhatsApp 拐童谣言)"]
F --> G["线下义警私刑与恶劣操控"]
end
```
### [25:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1528s) 拒绝被算法编程：斯坦福高材生的盲区与个人防线
主持人提问查马斯，作为 Facebook 早期核心团队的一员，是否对如今的局面承担着深层的个人责任。查马斯回应称，自己在当时确实出色地完成了工作，而且他依然坚信商业从根本上为世界带来了压倒性的积极善意。然而，他所选择的应对路径，是将商业奖励给他的巨额资本拿出来，专注于自己能够掌控的结构性改变。他强调自己管不了庞大的系统，但能管好自己的生活决策：“I can't control that, I can control my decisions, which is I don't use this shit. I can control my kids' decisions, which is they're not allowed to use this shit.”
他选择将精力和资本倾注于攻克糖尿病、改善教育以及应对气候变化等重大现实难题。但他同时向台下的斯坦福学生提出严肃的灵魂拷问：每个人都必须审视自己愿意做出怎样的妥协，因为大部分人在不知不觉中已经被算法潜移默化地编程了。他特别告诫这些名校精英切莫盲目自大：“You're probably the most likely to fucking fall for it, because you are fucking check boxing your whole God damn life.” 他尖锐地指出，斯坦福的学生一生都在为了各种社会标准“打勾画圈”，恰恰是最容易掉入这种机制陷阱、丧失智识独立性的人群。
### [26:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1605s) “去把钱拿到手”：资本作为推进意识形态的硬通货
当被问及特朗普政府的移民立场以及政商博弈对未来商业领袖的启示时，查马斯的回答极其直接且充满现实主义色彩：“Get the money, get the money, and then let's get around a table and let's create new rules.” 他反复强调“去把该死的钱拿到手”（get the fucking money），因为在这个世界上，财富注定会被创造并被分配，如果一个人拥有重要的观点并希望它在世界上有所体现，那么获取资本就是一种不可推卸的道德责任。如果自己不去争取，别人就会拿走，而世界的演进本质上就是不同资本所代表的观点之间的角逐。
他猛烈抨击了硅谷某些自由主义精英对金钱的道德洁癖，痛斥那些视金钱如洪水猛兽的论调纯属胡说八道：“Here's how the fucking world works, okay? It drives the world for better or for worse.” 无论好坏，驱动整个世界运转的核心就是金钱与经济激励。查马斯呼吁在场的学生向来自发展中国家的同学求证——失去经济激励会导致社会秩序陷入不可预测的混乱。他强调，掌握资本之后最关键的是“不要成为出卖原则的叛徒（sell out）”，必须深入思考自己的核心世界观是什么，并在掌握资金调配权时将这一世界观推向世界。
- **多元化的真正本质**：查马斯澄清，真正的多元化绝非死板地执行配额制度，也不是机械地凑齐黑人或棕色人种的面孔，而是让来自底层、有着不同挣扎经历与独特世界观的人掌握资本。
- **资本与话语权的关系**：“In the absence of capital, you're irrelevant, with capital, you're powerful.” 缺乏资本时你无足轻重，拥有资本时你才拥有力量。
- **柯氏兄弟（Koch Brothers）案例**：查马斯以保守派巨头柯氏兄弟为例，指出他们耗费数十年极其严密地构建资本与影响力网络，激进地推广自己的世界观。无论外界是否赞同他们，其战略执行堪称天才；而当今社会的真正问题在于，缺乏一个拥有同等体量、以同样严密方式运作的对冲力量。
### [31:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1867s) 传统风投的怯懦与 AWS 式的企业底层抽象
主持人提到查马斯曾抨击风险投资（VC）是极其糟糕的资本分配者，并追问应如何做得更好。查马斯毫不客气地讽刺整个风投行业：“Venture is basically just a bunch of soulless cowards... They're well intentioned, but they're well intentioned soulless cowards.” 他解释道，许多风投资本家在获得世俗意义上的“小金星”奖赏后，便开始死死攥住不放，心态瞬间转变为规避风险（risk off），所有行为都退化为保护自己的特权宝座以及该宝座带来的社会地位。这种保守倾向直接扼杀了进步的世界观，使这些本应推动技术变革的核心资本力量反而沦为了技术进步的阻碍。
查马斯指出，改变风投行业必须打破传统沙龙式的荒谬规则（例如某些投资人要求“公司必须在15英里车程以内才投”）。他嘲讽这种思维就像扎克伯格宣布 Facebook 每周只在工作日上午10点到下午5点开放，或者谷歌宣布只在上班时间提供搜索一样可笑。现代资本分配机制必须系统化、数据驱动、剥离人为偏见，并且全球化、全天候运作，将资金交到真正有资格的人手中。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: AWS 与现代企业建设模式演进对比
accDescr: 展示2007年自建服务器的繁重模式如何被AWS云服务抽象替代，并类比到现代商业底层能力的进化。
subgraph TraditionalModel ["2007年传统模式 (繁重且低效)"]
direction TB
T1["自购硬件"] --> T2["机房自架服务器"]
T2 --> T3["自建底层运维"]
T3 --> T4["核心业务研发"]
end
subgraph AWSModel ["AWS 云抽象革命 (效率解放)"]
direction TB
A1["底层复杂硬件基础设施"] -->|"API 抽象封装"| A2["标准化云服务 (AWS)"]
A2 --> A3["初创团队精简聚焦"]
A3 --> A4["资本全力投入核心产品价值"]
end
```
为了阐述如何真正帮助创业者，查马斯引入了 AWS 的历史演进作为绝佳类比。在十到十五年前，Facebook 面对业务爆发式增长，团队必须亲自在数据中心拼命手动上架服务器（racking servers）。直到亚马逊推出 AWS，将所有繁重、必要但不充分的基础设施复杂度全部打包并用 API 替代。在 2007 年，整个硅谷甚至将 AWS 当成笑话，然而十年之后，任何不使用云服务的创业公司本身才会沦为笑柄。查马斯指出，AWS 证明了将非核心但必要的底层复杂度进行“抽象”的巨大价值，使初创企业能以更精简、更高效的形态，把每一分融来的钱都集中打在最核心的产品价值上。站在 2017 年的时点，创投界同样需要思考：下一个需要被彻底抽象的底层能力究竟是什么。
### [35:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2119s) 将 Facebook 的数据系统产品化：打破传统风投的神话
Chamath Palihapitiya 解释说，他在 Facebook 执掌增长团队时发现的核心经验，其实是当今所有公司都迫切需要的：如何从一种依赖道听途说（anecdotal）、内部政治资本和社交资本的决策方式，彻底转变为极其精准、不带情绪且由数据驱动的流程。实现这一目标的方法，就是搭建完善的数据基础设施、采集大量数据，并在显性与隐性的各个业务层面进行算法优化。Social Capital 的目标正是将这套在 Facebook 打造的能力抽象出来，开放给每一位准备创业的人。
他描绘了未来创业者的运作图景：就像去 AWS 获取计算基础设施一样，创业者未来只需登录 `socialcapital.com`，通过 API、端点（endpoints）和底层原语（primitives）进行系统交互，便能直接获取业务洞察与增长工具。平台通过收集企业反馈的数据了解其运营状态，跨行业汇总成千上万家公司的经验，将某家边缘公司摸索出的解决方案直接转化为赋能另一家企业的价值。无论是获客效率的提升还是用户流失率（churn）的拆解，都由系统化的能力来实现。
这种模式在根本上重构了资本主义的形态：不再依赖少数人去迎合投资人的主观偏好，而是以系统化、结构化且可预测的方式投入巨额资金，支持更多人打造更高效的企业。这些公司可能规模更小、利润极高且人均产出更惊人，从而打破由少数几家巨头垄断的格局，催生出数以百万计高效运营的小企业。然而，这种依靠算法与系统的平台化打法彻底颠覆了传统风险投资行业赖以立足的基石，触发了经典的“创新者窘境”（inventor's dilemma）。传统风投坚称自己的核心竞争力是“人脑模式识别”（pattern recognition），但数据证明这完全是无稽之谈。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 数据驱动型赋能平台运转架构
accDescr: 展示创业公司如何像接入AWS一样接入Social Capital平台获取增长分析，并形成跨企业数据闭环
subgraph User["创业者接入"]
A["创业公司"] -->|"获取算力基础"| B["AWS 云计算基础设施"]
A -->|"API / 原语接口调用"| C["Social Capital 平台"]
end
subgraph Engine["数据协同网络"]
C --> D["持续回传运营表现数据"]
D --> E["跨数万家公司沉淀学习"]
E --> F["输出系统化解决方案<br/>(获客优化 / 降低流失率)"]
F -->|"精准赋能"| A
end
```
为了戳穿传统风投的谎言，Chamath 抛出了一个尖锐的行业数据：从 1970 年代微软成立至今，在硅谷诞生的高达 500 亿甚至 600 亿美元以上市值的科技巨头中，领投它们 A 轮的投资机构重合率低于 2%。所谓基于“我喜欢这家伙的气质”的主观判断，在统计学上根本站不住脚：
> “So if anybody looks at you and tells you they know what the fuck they're doing, they're lying. They're lying, they are lying to themselves at a minimum, and at a maximum they're lying to you.”（所以，如果有人看着你，告诉你他们很清楚自己在干什么，那他们是在撒谎。最起码他们是在欺骗自己，往重了说就是他们在对你撒谎。）
- **投资神话的本质**：在行业巨大的技术浪潮红利下，只要占据了好位置、拥有优质项目源（deal flow）和稀缺资本，二十个项目里哪怕撞中一个，看起来就如同商业天才，但这只是运气和顺风车的产物。
- **目标对比**：Chamath 拒绝扮演撞大运之后自吹自擂的传统风投，而是致力于打造一套由工具驱动、高度系统化的投资与赋能机制。
---
### [39:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2377s) 渴望金钱、权力诱惑与自我的孤独隔离
当主持人提到这种系统化能力是否能支撑他长期投资医疗和教育等周期漫长的领域时，Chamath 直白地打破了主持人的理想化滤镜，直言：“不，那纯粹是因为我很有钱。”他坦承自己最初的 10 亿美元完全是自己的钱，根本不需要看任何人的脸色。他先拿出真金白银证明这种模式行之有效，随后其他资本才蜂拥而至。
谈到未来如果管理规模达到一千亿、两千亿甚至五千亿美元时，Chamath 极其现实地指出，后续注入的 50% 到 60% 的外部资本根本不在乎社会使命，它们唯一在意的就是投资回报率。对此他毫不在意，甚至极其渴望赢下这场资本游戏：
> “I will play the goddamned game and I'll win, because I want the money, because I want to extend my influence... because I want to win, I so deeply want to win.”（我会去玩这该死的游戏，而且我一定会赢，因为我想要钱，因为我想扩大我的影响力……因为我想赢，我内心极其渴望赢。）
当主持人直击痛点，询问他“如何防止这种巨大的权力腐蚀自己”时，现场气氛瞬间变得严肃沉静。Chamath 坦诚回答自己“根本不知道”。随着财富和影响力的激增，他感到自己日益陷入深度隔绝（isolated），整天沉浸在如何布局、如何募资、如何推动平台化投资的宏大思绪里，越来越难与他人建立真实的情感连结。
为了防止自己迷失，他把类似的公开演讲当作一种“极其自私”的自我警醒机制。他在现场回忆起早年在汉堡王（Burger King）打工的经历：当时时薪只有 4.55 美元，领到一张 50 美元的支票就全部拿去买公交月票。讲述这些底层奋斗的细节，是在提醒自己曾经是一个真诚善良的人，并告诫自己要继续保持善良真诚。他指出，在他见过的全球最具影响力的上百位顶层人物中，权力带来的眩晕感极强，想要不被腐蚀、不因权力而发狂，是一件极其艰难的事。
---
### [43:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2585s) Q&A：SPAC 上市的流动性逻辑与严峻的人才留存
在随后的问答环节，斯坦福商学院二年级 MBA 学生 Dana 率先提问。针对 Social Capital 刚刚通过 SPAC（特殊目的收购公司）让旗下基金上市的举动，她单刀直入地发问：运营公开上市基金与传统私募基金有何不同，或者这只是“另一种搞钱的手段”？
Chamath 幽默回应了关于搞钱的调侃，随后深入剖析了此举背后的组织心理学逻辑。他曾身处通过社交网络深刻重塑公众心理的前沿，而如今他想借由金融工具重塑另一种商业心理——“耐心”。在传统认知中，公司上市过早会导致短期主义，但 Chamath 提出了完全相反的直觉判断：更早地为企业提供流动性，反而能让企业更有耐心地长期沉淀。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 提前释放流动性对员工留存的正向循环
accDescr: 展示公开流动性如何解决员工薪酬与离职问题，从而建立长期稳定的攻坚团队
A["SPAC / 上市载体注入流动性"] --> B["企业具备公开股票激励能力"]
B --> C["解决核心团队早期变现痛点"]
C --> D["打破18个月跳槽的资产配置化思维"]
D --> E["员工任职周期拉长至7-10年"]
E --> F["团队具备深耕攻坚复杂难题的能力"]
```
他剖析了当下硅谷科技界畸形的人才流动现状。很多顶级商学院毕业生把职业生涯当成资产配置组合（portfolio management）来操作：这里待 18 个月，那里刷 18 个月履历，不断跳槽套利。目前硅谷科技公司的年均离职率高达 20%，这意味着每隔五年，整家公司的员工就要彻底大换血一次。在所有人每五年全部换掉的环境下，攻坚真正复杂的长周期核心难题根本无从谈起。如果公司能尽早获得公开市场的流动性载体，创始人便能通过流通股给予员工切实的长期报酬，员工就更有意愿在一家公司扎根 7 到 10 年，重回历史上的稳定雇佣常态。
随后，另一位二年级 MBA 学生 Carolyn 就决策机制提问：如何在全力以赴的超速运转（hyperdrive）中把握界限，尤其是在面对诸如是否参与下一轮融资等艰难抉择时如何取舍？Chamath 毫无保留地分享了前一天团队内部极为严肃的复盘讨论。他坦言 Social Capital 过去曾做过一系列令他“深感后悔”（deeply regret）的决定，原因就在于那些投资完全是出于短期金钱回报的考量。
Chamath 强调，如果真是为了纯粹的赚钱目的而做决策，他并不反对，但令人难以接受的是，他们甚至连这类赚钱的案子都没有做好，根本没有建立起闭着眼睛翻倍退出就走的稳健确定性。他向团队发出严厉警告：整个投资机构的底层决策框架绝不能随着时间推移而发生模糊与变质（decision-making can't bleed over time），必须严格坚守系统化的高标准原则。
- **硅谷人才流失现状**：绝大多数科技公司员工流失率达 20%，五年人员全部轮换一遍。
- **SPAC 核心心理学目标**：提前打通公开市场变现通道，稳固核心骨干，让组织能够承受 7 到 10 年的长线攻坚。
- **投资决策红线**：反对缺乏系统性确定性、被短期利益驱动的投机行为，坚决防止机构决策逻辑发生侵蚀劣化。
### [47:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2829s) 投资决策中的止损困境与“我不知道”的力量
Chamath Palihapitiya 坦率地剖析了 Social Capital 内部面临的真实困境：作为一家机构，他们很难精准判断何时该完全由使命驱动（mission driven），何时不该；当一个项目陷入困境时，到底该坚决追加下注（double down），还是该果断放弃认赔。他直言自己没有一个好答案。他举例说明了这种认知上的两难：如果此前投资的糖尿病业务最终大获成功，机构里第 101 号新员工会不会盲目自信，觉得“去他的，我们只要咬牙硬顶就行”，结果签下支票一路狂砸 5000 万美元，深陷进一个注定行不通的泥潭？他承认这是最令他在情绪上敏感、也最常思考的问题——你究竟何时才能知道该继续坚持，何时才明白一切已经过头，决策何时正在滑向不具建设性的危险境地？
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 投资坚持与退出的决策张力
accDescr: 展示在使命驱动与资本分配之间寻找平衡的思考循环
subgraph 决策评估
A["评估困难项目"] --> B{"是否追加下注 (Double down)？"}
B -->|"使命感驱动"| C["持续注资甚至达 5000 万美元"]
B -->|"理性止损"| D["果断放弃 / 承认时机不成熟"]
end
subgraph 认知偏差陷阱
C --> E{"是下一个成功案例，还是深不见底的泥潭？"}
E -->|"过度自信与盲从"| F["思维僵化与资本浪费"]
E -->|"自我觉察"| G["坦白承认：'我不知道'"]
end
```
谈及无法解答这些难题时，Chamath Palihapitiya 话锋一转，严厉批判了美国当代文化中普遍存在的自负心态，呼吁在场的商学院学生学会说“我不知道”（I don't know）。他指出，当代美国文化充斥着一种人人都要当“万事通（know-it-alls）”的畸形氛围，但如果人人都觉得自己什么都懂，那根本不可能真正学到新东西。他感叹，在当下遇到能够坦然说出“我不知道”的人是极其动人的，因为那背后蕴含着如今极其罕见的自我觉察与深层自信。他同时笑着警告大家不要为了讨好别人而油嘴滑舌地假装无知，必须发自内心地去拥有这句话的分量。
- “It's really powerful to be able to say I don't know.” —— Chamath Palihapitiya
- “Don't be the, just own that one line, I don't know.” —— Chamath Palihapitiya
- “Because behind that is just the self-awareness and confidence that I think is increasingly rare.” —— Chamath Palihapitiya
---
### [49:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2958s) 破除名校自卑与“改变想法”的领导力特质
在提问环节，一名一年级 MBA 学生站起身来，打趣地介绍自己也是加拿大人、毕业于滑铁卢大学（University of Waterloo），而且第一份工作同样是在汉堡王（Burger King），因此把 Chamath Palihapitiya 视为偶像。Chamath 随即开起玩笑，惊呼对方长得也极像自己，“你简直像我亲兄弟……你不会是他们安排进来的演员吧？你真把我吓到了”。该学生随后提出问题：Chamath 几年前在哈佛商学院（HBS）的一次活动中曾声称，MBA 学生在创业融资时通常处于劣势，这个观点至今是否依然成立？
Chamath 毫不避讳地承认那番言论其实是自己早年自卑与偏见的宣泄。他解释说，那是在自己经历心理突破之前的事情，当时由于没有研究生学位，每当面对顶尖名校的精英时，内心深处总会涌起长久以来的自卑感（feel inferior），因此在哈佛商学院随口乱喷，纯粹是为了发泄、让自己在心理上好受一点。他指出今天自己的看法已经改变，传统的光环信号有也罢、没有也罢，真正衡量一个人价值的维度完全可以独立于这些名校标签。
借由这一自我推翻，Chamath 强调了“改变想法”（Changing your mind）在商业中的非凡力量。他坦白这种特质在婚姻中可能会带来剧烈波动和摩擦，但在商业世界里，最顶级的规模化领导者从不执着于维护面子，他们只想要正确答案（the right answer），并且乐于承认妥协与改变；相反，平庸的人一旦在某个答案上投入过多，就会构筑起虚浮的逻辑去强行合理化它。
- “Part of my bias was looking at people like you and saying, wow, I just feel inferior to folks like you, I have felt for huge amounts of time.” —— Chamath Palihapitiya
- “And what I would tell you today is, it can matter, it doesn't matter.” —— Chamath Palihapitiya
- “And it's amazing, again, where you'll find really good scaled leaders want the right answer.” —— Chamath Palihapitiya
---
### [51:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=3104s) 风险调整收益、慢速复利与社交网络的大脑重构
最后一名提问者请教在如今的环境下，如何在“风险调整后”（risk-adjusted basis）的最佳路径下积累资本。Chamath 听到这个用词当场笑骂这简直是典型的华尔街套话（sellout part），打趣回答说：“风险调整？那我不知道，去他妈的买点债券得了？”随后他言归正传，指出杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）之所以能打造出世界上最重要、最持久的企业，正是因为他洞悉了“慢速复利”（slow-compounding）的价值。
Chamath 阐述了他关于公司价值创造的“半衰期理论”：一家公司建立得有多快，它被摧毁的速度就会有多对等。一个优秀的消费级业务若花 8 到 10 年建立，毁灭它往往也需要 8 到 12 年，而当下许多社交类商业可能正在监管或舆论面前迎来毁灭的临界点。他指出，积累资本的真谛不是追逐虚高的短期内部收益率（IRR），因为“你没法靠吃 IRR 填饱肚子（you can't eat IRR）”，快钱收益会彻底侵蚀长线思维与健全判断力。如果能以每年 15% 的稳健速度持续复利 50 年，资金将滚成惊人的 2500 亿美元。
在演讲尾声，Chamath 将积累长期资本与戒断社交媒体紧密联系在一起。他直言，每天在网上发松饼照片寻求点赞的行为，正在将大脑重塑为渴望即时反馈的神经通路，而这与创办一家能够耐心解决棘手商业难题的公司所需要的头脑是完全相同的。如果无法在生活中戒断社交媒体带来的短期多巴胺刺激，大脑就必然会在商业世界中做出同等短视的行为。他极力敦促所有人关掉社交软件，像史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）那样对社交媒体保持警惕，从神经生理层面重塑自己的专注力，学会坦然面对同学聚会（reunion）上进展缓慢但扎实前行的漫长征途。
- “The faster you build it, that is the half-life, it will get destroyed in the same amount of time.” —— Chamath Palihapitiya
- “Amassing capital to me, is about finding a smart, useful solution to a very hard, practical problem.” —— Chamath Palihapitiya
- “And I have friends who run other organizations, and they're like, we posted 92% IRR, and I'm like, well you can't eat IRR.” —— Chamath Palihapitiya
- “This is wiring your brain for super fast feedback. It's the same brain you're using to build a company.” —— Chamath Palihapitiya
## Notable quotes
> [21:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1283s) The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works. — Chamath Palihapitiya
> [26:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=1605s) In the absence of capital, you're irrelevant, with capital, you're powerful. — Chamath Palihapitiya
> [51:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=3104s) Amassing capital to me, is about finding a smart, useful solution to a very hard, practical problem. — Chamath Palihapitiya
> [47:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=2829s) It's really powerful to be able to say I don't know. — Chamath Palihapitiya
> [07:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=433s) Be around high functioning, high quality people and just copy the shit that they do. — Chamath Palihapitiya
> [09:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk&t=595s) Look, here's the thing, there's about 150 people that run the world. Anybody who wants to go into politics, they're all fucking puppets, okay? — Chamath Palihapitiya
## Mentioned
Chamath Palihapitiya, Social Capital, Burger King, Terry Matthews, Newbridge Networks, Sam Legg, Michael Cowpland, Corel, Golden State Warriors, David Lee, Caroline Wozniacki, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Twitter, WeChat, Crunchbase, Koch Brothers, Amazon, AWS, Microsoft, Google, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, University of Waterloo, Harvard Business School, Stanford Graduate School of Business
## Video description
During his View From The Top talk, Chamath Palihapitiya, founder and CEO of Social Capital, discussed how money is an instrument of change which should be used to make the world a better place. “Money drives the world for better or for worse. Money is going to be made and allocated – you have a moral imperative to get it and then use it to make a difference.“
Find more conversations with global business leaders on "View From The Top: The Podcast." https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/view-top-podcast
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMotykw0SIk)
Source quotes
[21:23] Chamath Palihapitiya: The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works.
[26:45] Chamath Palihapitiya: In the absence of capital, you're irrelevant, with capital, you're powerful.
[51:44] Chamath Palihapitiya: Amassing capital to me, is about finding a smart, useful solution to a very hard, practical problem.
[47:09] Chamath Palihapitiya: It's really powerful to be able to say I don't know.
[7:13] Chamath Palihapitiya: Be around high functioning, high quality people and just copy the shit that they do.
[9:55] Chamath Palihapitiya: Look, here's the thing, there's about 150 people that run the world. Anybody who wants to go into politics, they're all fucking puppets, okay?
Source quotes
[21:23] Chamath Palihapitiya: The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we have created are destroying how society works.
[17:55] Chamath Palihapitiya: I think that that fail fast approach works in consumer Internet businesses, but I don't think it works for anything that really matters.
[31:07] Chamath Palihapitiya: Venture is basically just a bunch of soulless cowards.
[26:45] Chamath Palihapitiya: Money drives the world for better or for worse.
Original transcript
[0:00] [MUSIC]
[0:05] Thank you so much for being here today.
>> Thank you for
[0:06] including me.
>> I'm so
[0:07] excited to dig into that career and
your thoughts on the Valley.
[0:12] And I'm going to start us off with one of
the things that jumped out at me in my
[0:15] prep for this interview.
[0:18] You are an extremely generous tipper.
>> Yeah.
[0:22] >> I love that and
[0:23] I would like to know why.
>> So, I mean,
[0:28] it's well known and part of why I'm so
open about this is that I think
[0:34] it gives permission for
other people just to be honest.
[0:40] I grew up in a very kind of
dysfunctional household on welfare.
[0:44] And that compounded a bunch of shit
in my life that was not great.
[0:50] We were very focused on money.
[0:53] It was a huge point of pressure and
tension in the family.
[0:57] It created massive depression
in my father, drinking.
[1:01] Just, it was very dysfunctional.
[1:03] And there was some point along
the way where I was like, okay,
[1:06] is money like really important or
not important?
[1:10] And I feel very lucky because I
don't think if you ask my sisters,
[1:15] they got to the same place that I did.
[1:18] But I ended up not coveting it.
[1:21] And I found it to be something
that I could use to really
[1:25] empower myself to do the things
that I wanted to do.
[1:29] And so, in a situation where you
know you go to like a restaurant.
[1:33] If you really empathize with
the people that are working there,
[1:36] I see people who are like me,
brown skinned,
[1:41] working hard,
creating these beautiful experiences.
[1:46] And then I can celebrate it by,
I guess, giving a YELP review.
[1:51] But you can't buy food for
your kids with a fucking YELP review.
[1:55] >> [LAUGH]
[1:56] >> So I want a tip.
[2:00] And, I mean, it gives me so
[2:03] much joy because it's like
you'll have a 3 or $400 bill.
[2:09] In some cases, you tip 500 bucks or
1,000, and you close it.
[2:13] And they're expecting $40.
[2:16] And, I mean,
I'll get a little emotional, but
[2:20] they will come out to you,
and it's transformational.
[2:24] And so it's so great.
[2:26] It's just like little things
like that mean a lot of people.
[2:30] And just to be anonymously
generous like that,
[2:32] I think it's a great gift that
I have the ability to do.
[2:35] That's why I do it, I love it.
>> And
[2:37] it sounds like the experience
of being seen.
[2:40] And you are seen and
the individual is seen, and
[2:43] you're sharing in that [INAUDIBLE].
>> Well I mean, it's funny.
[2:45] It's like 99% of the time
they don't say anything,
[2:48] because they do the bill thing afterwards.
[2:52] And they for sure can't pronounce my name.
[2:54] And so they for sure have no fucking
clue who it was that gave them the tip.
[2:57] It's fine, it's totally fine.
[2:59] But I love it, I absolutely love it.
[3:02] My friends freak out.
[3:04] Now it's caused tension actually,
[3:05] because now when I go out with my friends,
they know as well.
[3:09] And I've just made it very easy,
which is like, hey, if we're going out,
[3:13] let me just fucking pay.
[3:14] Just like, it's fine,
and it makes it simpler.
[3:18] Okay, yeah.
[3:20] I want to dig into what you were
describing about your upbringing and
[3:23] this unique position that you've gotten to
where you don't feel that you covet money.
[3:28] But you see it's power and
[3:30] the use that it has in furthering
some opportunities for you.
[3:33] How did you develop that?
[3:36] How do you distinguish between luck and
skill?
[3:39] How do you end up in that position?
>> So I,
[3:46] My parents craved money,
meaning they needed it
[3:50] because my dad was unemployed for
long stretches of time.
[3:55] My mom was the sole breadwinner.
[3:57] She was a housekeeper,
then she was a nurse's aide.
[4:02] And I would just see how she grinded.
[4:05] We didn't have a car for a long time.
[4:06] She takes the bus, we all take the bus.
[4:09] When I got my first job,
it was at Burger King.
[4:12] I'd take the money, and I had give it to
my parents, and we would buy bus passes.
[4:16] And I remember telling some of my friends,
I went to a very good high school,
[4:20] kind of like the rich high school.
[4:23] Not the high school I should've gone to.
[4:26] I was able to go to this
different high school.
[4:29] And I would tell them, like, I would be so
ashamed that I worked at Burger King.
[4:34] They would sometimes come by,
and I would just be like fuck.
[4:37] And then at some point,
it was this release moment where I was,
[4:42] this is my life.
[4:43] I can't do anything about it.
[4:45] This is what it is right now.
[4:47] And I kind of had a sense that I could
figure some stuff out later, but
[4:51] I didn't really know.
[4:53] And so I just accepted it.
[4:54] And then the minute I accepted it,
I wasn't ashamed anymore.
[4:57] And then, when I wasn't ashamed I could
start to actually be inside my head, like,
[5:01] what really matters?
[5:02] So then what happened was there was these
massive racial riots in Los Angeles.
[5:06] And not as if the fucking American
government did anything about it.
[5:09] But the Canadian government was like,
shit, let's get all these black and
[5:12] brown kids jobs, because we don't want
the Rodney King riots in Toronto, and
[5:17] Ottawa, and parts of Ontario.
[5:20] And so I was able to take all of my dad's
rejection letters, call every single one.
[5:24] And one of them gave me a job.
[5:26] And I worked at the well known
telecommunication start up in Ottawa.
[5:29] Ottawa had a really burgeoning
tech sense at the time.
[5:31] And I worked in this organization that
was run by this really iconic guy,
[5:35] Terry Matthews.
[5:36] And he was a billionaire.
[5:37] And I was like,
what the fuck is that word?
[5:39] I mean,
I didn't even know a fucking thousandaire.
[5:43] I was like what is a billionaire?
[5:45] And this guy was risk on.
[5:52] And he was just so dynamic in
the businesses he had started and
[5:58] how he viewed his place in the world,
and I was enthralled.
[6:02] I was 9 degrees away from him.
[6:05] But the cult of personality around him in
that business, the lore, when it trickles
[6:09] down to you, was not about his
conspicuous consumption or anything else.
[6:16] It was about okay,
we're launching this frame relay switch.
[6:20] Now we're going to buy this company.
[6:21] Okay, we're going to pivot
the entire business to ATM.
[6:23] And you were just, it was an amazing time.
[6:28] And so I took the bus to Newbridge.
[6:35] Complete luck that the controller
of Newbridge would
[6:40] go from his nice neighborhood through this
shitty neighborhood to get on the highway.
[6:44] And so he would see this
guy standing by the bus and
[6:47] eventually he saw me inside the office.
[6:49] And one day he stopped.
[6:51] He said, you want a ride?
[6:52] Do you work at Newbridge?
[6:53] I'm like, yeah.
[6:54] This guy, Sam Legg.
[6:55] So in the car, he was in the front seat,
like beside Terry.
[7:02] And he was able to tell me how
this guy thought about this.
[7:05] because I would read it in the paper,
and I'd be like, why is he doing this?
[7:10] So it just completely
rewired what money was.
[7:13] For Terry Matthews,
money was an instrument of change, right?
[7:17] He had a market cap, he's like, wow,
that's 8 billion dollars of change,
[7:21] 10 billion dollars of change,
15 billion dollars of change.
[7:25] Versus, there was another guy
building a company at the time.
[7:27] His name was Michael Copeland,
who ran a company called Corelle,
[7:31] also a billionaire.
[7:33] And he was the exact opposite, had a messy
divorce, married some trophy wife.
[7:39] He took this obscene shiny glass from his
building and covered his house in it.
[7:46] And so you have this dichotomy of two
different characters at that time in
[7:50] the 90sm building really
interesting businesses.
[7:53] Correll, which was a regional business,
Newbridge, which was regional business.
[7:58] They were both very successful, but they
manifested money so totally differently.
[8:02] And I was like, I want to be this guy.
[8:05] I want to be this mega-compounder,
[8:07] swashbuckling around, trying to
do really cool shit in the world.
[8:11] How do I do that?
[8:12] And Sam helped me because you could
understand from him what Terry cared about
[8:18] and then, for me, I just copied.
[8:19] I mean a lot of my life, quite honestly,
is just copying the things that I see.
[8:23] There's not a lot of original
thought here, there truly is not.
[8:27] We can all pretend we're all fucking
geniuses, honestly, be good copiers.
[8:31] Do you know what I'm saying?
>> [LAUGH].
[8:34] >> It's the best thing in the world.
[8:35] Be around high functioning,
high quality people and
[8:39] just copy the shit that they do.
>> [LAUGH]
[8:43] >> Observe the shit that's kind of crappy
[8:46] and then don't do that stuff.
[8:48] It's not a fucking complicated formula.
>> [LAUGH]
[8:53] >> When did you use that best?
[8:55] >> No, all the time, now it's funny,
[8:57] it's like, you have a surface area of
ways to spend your time now, or I do.
[9:03] And I'm in this midst now where we
are really scaling up what we're doing as
[9:08] a business.
[9:09] And I meet these people that to me are so
iconic that they were like
[9:14] arms length people that are now
sitting face to face and
[9:18] they treat me like a quasi-peer,
I wouldn't say peer, but quasi-peer.
[9:24] But what I see is,
I see some amazing stuff and I see some
[9:29] utter dysfunction in some of the richest,
most important people in the world.
[9:34] And I have to decide
how am I going to act?
[9:37] What am I going to embody?
[9:38] What am I copying?
[9:39] What am I not copying?
[9:41] And so I get a chance to now refine
my decision-making and discipline.
[9:50] And it's, so that's how it plays out.
[9:52] I don't know if I answered your question.
>> I'm thinking very,
[9:55] there's a deep connection between
money as an instrument of change and
[9:59] what you're doing now at Social Capital.
>> Look,
[10:01] here's the thing, there's about
150 people that run the world.
[10:05] Anybody who wants to go into politics,
they're all fucking puppets, okay?
[10:09] >> [LAUGH]
[10:11] >> There are 150,
[10:12] and they're all men that run the world,
period, full stop.
[10:17] They control most of the important assets,
they control the money flows.
[10:21] And these are not the tech entrepeneurs.
[10:24] Now they are going to get rolled
over over the next five to ten years
[10:28] by the people that are really
underneath pulling the strings.
[10:32] And when you get behind the curtain and
see how that world works,
[10:35] what you realize is, it is unfairly
set up for them and their progeny.
[10:41] Now, I'm not going to say that that's
something that we can rip apart.
[10:45] But first order of business is, I want to
break through and be at that table.
[10:50] That's the first order of business.
[10:52] And the way that I do that is by
proving that I can do what they do
[10:56] as well as they do it and
then do it better than how they do it.
[11:01] Because at the end of the day,
they are commercial fucking animals, okay?
[11:05] And they'll open the door
out of curiosity and
[11:07] they'll let me stay because I add value.
[11:09] And then once I'm there,
I can open the door for
[11:11] other people who can try
to do the same thing.
[11:14] So my entire goal now is that,
is to be in a position to aggregate enough
[11:19] of the capital of the world, to then
reallocate it against my world view.
[11:25] And I'm not saying my world view is
the best or right, but it is mine.
[11:29] And at the end of the day, there are 150
other fucking guys with their world view
[11:32] and they don't give a shit what you
think about their fucking world view.
[11:37] That's the truth.
[11:39] And so, why not me?
[11:43] Why not?
[11:44] Why not one of you?
[11:45] Why not?
[11:46] And so in my life now I'm
just kind of like, why not?
[11:49] Why the fuck not?
>> [LAUGH] [APPLAUSE]
[11:55] >> Fuck it!
[11:56] [APPLAUSE]
>> So you have these 50 year goals for
[12:01] Social Capital, three of them.
[12:03] Can you give us your world
view through those goals?
[12:09] >> So my 2045 ambition for
[12:11] the organization,
this is as I see it right now, 2045.
[12:16] Is I would like us to employ at
least ten million people through
[12:20] the businesses that we own.
[12:21] I would like our businesses
to positively affect at least
[12:26] a quarter of the world's population and
[12:29] I would like us to have made
cumulatively about a trillion dollars.
[12:34] That's my 2045 ambition.
[12:35] I think if we do that, we are the modern
face of capitalism for the next 50 years.
[12:43] So, how we do that now
becomes really important.
[12:47] So if you think about building businesses
today that could do any of those three
[12:52] things, you have to be technological,
you absolutely just have to be.
[12:57] You are not going to build a brick and
[12:59] mortar business that gets anywhere close
to those three things, number one.
[13:03] Number two is,
you have to think very broadly
[13:07] about building things that
can stand the test of time.
[13:10] Those businesses are by definition
hard and non-obvious and so
[13:14] they compound in scale very slowly.
[13:17] And that's really counterintuitive to
the overriding logic of Silicon Valley,
[13:21] which says, quick, fast, go, right?
[13:24] But that kind of premature ejaculation
doesn't work if you're trying to fucking
[13:28] be around forever.
[13:29] You gotta be in the flow for
decades, that is hard.
[13:35] It tests people's patience,
it tests people's resolve,
[13:39] it tests people's really
intellectual incision.
[13:42] And this is where everybody gives up,
everybody gives up.
[13:45] I had this moment today, just a total
different way of describing this.
[13:51] Through the Warriors,
I've met a lot of players obviously,
[13:54] one of them who I had become
unbelievably close to is David Lee.
[13:58] David Lee just got engaged to this
unbelievable woman, Caroline Wozniacki,
[14:02] tennis player.
[14:03] We were working out this morning, okay?
[14:07] Couples work out, me and
my wife, him and his fiancee.
[14:09] >> [LAUGH]
[14:10] >> So we're doing this thing,
[14:11] this treadmill thing,
which my trainer concocted.
[14:16] And I'm in pretty good shape.
[14:18] And then you see what it really means to
be extremely dedicated, in their case,
[14:25] to something which is physical fitness
because they're professional athletes.
[14:29] When I give up,
when the average human gives up,
[14:33] their brain goes into fucking overdrive,
okay?
[14:36] And they're like,
there's this next level burst.
[14:40] And so it's that.
[14:42] It's like when things get
hard can you double down?
[14:45] A different example, we had yesterday,
[14:47] we do these things every quarter called
quarterly portfolio reviews where
[14:51] incredibly intensive review of our entire
portfolio, revisiting our strategy,
[14:55] talking about all the things we're doing
to make sure we're on the right track.
[14:59] And I had this observation which was,
I started a diabetes business.
[15:03] My dad died of diabetes three years ago.
[15:05] Most of my relatives have it.
[15:06] I express the gene that makes me
disproportionately susceptible to it.
[15:10] So it's something that I
personally care about.
[15:13] But that business took seven years
[15:17] to get to a place where we even
have a chance of being viable.
[15:22] And I think to myself, in that example,
I embodied a bit of Caroline Wozniacki.
[15:28] When things got hard,
I pushed through the pain.
[15:31] Now in my case, the pain was the fear of
failure, continuing to write more money,
[15:36] a belief that I had that this
business was going to work.
[15:39] And today,
that business manages a million diabetics.
[15:43] And I think there is some kid out there
whose family will be slightly less
[15:47] dysfunctional because their
parent's disease is better managed.
[15:50] It's not going to go to a place where
like, they're getting dyalized, or
[15:55] they're on an organ registry.
[15:58] And that value for
that kid in our world and
[16:00] all of you that benefits will never be
connected the dots, but that’s okay.
[16:05] But it required, just,
resilience and I'm proud of that.
[16:10] And so I want to bring back a little bit
of that here so that it's not, quick,
[16:16] fast, five million users, ten million now,
flip it, sell it, great celebrate.
[16:23] It's like,
hey let's work on some hard shit together.
[16:25] Let's buckle down,
look each other in the eye,
[16:27] and say we're going to
support each other here.
[16:29] This is going to take seven or
eight years, but if it works,
[16:32] it will really mean something.
[16:35] It's something that matters to you for
[16:37] something that's other than just simple
motivation of the social capital you get
[16:41] from your friends or
money in the short term.
[16:44] And winning bigger longer term.
[16:47] We're missing that and
[16:48] I think part of our success will
be if we can stay focused on that.
[16:52] Our education portfolio is another thing.
[16:54] It literally looked like a train wreck for
[16:57] three years, where everybody has always
said you never invest in education.
[17:01] And my thing was,
it's not about education.
[17:04] This is about human capital development.
[17:05] It's about, for every one of you who is so
smart, that got into Stanford,
[17:09] think of all the people
who could be as capable.
[17:12] I'm not asking you to empathize with them,
but I, as a capitalist, want a starting
[17:17] line where all of those people can run
a race so that I can pick the winner.
[17:21] No offense to any of you here.
>> [LAUGH]
[17:25] >> And it took us three years we're now at
[17:27] those building blocks exist and
I'm like wow.
[17:30] How many times did I have to
look at my partners and say no?
[17:33] The easy answer is to walk away,
the hard answer is to double down,
[17:36] we have to support this business.
[17:38] That culture's missing here.
[17:40] So part of what we're trying to do to
achieve those goals is take really
[17:44] big audacious points of view on the world
and then train ourselves to be patient.
[17:49] And it's really, really hard.
[17:51] The entire society is set up
to not be patient anymore.
[17:55] >> And I'm hearing also a conflict with
[17:58] this fail fast and learn mentality
where if you're taking a deep and
[18:04] big bet,
like you want it to be the right one.
[18:08] How do you know when that's true?
>> I think that that stale fast approach
[18:12] works in consumer Internet businesses,
but I don't think it works for
[18:15] anything that really matters.
[18:17] >> [LAUGH]
>> Basically.
[18:22] >> [LAUGH]
[18:24] >> Consumer Internet businesses are about
[18:26] exploiting psychology, and that is one
where you want to fail fast because
[18:31] you know people aren't predictable and so
we want to psychologically figure out how
[18:34] to manipulate you as fast as possible and
then give you back that dopamine hit.
[18:39] We did that brilliantly at Facebook,
Instagram has done it,
[18:42] WhatsApp has done it,
Snapchat has done it, Twitter has done it.
[18:46] So there are great examples.
[18:47] WeChat is doing it.
[18:49] There are great examples of
failing fast is the right
[18:52] path to exploiting psychology
of mass populations of people.
[18:55] But it is not how you solve diabetes.
[18:57] It is not how you use precision
medicine to cure cancer.
[19:00] It is not how you educate broad
swats of the world's population.
[19:03] It's just not.
[19:04] It's taking a point of view and
being methodical.
[19:09] It's hard, no it's hard.
>> I'm glad that you're
[19:13] taking a stab at it.
>> By the way, if it works,
[19:16] it's where all the money comes.
[19:19] If you talk about where all of the gains,
where all of
[19:23] the value will be created over the next
50 years, it'll be in those hard things.
[19:27] And the reason is because those
white spaces are so wide open.
[19:31] The competitive pressures
are non-existent.
[19:33] For example, today, you have this weirdly
academic argument about climate change.
[19:41] It exists, it doesn't exist.
[19:42] Well, we were in an Ice Age,
now it's warm, of course the earth.
[19:45] Who cares?
[19:46] Who cares?
[19:48] What's undeniable is that we're ripping
apart the biodiversity of our planet.
[19:52] What is undeniable is that we as a human
population will be forced to concentrate,
[19:57] because certain parts of the world
will get basically subsumed by water.
[20:02] We do not have food supplies that will,
these are conclusively known to be true.
[20:08] Yet nobody is really working on a problem.
[20:10] And part of it is because the people won't
have the ambition to try to go after it.
[20:14] The capital markets don't reward
that kind of decision making.
[20:18] But if somebody were to solve it, don't
you think they are, in economic terms,
[20:23] a multi-trillionaire?
[20:25] Of course.
[20:27] You think food delivery is
where the next great fucking
[20:29] breakthrough is going to come?
[20:32] You're all hopped up on
fucking marijuana and
[20:34] you need a fucking brownie?
>> [LAUGH]
[20:35] >> Like what a joke.
[20:37] >> [LAUGH]
[20:39] >> Go and look through Crunchbase and
[20:41] all the shitty, useless,
[20:42] idiotic companies that have gotten
funded doing garbage like that.
[20:45] Versus climate change.
[20:49] Think about that.
[20:49] Think about that when you guys eventually
find your partner, your significant other,
[20:53] your husband, your wife.
[20:54] You get married, you have kids, you will
not be able to hand off a planet that they
[20:59] can predictably live in, you will not.
[21:01] Your generation.
[21:02] And nobody is fucking
doing anything about it.
[21:07] So the capital markets are just
completely, completely out of their minds.
[21:11] And so, yeah.
>> [LAUGH]
[21:17] [APPLAUSE]
[21:23] >> I want to bring us back to the point
[21:24] that you were making about exploiting
consumer behavior in a consumer Internet
[21:28] business.
[21:29] You said that this is a time for soul
searching in social media businesses, and
[21:33] you were part of building the largest one.
[21:37] What soul searching are you
doing right now on that?
[21:39] >> I feel tremendous guilt.
[21:44] I think we all knew in the back of our
minds, even though we feigned this
[21:49] whole line of there probably aren't any
really bad unintended consequences.
[21:56] I think in the back deep,
deep recesses of our minds we kind of knew
[22:02] something bad could happen.
[22:05] But I think the way we
defined it was not like this.
[22:08] It literally is a point now
where I think we have created
[22:12] tools that are ripping apart
the social fabric of how society works.
[22:17] That is truly where we are.
[22:19] And I would encourage all of you
as the future leaders of the world
[22:24] to really internalize
how important this is.
[22:27] If you feed the beast,
that beast will destroy you.
[22:31] If you push back on it, we have
a chance to control it and rein it in.
[22:35] And it is a point in time where
people need to hard brake
[22:40] from some of these tools and
the things that you rely on.
[22:43] The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback
[22:47] loops that we have created
are destroying how society works.
[22:53] No civil discourse,
no cooperation, misinformation,
[22:58] mistruth and it's not an American problem.
[23:01] This is not about Russian ads.
[23:03] This is a global problem.
[23:05] So, we are in a really bad state of
affairs right now, in my opinion.
[23:11] It is eroding the core foundations
of how people behave by and
[23:16] between each other, and
I don't have a good solution.
[23:20] My solution is I just don't use these
tools anymore, I haven't for years.
[23:24] It's created huge tension with my friends,
huge tensions in my social circles.
[23:29] If you look at my Facebook feed,
[23:31] I probably haven't, I've posted
maybe two times in seven years.
[23:35] Three times, five times,
it's less than ten.
[23:41] And it's weird, I guess I kind of just
innately didn't want to get programmed,
[23:45] and so I just tuned it out.
[23:47] But I didn't confront it.
[23:49] And now to see what's happening,
it really bums me out.
[23:55] Think about there are these examples
where there was a hoax in WhatsApp,
[24:01] where in some village
[24:04] in India People were afraid that their
kids were going to get kidnapped etc.
[24:09] And then there were these lynchings
that happened as a result
[24:13] where people were like
vigilante running around.
[24:16] They think they found a person,
and they I mean,
[24:19] I mean seriously,
like that's what we're dealing with.
[24:26] Imagine when you take that
to the extreme where bad
[24:31] actors can now manipulate large swathes
of people to do anything you want.
[24:39] It's just a really,
really bad state of affairs, and
[24:43] we compound the problem, right.
[24:45] We curate our lives around this
perceived sense of perfection,
[24:49] because we get rewarded in these
short term signals, hearts, likes,
[24:54] thumbs up, and we conflate that with
value, and we conflate it with truth.
[25:00] And instead what is really is,
is fake, brittle popularity.
[25:04] That's short term and that leaves you
even more, and admit it, vacant and
[25:09] empty before you did it.
[25:11] Because then it forces you into this
vicious cycle where you're like what's
[25:14] the next thing I need to do now,
because I need it back.
[25:18] Think about that compounded
by 2 billion people, and
[25:21] then think about how people react
then to the perceptions of others.
[25:25] It's just a it's really bad,
it's really,really bad.
[25:28] >> It sounds like you're taking deep
[25:31] personal responsibility
also in being a part of it.
[25:36] >> I kind of look,
[25:37] I did a great job there, and
[25:38] I think that business overwhelmingly
does positive good in the world.
[25:44] Where I have decided to spend my time,
is to take the capital that they rewarded
[25:47] me with and now focus on the structural
changes that I can control.
[25:52] I can't control that, I can control my
decisions, which is I don't use this shit.
[25:56] I can control my kids' decisions,
which is they're not allowed to use this
[26:01] shit.
>> [LAUGH]
[26:02] >> And then I can go focus on diabetes,
[26:03] and education, and climate change.
[26:05] And that's what I can do, but everybody
else has to soul search a little bit more
[26:10] about what you're willing to
do because your behaviors,
[26:13] you don't realize it but
you are being programmed.
[26:18] It was unintentional, but now you gotta
decide how much you're willing to give up,
[26:22] how much of your intellectual
independence, and
[26:25] don't think, yeah, not me,
I'm a fucking genius, I'm at Stanford.
[26:29] You're probably the most
likely to fucking fall for it.
[26:32] >> [LAUGH]
[26:33] >> because you are fucking check
[26:34] boxing your whole God damn life.
[26:37] No offense guys.
>> [LAUGH]
[26:40] >> None taken.
[26:42] >> [LAUGH]
[26:45] >> So, you've been outspoken about
[26:47] the Trump's Administration's
position on immigration,
[26:51] these things are going to collide
in government and business, right?
[26:55] That's happening now, so what do you
want these future business leaders to
[27:00] do about it once they get into that spot?
>> Get the money, get the money,
[27:05] and then let's get around a table and
let's create new rules.
[27:12] Literally that simple,
get the fucking money.
[27:15] I'm serious, do not get it, it is going to
be made, it is going to be allocated,
[27:20] and you have a moral imperative to make
sure that if you have a point of view
[27:25] that matters and
you want to reflect it, you get it.
[27:30] I'm going to go get it,
other people are going to go get it, and
[27:34] then it will be about
a competition of views.
[27:38] And don't wrap yourself in all this
[27:42] liberal kind of bullshit about my God,
money, blah, no, stop.
[27:47] Here's how the fucking world works, okay?
[27:49] It drives the world for
better or for worse.
[27:53] Economic incentives drive entire swaths
of populations to behave in very,
[27:58] very predictable, and then when you
take it away, unpredictable ways.
[28:09] Ask anybody in your class that's
from a developing nation,
[28:12] ask anybody in your class who has seen
that play out from where they're from.
[28:15] So, that's what you have to do,
you gotta go and get it.
[28:19] If you control the capital and
you have a point of view, you can now,
[28:22] then the question is, don't be a sell out.
[28:27] Whatever your world view is, you should be
spending time to think about what that is.
[28:32] So that when you control
some of these purse strings,
[28:35] you push that view into the world.
[28:38] I will never judge you, and you should
not judge me for what that worldview is.
[28:44] But the point is the more
diversity of those views,
[28:47] the more rational actors we have and
the more of a balanced,
[28:50] fair system,
that is what diversity really means to me.
[28:56] It doesn't mean let's manage back
to a quota, it doesn't mean,
[29:01] okay, we need a black guy, a brown guy,
we need a few, that's not what it means.
[29:05] This is what it means, right?
[29:08] There are people in this audience
that have probably dealt with
[29:12] the same kind of like life
that I've dealt with.
[29:15] You have a very unique
worldview that matters.
[29:19] In the absence of capital,
you're irrelevant, with capital,
[29:24] you're powerful.
[29:27] And then you decide in small ways,
in medium size ways,
[29:31] in large ways, right, and it just depends
on the scale of capital that you have.
[29:37] And so
that's what's necessary now in capitalism,
[29:40] which is that we have to come
back to what is it really?
[29:44] Is it an economic system, yes.
[29:46] But it is a philosophy as well, right?
[29:49] And it's a philosophy that
says we will vote for
[29:53] the change we intend based
on the views that we have.
[29:56] And when you look at the most successful
people that operate in these tentacles,
[30:02] that's what they do.
[30:04] Look at the Koch brothers,
that's what they do.
[30:06] They have built a network of
influence based on capital.
[30:11] Their world view is propagated into the
world at an unbelievably aggressive rate
[30:17] that has been compounding for
decades, that is genius.
[30:22] It is genius, it doesn't matter whether
you agree with their world view.
[30:27] The question is, what's
the counterweight to their world view?
[30:31] Can you name one?
[30:33] Can you name a group of people that
operate in the exact same way,
[30:38] methodically, meticulously
assembling capital, influence,
[30:42] assets who believe the opposite?
[30:45] Irrespective of what
you think of the Kochs.
[30:48] You want both views out
in the world at scale.
[30:52] Well right now, you have this and
you don't have this.
[30:56] And there are many examples of that.
[30:58] And so get the money and
[31:02] don't lose your moral compass when you do.
>> You've
[31:07] said that you think VC is
a horrendous allocator of capital.
[31:11] So if we need to go get the capital,
how do we do it better?
[31:16] Well, we are chipping away,
I think other people will copy us.
[31:22] Venture is basically just a bunch of
[31:26] soulless cowards.
>> [LAUGH]
[31:29] >> They're well intentioned, but
[31:33] they're well intentioned soulless cowards.
>> [LAUGH]
[31:40] >> They have fallen for what everybody
[31:44] else falls for,
which you can't blame them for.
[31:49] Which is here is this gold star and
they're like, wow,
[31:53] I've gotten a gold star.
[31:55] And then the minute you do that what you
do is you start to just choke it really
[31:58] tight and you're like I don't
want to lose this gold star.
[32:00] And then what happens?
[32:03] You go risk off.
[32:05] And then what happens?
[32:06] Your behaviors are about protecting
the seat of power that you have,
[32:09] the social definition that
that seat affords you.
[32:13] And so now instead of being an accelerant
of a progressive worldview,
[32:17] you become a retardant to
a progressive worldview, right?
[32:21] Your risk appetite shrinks,
[32:22] the surface area in which you're
willing to make decisions shrink.
[32:26] And when you are a critical
part of the future, again,
[32:28] going back to how I started, the most
important part of capitalism is going to
[32:32] be the folks that are driving
the technological change.
[32:35] Well, as a class,
that's what VCs are supposed to do.
[32:39] But they're by and large,
in my opinion, the wrong people.
[32:41] So how do we do it?
[32:44] You have to make it more systematic,
you have to make it more data driven,
[32:47] you have to strip out the bias,
you have to be open 24/7.
[32:50] You can't have these dumb rules of like,
[32:53] I only do deals if they're within
15 miles driving distance.
[32:58] How can the most important part of,
>> [LAUGH]
[33:03] >> I mean, can you imagine if I walked
[33:05] into Zuck's office, Facebook, where
I'm like, I have a great fucking idea.
[33:09] Facebook is only going to be open for
business Monday through Friday.
[33:12] >> [LAUGH]
[33:16] >> 10 to 5, because we want to get home.
[33:18] Summers we're going to take off, and
so but just going to show a 404 page.
[33:22] >> [LAUGH]
[33:24] >> Does it make sense?
[33:25] >> [LAUGH]
[33:28] >> Or Google,
[33:29] we only want you to search
during business hours.
[33:32] >> [LAUGH]
[33:34] >> And so you have to be open for scale,
[33:38] you have to be global, you have to do
all of these things so that you can get
[33:42] the money into the hands of the people
that deserve it and then help them.
[33:47] And by helping them, what you have to do
is actually address the core structural
[33:51] parts of business-building
that are not done well today.
[33:54] And the best analog is AWS.
[33:57] If you were starting a business 15 years
ago, I can even tell you a decade ago,
[34:01] we were racking servers at our data
center, because the growth was great.
[34:09] And somewhere along the way,
Amazon said, you know what?
[34:12] All of that complexity is necessary, but
[34:14] it's not sufficient to building
Facebook or any other great company.
[34:18] So let me abstract that for you.
[34:20] Let me go and replace all of those
good people with an API, and
[34:25] I'll take those good people and
they'll be celebrated at Amazon.
[34:31] And initially a few people said yes, and
people thought in 2007 AWS was a joke.
[34:35] And we used to laugh at it.
[34:37] We were like,
why would anybody do this stuff?
[34:39] And now see how fast a decade later
you're on the other side of the fence.
[34:44] If any of you guys start a business and
you're not on AWS,
[34:47] you would be the joke, right?
[34:50] So what did they do?
[34:51] They basically said, here's all this stuff
that's necessary to building a business.
[34:57] You need to do it.
[34:58] You probably don't want to do it.
[35:00] You're probably not going to do it well.
[35:02] And so let me just replace
it all with an abstraction.
[35:04] Your company can be smaller, leaner, more
efficient, and now the money you raise
[35:09] can be used for things that
approximate core product value better.
[35:13] Okay, now in 2017, ask the same question.
[35:16] What's the next set of
things that make sense?
[35:19] And in my opinion, what we uncovered at
Facebook is what every company needs,
[35:23] which is how do you shift from
an anecdotal, political capital,
[35:28] social capital-oriented way of
making decisions inside a company
[35:32] to a very precise, unemotional,
data driven process?
[35:37] And the way you do it is by building
a bunch of data infrastructure,
[35:39] by collecting a bunch of data itself,
[35:41] by helping you optimize your business in
a bunch of obvious and non-obvious ways.
[35:46] And so what we believe is that we should
take that capability that my team
[35:50] built at Facebook and abstract it for
all of you who intend to start a company.
[35:55] So now in the future,
what should happen is, you'll go to AWS,
[35:59] you'll get some infrastructure,
you'll go to socialcapital.com, and
[36:02] you'll get some insights and knowledge.
[36:04] And it's all interacting via APIs.
[36:06] It's all interaction via endpoints and
primitives.
[36:10] And what happens is we can
now learn from the feedback,
[36:14] from your data, how you're doing.
[36:17] We can merge those learnings across many,
many other businesses.
[36:21] We can find things in some remote
part of some company over here and
[36:26] translate that as value for you over here.
[36:28] Wouldn't you want that?
[36:30] Of course you'd want that.
[36:32] What if we could do more
efficient customer acquisition?
[36:34] What if we could figure out churn better?
[36:37] So all of these things now are what
we are going to bring to the market,
[36:40] systematic capabilities.
[36:43] And I think over time what that does is,
[36:44] again, it moves to a much more progressive
view of what capitalism should be.
[36:49] It's not the few that matched
a human driven pattern, but
[36:54] it's more about taking big shots, scaling
up the money, being able to support people
[36:59] in structurally predictable ways, and
allowing them to build better companies.
[37:03] Those companies, I suspect,
will be as profitable.
[37:05] But they'll be smaller.
[37:07] They'll be more efficient.
[37:08] They'll have more revenue per head.
[37:10] All the things that you would want over
time so that instead of having four or
[37:14] five mega companies,
you could have millions and
[37:17] millions and millions of smaller,
better run companies.
[37:20] And that's my world view.
[37:21] And I think if we do that,
[37:23] we achieve our goals, all of that stuff
comes together if we enable that.
[37:27] So what you're seeing from us is that.
[37:30] And it's really upsetting and
disconcerting to the established
[37:33] sort of venture classes, because it
up-ends how they've defined their value.
[37:38] It's a very classic inventor's dilemma.
[37:41] They are like,
in my brain is pattern-recognition.
[37:46] But we know that that's not true, and
the data shows you that that's not true.
[37:50] Simple question for all of you guys
that love the allure of Silicon Valley.
[37:54] From the 70s when Microsoft was founded
to now, if you look at all the major
[37:58] companies that have been created,
major, say over 50 billion,
[38:03] over 60 billion, what percentage of
the Series A investors overlapped?
[38:08] You did the A of Microsoft, and you did
the A of Google or you did the A of Uber,
[38:12] right?
[38:14] Like for pattern recognition, again,
it's non-numerical, right, it's about wow,
[38:18] I like the cut of this guy's jib.
>> [LAUGH]
[38:24] >> Well, the answer is it's less than 2%.
[38:28] So what does that mean?
[38:29] Everybody's bullshitting,
that's what it really means, right?
[38:33] If you're in a seat, and you have good
deal flow, and you have precious capital,
[38:39] and there's a massive tailwind
of technological change,
[38:43] over time you get one of the 20,
and you look like a genius.
[38:48] That's basically what's happened, and
[38:50] nobody wants to admit that,
but that's the fucking truth.
[38:57] It's the truth.
[38:58] So if anybody looks at you and
[39:00] tells you they know what the fuck
they're doing, they're lying.
[39:03] They're lying, they are lying
to themselves at a minimum, and
[39:07] at a maximum they're lying to you.
[39:10] Because the data does not support
that claim, and that's irrefutable.
[39:16] So I don't want to be one of those
people that stumble into a company and
[39:19] look back and like,
yeah, we were geniuses.
[39:22] I want us to be systematic.
[39:25] And I want us to be able to deploy tools
and capabilities that get us closer and
[39:28] closer to that.
[39:31] And that is what if you're again,
[39:33] a traditionalist, freaks you out.
>> And that's what allows you to make
[39:37] these much longer term commitments
to businesses that are going to
[39:41] address healthcare, education.
>> Well, no, that's just because I'm rich.
[39:45] >> [LAUGH]
[39:46] >> But just to be honest.
[39:48] I don't need anybody else's money.
[39:50] Look, this is not a popular view.
[39:52] So the first fucking billion
dollars is mine, and
[39:57] then I have to prove it and
then other people glom on.
[40:01] But, I mean Many of them
started by caring, but
[40:05] I suspect over time, if we end up
with a hundred, two hundred or
[40:09] five hundred billion dollars, how much
of that last 50 to 60% really care?
[40:14] That's okay, I want the fucking money.
[40:19] I will play the goddamned game and
I'll win, because I want the money.
[40:24] because I want to extend my influence,
[40:26] do you know what I'm saying?
>> Yeah.
[40:28] >> They want to return, it's fine.
[40:29] >> [LAUGH]
[40:30] >> Yeah, he wants the money.
[40:32] >> [LAUGH]
[40:34] >> because I want to win, I so
[40:37] deeply want to win.
>> How,
[40:41] I'm just going to say this
exactly as it's coming, how do
[40:46] you keep that power from corrupting you?
>> I have no idea,
[40:51] that's the honest answer, I have no idea.
[40:58] I've become increasingly isolated,
it's harder and harder for
[41:02] me to connect because I'm so
in my own mind.
[41:06] Like, how does this all play out?
[41:09] How do I fundraise?
[41:11] How do I help facilitate good investing
decisions which really means,
[41:15] how do I help this really great think
about a more platformized approach.
[41:20] And in that, I just get really Isolated
and so I don't have a good answer.
[41:28] I like things like this and I like to say
the things that I do and maybe it helps
[41:34] you in your own lives, but to be honest,
it's very selfish, it helps me because,
[41:39] like it reminds me, when I'm in a place
like, it reminds me of these stories.
[41:43] Just reminding myself like I made
$4.55 an hour at Burger King,
[41:48] I would get a $50 check and
I'd buy bus passes.
[41:52] That's awesome, I just,
I don't ever want to forget that and
[41:56] I'll go months and not remember that, but
[41:59] now as I say it, I'm like okay,
I started as a good earnest person.
[42:04] And I need to stay a good earnest person,
so I don't have a good answer.
[42:10] And I'll tell you of those 150 people,
maybe it's a little bit more,
[42:13] but I've met a lot of them,
it's really hard.
[42:18] It's very easy to end up
really drunk with power,
[42:25] it's really hard.
>> I really
[42:30] appreciate that candor because I don't
think that we get it very often.
[42:34] And you've laid out
an incredible vision for
[42:38] money as an instrument of change, so I'm
really grateful that you are here to share
[42:42] it with us today.
>> Thank you.
[42:44] >> We're going to open it up now to
[42:46] questions, I'm sure that there are many
followups on what you've explored,
[42:52] but really-.
>> Any feedback?
[42:54] >> [LAUGH]
[42:57] >> [APPLAUSE]
[43:05] >> Hi, I'm Hi,
[43:10] I'm Dana, I'm second year MBA at the GSB.
[43:13] Thank you for being with us today.
[43:16] But I'm not here to give feedback,
but I have a question for you.
[43:20] You just took Social Capital
of the public.
[43:23] I wonder what's your plan
to run this public fund?
[43:26] How would that be different
from running a private fund?
[43:30] >> Or it's just another
[43:34] way to get money
>> [LAUGH].
[43:39] >> [APPLAUSE]
[43:41] >> So awesome, yes.
[43:44] >> [LAUGH]
[43:46] >> But, no.
[43:49] So one of the things that I think about
a lot is, if I'm in a position to reshape.
[43:55] I've been in a position where
I was a part of a group
[43:58] that helped shape psychology of society.
[44:00] That's been a great experience and
I learned a lot.
[44:04] And so now in this position
what I say to myself is,
[44:06] what are the psychological
things I'd love to change now?
[44:09] And one of them is around
this idea of patience.
[44:12] And what's counterintuitive and I said
this earlier when we were just talking,
[44:15] is that, I think bringing
liquidity into companies sooner
[44:21] will actually allow companies to
bake longer and more patiently.
[44:26] And so part of what this vehicle
is is about bringing liquidity
[44:29] sooner in a company's lifecycle.
[44:31] because if we can take this company,
use it to acquire something else and
[44:35] that CEO is now able to
compensate their employees.
[44:39] As counterintuitive as it sounds,
[44:40] I suspect that they
are less likely to leave.
[44:44] And so now you could have employees stay
at a business for seven, eight, nine,
[44:47] ten years, which used to be
the historical norm and now it's not.
[44:52] Most of you,
probably are thinking to yourselves,
[44:57] well I'm going to get
a great job after the GSB.
[45:00] But I should probably portfolio manage my
career for the next six or seven years.
[45:05] 18 months here, 18 months there,
18 months there, and
[45:08] then I'll decide what I really want to do.
[45:11] And part of it is because
there's an incentive to sort of
[45:14] build this kind of portfolio approach.
[45:17] But I suspect if you knew that
liquidity was a more traditional,
[45:20] predictable thing, many people
would actually say, you know what?
[45:23] I like these people here,
I like the mission of the company,
[45:26] I want to continue to
help advance their goals.
[45:29] And now that you've actually
solved my compensation problem,
[45:32] I'm willing to commit.
[45:33] So part of this vehicle
is trying to turn back
[45:38] the incentives towards people staying at
companies longer which I think is going to
[45:42] be required if you're going to
try to solve hard problems.
[45:45] because right now, the Silicon Valley
attrition rate in most companies is 20%.
[45:49] That means every five years,
your entire employee base is turned over.
[45:52] Think about that,
how do you do anything valuable,
[45:54] if everybody is new every five years?
[45:57] How is that possible?
[45:58] It's probably not possible.
[46:00] So that's what I would try to change and
[46:05] get the money.
>> [LAUGH]
[46:09] >> Hi, I'm Carolyn, I'm also an MBA too.
[46:11] Your sports analogy of kind of buckling
down and going into hyperdrive really
[46:15] resonated with me,
I also realize that that can go too far.
[46:19] So I'm curious to hear how you make some
of the tough calls on whether it's not to
[46:22] participate in the next
round of fundraising or
[46:24] whatever that looks like to you.
[46:25] How do you make those decisions?
[46:30] This is, honestly, this is, so yesterday,
[46:33] we spent an inordinate amount
of time talking about this.
[46:37] We've made a bunch of decisions
that I deeply regret,
[46:41] because they were entirely
monetary in nature.
[46:44] And what I said to the team was, I'm fine
with us making purely monetary decisions,
[46:49] but we didn't even do those well.
[46:51] It's not as if we had a predictable
rate of return on that that said,
[46:54] yeah you now what?
[46:55] We're just going to close our eyes here,
double our money, and walk away.
[47:00] And so,
the reason I brought that up to them,
[47:03] was I was like our decision-making
can't bleed over time.
[47:09] And right now, it's very hard for
us as an organization to know
[47:15] how much should be mission driven,
how much should not.
[47:17] When should we really double down
on things that are not working,
[47:20] when should we not.
[47:20] When should we just give up,
because its just either the timing is
[47:24] not the right time and quite honestly
I don’t have a very good answer.
[47:29] But if it is the thing
that we are now the most
[47:34] emotionally sensitive to, because for
example the opposite may be true.
[47:40] So if the diabetes business turns out to
work, does the hundred and first person
[47:44] that works at Social Capital say fuck it,
we're just going to buckle down and when
[47:47] they're writing checks all of a sudden
we're 50 million deep into something that
[47:51] is clearly not going to work was that a?
>> So,
[47:53] I don't have a really good answer but it
is the thing that I think about the most
[47:57] when do you know how do you
know to keep going for?
[48:01] When do you know that it's just too much?
[48:03] When do you know that your decision
making is bleeding into a vein that
[48:06] is not constructive?
[48:08] I have no idea.
[48:11] So it's a great question,
I think about that a lot.
[48:16] By the way, a lot of things, it's really
powerful to be able to say I don't know.
[48:21] I mean, I would just encourage you guys
all to just be like, I don't know.
[48:24] This culture, American culture is
this weird thing of know-it-alls.
[48:29] Everybody doesn't know everything.
[48:31] How he fuck can you ever learn?
[48:35] When is that going to be valuable?
[48:37] Don't be the, just own that one line,
I don't know.
[48:42] It's so powerful.
[48:45] And as I kind of get more abstracted,
when I meet people, and
[48:49] I ask them things, it is is so
endearing to hear, I don't know.
[48:54] Because behind that is just
the self-awareness and
[48:57] confidence that I think
is increasingly rare.
[49:02] Now you guys are like, I'm going to
fucking grin fuck this guy and
[49:05] just keep telling everybody, I don't know.
[49:07] Don't do that.
[49:07] >> [LAUGH]
>> I mean really own it.
[49:08] If you're going to say it,
really own it, but
[49:11] I really think it's a very powerful
thing to be able to say, I don't know.
[49:18] Hi, my name is and
I'm a first year MBA student.
[49:22] I'm also a Canadian who went to Waterloo
and my first job was at Burger King, so
[49:26] I really see you as a role model.
>> You're like my fucking
[49:28] brother.
>> [LAUGH]
[49:29] >> I mean no literally,
[49:30] you look like me too, it's crazy.
[49:32] It's the weirdest thing.
>> [LAUGH]
[49:33] >> [APPLAUSE]
[49:34] >> Are you planted, are you an actor?
[49:35] >> I swear,
[49:36] I swear to God.
>> Well,
[49:38] you're really freaking me out right now.
>> [LAUGH]
[49:42] >> What do you want?
[49:43] >> [LAUGH]
[49:46] >> So my question for you is,
[49:48] a of couple years ago at an event at HBS,
[49:51] you mentioned that MBA students
are typically at a disadvantage.
[49:55] With respect to getting capital if they
pursue entrepreneurship Do you think that
[49:59] still holds true today?
[50:00] And if so [CROSSTALK].
>> So, that's a perfect example of me,
[50:03] before Cas, which Dean Leven talked about,
expressing my bias.
[50:10] And I think part of my bias came from my
insecurity about not having a grad degree.
[50:14] Part of my bias was looking at
people like you and saying, wow,
[50:18] I just feel inferior to folks like you,
I have felt for huge amounts of time.
[50:24] And so it's a perfect example, where
even though I can say it, what I said at
[50:29] that HBS thing was me just spouting off,
making myself feel better about my biases.
[50:35] And what I would tell you today is,
it can matter, it doesn't matter.
[50:39] I would rather say that there are ways
of figuring out how valuable you are,
[50:43] that are independent of
those traditional signals.
[50:45] Whether you have them or not.
[50:48] So I would say today I've changed my mind.
[50:49] But by the way, that's another thing.
>> [LAUGH]
[50:54] >> Changing your mind.
[50:55] >> Is so powerful.
[50:57] >> [LAUGH]
[50:59] >> I mean, fuck, change your mind.
[51:01] It makes for really,
really, really, bursty,
[51:04] difficult marriages at times.
>> [LAUGH]
[51:06] >> My wife will tell you.
[51:09] But man, is it powerful in business.
[51:12] Change your mind all the time.
[51:15] And it's amazing,
[51:16] again, where you'll find really good
scaled leaders want the right answer.
[51:21] And they're fine with capitulation,
they're fine with change.
[51:24] They really are,
because they just want the right answer.
[51:26] And then you just get so
invested in an answer.
[51:29] And then you build up all this
superficial logic to reinforce it,
[51:34] versus saying I don't know,
you know what, I changed my mind.
[51:38] Wow, another powerful thing I think.
[51:41] I change my mind all the time.
>> I think this is going to be our last
[51:44] question.
>> My name is.
[51:48] I saw some of the venture work at banks,
some of the tech world and
[51:51] you said something about amassing capital.
[51:54] Today, what do you think is one of
the best ways for us to amass capital on
[51:57] a risk adjusted basis?
>> I mean, the last part is
[52:02] just such as sellout part.
>> [LAUGH]
[52:04] >> A risk adjusted base,
[52:05] I don't know, fucking buy some bonds?
[52:07] I mean, I don't know.
>> [LAUGH]
[52:08] >> [LAUGH]
[52:10] >> Here's what I would tell
[52:11] you, man.
>> [LAUGH]
[52:12] >> I think,
[52:13] if you ask me,
who's building the most important,
[52:17] indelible company in the world,
I've been very public about this.
[52:20] I think it's Jeff Bezos.
[52:21] Part of what he realized was
the value of slow-compounding.
[52:25] So here's my little theory
about company value creation.
[52:28] The faster you build it,
that is the half-life,
[52:31] it will get destroyed in
the same amount of time.
[52:34] And so when you think about a lot of
social businesses, that's played out.
[52:38] And when you see what sort
of the tops are like,
[52:43] does it take, eight, nine, ten years to
build a really great consumer business?
[52:47] It'll take 8, 9, 10,
12 years to destroy it.
[52:51] And we may see the tipping point now
in a couple of these businesses.
[52:54] Right now we may be seeing it in front
of our eyes, regulatory or otherwise.
[52:57] So why is that an important statement?
[53:01] Amassing capital to me,
is about finding a smart,
[53:04] useful solution to a very hard,
practical problem.
[53:08] And being slow and methodical.
[53:11] And again, that's what I'm saying,
you have to rewire your brain for
[53:14] that to be okay.
[53:16] How do you, in year two or year five,
[COUGH] come back to this room for
[53:22] your, what is it called when you get-
>> Reunion.
[53:25] >> [LAUGH]
[53:27] >> [COUGH] And say I'm still
[53:30] working on the same thing, and
when somebody says, and how is it going?
[53:33] You have the courage to say, it's hard, I
haven't figured it out yet, I don't know.
[53:39] But if you figure it out and you have this
moderate growth, moderate compounding,
[53:45] that is the key, that's cool.
[53:49] I look at our returns and it's so
funny, because you can get so
[53:54] enthralled by IRRs in our business.
[53:58] And I have friends who run
other organizations, and
[54:02] they're like, we posted 92% IRR,
and I'm like,
[54:06] well you can't eat IRR.
>> [LAUGH]
[54:09] >> What does it really mean?
[54:12] And when you unpack it, what you realize
is, fast money returns can completely,
[54:17] really decay long-term thinking and
sound judgment.
[54:20] And so I'm like wow, I would really
love to just compound at 15% a year.
[54:25] And the reason is,
[54:26] because if I can do that for 50 years,
that's 250 fucking billion dollars.
[54:30] It's some crazy number,
it's just enormous, so it's slow and
[54:34] steady against heart problems.
[54:37] Start by turning off your social apps and
giving your brain a break.
[54:42] because then you will at least
be a little bit more motivated,
[54:44] to not be motivated by everybody
else fucking thinks about you.
[54:47] Do you know what I'm saying?
[54:48] It's hard, think about how all
this stuff plays together.
[54:50] How does trying to get,
posting your fucking waffles online,
[54:55] relate to me starting a business and
[54:57] accumulating capital.
>> [LAUGH]
[55:00] >> This is wiring your brain for
[55:01] super fast feedback.
[55:03] It's the same brain you're
using to build a company.
[55:05] Don't think they're not the same.
>> [LAUGH]
[55:08] >> Do you know what I'm saying?
[55:10] No, yes?
[55:11] No?
>> [LAUGH]
[55:12] >> Yes, yes, right?
[55:14] You have one brain!
[55:17] So you're training your brain here,
whether you think it or not,
[55:19] whether you know it or not,
whether you acknowledge it or not.
[55:22] Acknowledge that these things,
where you're spending hours a day,
[55:26] are rewiring your psychology and
physiology.
[55:29] In a way,
that now you have to use to go and
[55:31] figure out how to be productive
in the commercial world.
[55:35] So if you don't change this,
[55:37] you are going to get the same
behavior as over here.
[55:41] Change this, there's a reason why
Steve Jobs was anti social media.
[55:47] I am telling you,
[55:47] I'm not on these fucking apps, I'm not
him by any stretch of the imagination.
[55:52] But I am proactively trying to rewire
my brain chemistry to not be short
[55:57] term focused.
[55:59] I'm telling you they're linked.
>> Kumar,
[56:02] thank you so much for being here and
enlightening all of us.
[56:05] >> [APPLAUSE]
