Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev：代币化、智能体交易与扩大所有权

嗨，听众们，欢迎回到 No Priors。今天和我在一起的是 Vlad Tenev，Robin Hood 的创始人兼 CEO。我们聊了聊 Robin Hood 今天作为一家金融集团是什么样子，它试图扩大经济中的所有权，从代币化到预测市场，再到 AI 智能体将如何为所有散户交易。我们还聊了 Harmonic，他致力于打造数学超级智能的努力，以及是否可以有分布式的发现和科学，而不是集中式的。欢迎 Vlad。Vlad，非常感谢你来做客。

Hi listeners, welcome back to No Priors. Today I'm here with Vlad Tenev, the founder and CEO of Robin Hood. We talk about what Robin Hood is today as a financial conglomerate trying to expand ownership in the economy from tokenization to prediction markets to how AI agents will trade for everyone in retail. We also talk about harmonic his effort to make a math super intelligence and whether there can be distributed discovery and science rather than centralized. Welcome Vlad. Vlad thank you so much for doing this.

嗯，感谢邀请我。

Well, thank you for having me.

大家都知道 Robin Hood，但它作为一家公司也经历了巨大的演变。你能为我们的听众介绍一下背景吗，比如你今天如何描述它？

So everyone knows Robin Hood but has also evolved a ton as a company. Can you just put in context for our listeners like what do you describe it today?

我们做很多事情。我们以某种形式在超过 120 个国家运营。如果我要用一个词或一个理念来概括 Robin Hood，那就是所有权。我认为我们是所有权公司，最与之关联的公司。当我说这个的时候，为什么所有权重要？我认为在个人层面上，人们想要拥有东西，这是通往财务自由和财务独立的可靠途径，你知道，如果你是一个资产所有者，随着时间的推移积累资产，这只是积累财富的最佳方式。所以有一个个人元素，真的，无论你是在交易、积累资产还是投资风险投资，我认为这非常非常重要。而且你知道，你拥有的东西很大程度上说明了你的个性。它几乎成为你身份的一部分，比如汽车收藏、收藏品、卡片、股票投资组合，我认为其中有很多个性。所以我认为有个人利益，但我认为也有集体利益，因为一个没有广泛所有权的社会本质上非常不稳定。它是一个脆弱的社会。如果有更多的人拥有东西，他们就更投入。他们在结果中有更多的利益。他们成为系统的捍卫者和保护者。所以我认为尤其是现在，当人们有点反抗社会，感觉有点令人担忧，随着 AI 和所有这些颠覆。我认为让人们能够在早期阶段拥有公司越来越重要。所以这真的是把我们所有事情联系在一起的纽带，从 Trump accounts 的零岁所有权，Robin Hood ventures 的私营公司上市前所有权，代币化你可以认为是所有权全球化，我们如何让美国以外的所有人，120 多个国家的人，有时甚至没有功能性银行系统的人，如何将他们接入经济结构。所以是的，这就是我的想法。我们最初只是一个简单的应用程序，在手机上零佣金购买股票，然后我们从那时起扩展成为一个日益全球化的金融集团，允许客户在广泛的表面和资产类别中拥有东西。

We do a lot of things. We're live in some form or another in over 120 countries. And if I had to sum up Robin Hood in one word or one idea, it would be ownership. I think we're the ownership company, the companies that that's most associated with that. And when I say that, why does ownership matter? I think on an individual basis people want to own things it's the tried and true route to financial freedom financial independence you know if you're an asset owner and you accumulate assets over time it's just the best way to build your wealth. So there's a individual element to it that really you know whether you're trading whether you're accumulating assets whether you're investing in venture I think it's very very important and also you know the things you own say a lot about your personality. It's almost like it becomes like a part of your identity like if it's a car collection or your collectibles your cards your stock portfolio I think there's a lot of individuality into it. So I think there's an individual benefit but I think there's also a collective benefit and in the sense that a society without broad ownership is inherently very unstable. It's a fragile society. And if you have more people that own things, they're more bought in. They have more stake in the outcome. And they become kind of defenders and protectors of the system. And so I think especially now when people are kind of pushing back against society and it feels a little bit fraught with AI and all of this disruption. I think giving people the ability to own companies at earlier stages is increasingly important. So it's really what ties together all of our things from Trump accounts which is ownership at age zero. Robin Hood ventures ownership of private companies before they go public. Tokenization you can think of as ownership gone global like how can we make all the people outside the US people in 120 plus countries that don't sometimes even have functional banking systems how can we kind of plug them into this economic fabric of society. So yeah that that's how I think about it. We started off as just a simple app to buy stocks at zero commissions on your phone and then we've kind of expanded from that into a increasingly global financial conglomerate that allows customers to own things across a wide variety of surfaces and asset classes.

你可能是唯一一个大型金融……我认为是一个传教士组织，另一个可能是 Vanguard 之类的。我们能谈谈你是如何走到这里的吗？比如我最近了解到你在陶哲轩门下学习数学，并且从事高频交易。如果我可以这么说的话，这两者听起来都不像是为人们服务的传教士。你是如何发现这个使命的，或者你是如何走到这一步的？

You might be the only large financial I think of as a missionary organization with the other being like Vanguard or something like that. Can we talk about how you got here like you know so you I learned recently that you studied math under Terrence Tao and you worked on HFT. Neither of those sound like a missionary for people if if I may say that. How did you how did you discover this mission or or you know come to come to it?

是的。所以我的意思是，再往前回溯。我出生在 80 年代末的东欧，正值苏联解体和铁幕拉开之际，实际上是在 1990 年代。所以我移民到美国，因为我父亲有机会来特拉华大学攻读硕士学位，然后也能够利用这个机会全职留在美国。所以我妈妈大约一年后来了，我比她晚大约 6 个月来，这是一次非常独特的经历。我的意思是，你和很多父母聊过。我小时候有一年半没见到爸爸，六个月没见到妈妈。我和祖父母住在一起，很大一部分原因是我们没有钱把全家都送过来。所以，我们不得不，你知道，我们不确定我爸爸在这个国家是否有长期的未来。所以，我们以为他可能一两年后回来。不管怎样，他做得很好，能够把我妈妈和我接过来。我在保加利亚的最后一年，1991 年，通货膨胀率大约是 170%。所以我早期的记忆是轮流停电，你知道，我的家人围在电池供电的收音机旁，听着发生了什么。从窗户可以看到小卖部门口排队买牛奶和鸡蛋。牛奶装在这些大塑料袋里。你知道，一年有一周你会从其他共产主义国家得到香蕉。所以古巴的香蕉我记得非常棒。然后我来到美国，到处都是香蕉，对吧？但它们没那么好。所以是的，即使在我 1997 年搬来之后，保加利亚不幸地拥有世界上最高的通货膨胀率。年化大约是 2,000%。所以他们每隔几个月就在货币上加零。从那时起，我就对金钱有了理解。我必须非常独立。你知道，我的父母，这总是一个话题，我们不得不寄钱给回家的祖父母，因为他们正在应对这场通货膨胀危机，我的祖父母实际上把资产放在铜炊具里。所以，在我祖父的房子里有一个壁橱，你知道，他作为一名医生在造船和海军行业工作。所以他经常在船上。

Yeah. So I mean rewinding back even even further. I was born in Eastern Europe in the late 80s kind of on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the lifting of the Iron Curtain and actually in the 1990s. So I immigrated to the US after my parents my dad had an opportunity to come study at the University of Delaware for his masters and then was also was able to take advantage of that and and stay in America full-time. And so my mom came about a year after and I came about 6 months after her which was a pretty unique experience. I mean, you talk to a lot of parents. I didn't see my dad for a year and a half and my mom for 6 months when I was a small child. I lived with my grandparents and a large portion of that was we just didn't have the money to send the whole family. So, we had to, you know, we weren't sure that my dad would have a long-term future in this country. So, we thought maybe he'd come back after a year or 2 years. And anyway, he did quite well and was able to send for my mom and and then me. And my last year in Bulgaria, 1991, the inflation rate was something like 170% in Bulgaria. So my early memories were the rolling blackouts and you know, my family huddled around the radio, which was battery operated, just listening to what was going on. The lines at the bodega which I could see from my window for buying milk and eggs. The milk would come in these big plastic bags. And you know the one week a year you would get bananas from other communist countries. So Cuba would the Cuban bananas I remember were just amazing. And then I would come to the US and there were just bananas everywhere, right? But they weren't as good. And so yeah, and and even after I moved in 1997, Bulgaria had the unfortunate distinction of having the number one inflation rate in the world. It was something like 2,000% annualized. So they were just adding zeros to the currency every couple of months. And so from that point, I just developed kind of a understanding of money. I had to be very independent. You know, my parents, it was always a topic of conversation and we would have to send money to my grandparents back home as they were dealing with this inflation crisis and my grandparents actually would keep their assets in copper cookware. So, there was this closet in my grandfather's house where, you know, he he worked as a doctor kind of in the in the ship building and and naval industries. So, he was on a boat a lot of times.

他在港口有人脉，一拿到工资就换成铜制厨具。所以这算是我最早见到的、人们会去投资的真实世界资产。

So he had his contacts at the port, and as soon as he would get salary he would exchange it for copper cookware. So it was kind of the first real-world asset that I encountered people investing in.

囤着，就像——抱歉——一摞摞锅。

Stocked, like—sorry—stacked like pans.

没错，就放在柜子里。

Exactly. In the closet.

能保值。

Holds value.

对，锅碗瓢盆。比当时的本地货币强多了。

Yes. Pots and pans. Much better than the local currency at the time.

所以，对，我就是这样长大的。我从小就明白一个失灵的系统里会发生什么——没有自由市场，也没有健康良好的资本市场。对我来说，我很快就发现自己学业上很强，而且基本上是自己选择独立的。我父母请不起保姆，也负担不起课外活动之类的。他们俩都打多份工，我爸还是全日制研究生。所以情况大概是，我上幼儿园、5 岁的时候，他们就让我自己从学校走回家。他们会跟我说：“好，去邻居家。”我们住在马里兰大学的公寓楼里。敲敲门，邻居会照看你几个小时。后来他们意识到，行吧，我们儿子回家要经历这么一套复杂的流程，不如干脆给他钥匙。

And so, yeah, I just grew up with that. I grew up understanding what happens in a broken system, where you don't have free markets and good, healthy capital markets. And I'd say for me, I pretty quickly discovered that academically I was quite strong, and also independent, basically by choice. My parents couldn't really afford babysitters or after-school activities or any of that stuff. They were both working multiple jobs, and my dad was a full-time graduate student. So it was kind of like, when I was in kindergarten, 5 years old, they would—I would walk back from school by myself. They would tell me, "Okay, go to the neighbor's house." We lived in apartment buildings at the University of Maryland. Knock on the door. Your neighbor will watch you for a couple of hours. Then they realized, all right, our son's going through this complicated ritual to get home. We might as well just give him the key.

那之后没多久，我就自己开门进屋、写作业、出去玩、跟朋友玩。所以我非常独立。

And pretty soon after that, I would let myself in, do my homework, go outside, play with my friends. So I was very independent.

而且一直有一种必须成功、必须在学校表现好的压力。大概有几个原因。第一，我擅长这个。所以我身边所有人都说，多上学、跳级、数学学得更好、多学数学。老师还会跟我父母开会，说，嘿，你儿子——你知道他数学特别好吗？你们应该让他参加这个。所以我觉得，在马里兰大学附近长大有个好处，那是一个非常重学术的社区，他们会试着找出有潜力的孩子，然后加速培养。

And there was always this pressure of having to succeed and do well in school. Probably for a couple of reasons. One, I was good at it. And so everyone around me was like, do more school, skip grades, do better in math, more math. And the teachers would have these meetings with my parents, like, hey, your son—do you know he's really good at math? You should put him in this thing. So I think that was one of the benefits of growing up around the University of Maryland—it was a very academically oriented community, and they would try to identify the kids that had potential and accelerate them.

另一件事是，我父母会把我叫到跟前说，听着，这个家的财务状况很不稳定。我们挣不到什么钱。所以你要是想上大学，基本上就得拿奖学金。而要拿奖学金，你就得在学校表现得非常非常好。还有，顺便说一句，我们在这里是签证身份。所以如果我们丢了工作，就会被遣返回保加利亚。所以学业上成功的压力一直很大。

The other thing was my parents would just sit me down and say, look, the financial status of this family is very insecure. We're not making any money. So you're going to have to basically get a scholarship if you want to go to college. And to get a scholarship, you are going to have to do very, very well in school. And also, by the way, we're visa holders here. So if we lose our jobs, we're going to have to get sent back to Bulgaria. So there was all this pressure to succeed academically.

对我来说，我的数学博士项目到某个阶段就变成了一种挑战——最难的是什么？我怎样才能在最难的事情上做得更好？这几乎像是我跟自己的竞赛。也跟我父母竞赛，他们学业上也很强。比如，爸，你上学时最难的科目是什么？哦，化学。那我就把化学学得特别好。或者，你学过的最难的数学是什么？我觉得数学有这样一架成就的阶梯。几乎像玩一个特别好的电子游戏——你总是知道下一关最难的是什么，几乎就是，你能多快走到代数几何或代数拓扑，你能不能更早学会并理解它？

And for me, my math PhD program at some point became kind of this challenge—like, what's the hardest thing? How can I do better at the hardest thing? And it was almost like a competition with myself. And with my parents, who were also very academically strong. Like, oh, what was the hardest subject for you at school, Dad? Oh, chemistry. Let me just do really well at chemistry. Or, what was the most advanced math that you did? And I think math has this ladder of achievement. It's almost like playing a really good video game—you always know what the next hardest thing is, and it's almost like, how quickly can you get to algebraic geometry or algebraic topology, and can you learn that earlier and understand it?

我觉得读研时吸引我的，是这样一个想法：如果你创造出一套新的数学理论，也许你会被记住很久很久。就像学校里孩子们都会学高斯、黎曼这些伟人。如果你创造出一套理论，也许几百年后孩子们还会学习、思考你的工作。所以这大概就是吸引我的地方。

And I think what appealed to me when I got to grad school was this idea that if you create a new mathematical theory, maybe you'll be remembered for a really long time. And just like kids in school, everyone learns Gauss and Riemann and all these greats. If you create a theory, maybe kids will be learning and thinking about your work hundreds of years from now. So that was kind of what appealed to me.

既然有这样的背景——你也应该解释一下 Harmonic 作为一个项目是什么——你对今天 AI 带来的数学革命有什么反应？

Just given that background—and you should also explain what Harmonic is as an effort—what is your reaction to the revolution in math that's happening with AI today?

我觉得一方面这非常令人兴奋，而且某种程度上是可预测的，因为 AI 模型的崛起加上验证输出的能力，两者结合带来了数学流程的自动化。我觉得这真的非常非常令人兴奋。

I think on the one hand it's very exciting and sort of predictable, because the rise of AI models and the ability to verify the outputs, put together, has led to kind of automation of the math pipeline. And I think it's really, really exciting.

我觉得这些力量和工具——我是说，数学变化得太快了，而数学作为一个领域，几千年来其实变化得非常慢。我读研的时候，大部分工作还是面对面用粉笔和黑板完成的。没有协作。人们甚至都不用电脑。所以现在数学在某种程度上和编程汇合了。数学家在用同样的工具。他们在用版本控制。他们在用 Lean 做验证。这个领域正在非常快速地加速。

I think the power and the tools—I mean, math is changing so quickly, and math as a field hasn't changed very rapidly at all in thousands of years. I mean, when I was in grad school, most of the work was still being done in person with chalk and a chalkboard. There was no collaboration. People weren't even using computers. So now math has kind of converged with coding. Mathematicians are using the same tools. They're using version control. They're using Lean for verification. And the field is accelerating very rapidly.

大约一年前——所以，Harmonic 是我几年前联合创办的一家初创公司，目标是构建数学超级智能。去年我们做了一个叫 Aristotle 的模型，它是三个在国际数学奥林匹克竞赛上拿到金牌的模型之一。之后我们把它向公众开放，有人用 Aristotle 去攻克未解决的数学问题。所以它被用来解决这些 Erdős 问题。还有其他数学家在用它的新结果等等。

About a year ago—so, Harmonic, which is a startup that I co-founded a couple years ago with the goal of building mathematical superintelligence. Last year we created a model called Aristotle that was one of three that got a gold medal on the International Math Olympiad. And then subsequently to that we rolled it out to the public, and we had people using Aristotle to tackle unsolved math problems. And so it was used to solve these Erdős problems. There were these other mathematicians that were using it for new results and so forth.

于是我开始大量思考，好，数学的未来是什么，这些工具应该怎么用？对我来说，我构建的工具——不只是 Harmonic，还有 Robin Hood——能够赋能个体、赋能人们，这一点非常重要。所以我对最近这波 AI 模型解数学题唯一不太喜欢的地方，就是它太中心化了。就像 AI 公司带着它们的大数据中心，员工用秘密模型来做所有这些工作。我觉得更有吸引力、并且最终会胜出的模式，是把这些东西开放出去，真正交到人们手里，让用户做出有趣的发现和发明。

And so then I started thinking a lot about, okay, what's the future of math, how should these tools be used? And I think for me it was very important for the tools that I build—not just Harmonic but also Robin Hood—to be empowering to individuals, to people. So the one thing I don't love about this latest wave of AI models solving math problems is that it's too centralized. It's like AI companies with their big data centers and their employees using secret models to do all this work. And I think what's more attractive and what would ultimately win out in the end as a model is rolling these things out and actually putting them in the hands of people and having the users make interesting discoveries and inventions.

所以我大概是去中心化这一哲学前提的相当坚定的信奉者，我也很愿意相信这是对的。

So I am probably a pretty fundamental believer in decentralization as a philosophical premise, and I would love to believe that's true.

我想，很多在大型集中式 AI 公司工作的人会说——如果我稍微反驳一下的话——这是一种自我安慰，半人马模式终将被智能体循环里更多的算力碾压。你怎么看——你相信这是真的吗？或者说，在数学里，什么样的人类投入才是有产出的？

I think that there are a lot of people who work at large centralized AI companies who would say, if I may push back a little bit, that this is cope and centaur play will just be outclassed by, you know, more compute in an agent loop. Like, how do you—do you believe that's true, or what will be the human input here that is productive in math?

我觉得这其实是两件不同的事，对吧？一个是单个数学家的角色是什么，另一个是：这会成为人们使用的一款产品，还是 AI 实验室自己来生产这些产品？这两点我都有想法，但第二点更有意思。我想，如果世界变成这样：AI 实验室以专有方式做出所有发现，OpenAI 或 Anthropic 的数据中心只是跑代码，由这些公司的员工管理，它们垂直整合，生产所有药物并卖给人们，做出所有数学和物理发现并发表所有论文——如果这一切都在发生，而且归 AI 实验室自己所有，我觉得那有点反乌托邦，而且不太可能发生，原因有几个。不只是技术和市场层面，我还觉得，如果这种事大规模发生，人们会失去他们的运营许可，对吧？

Well, I think it's sort of like two separate things, right? One is what's the role of the individual mathematician, and the other is: is this going to be like a product that people use, or are the AI labs going to be producing the products? I mean, I have thoughts on both of them, but on the second one it's much more interesting. I think that a world where you have the AI labs on a proprietary basis making all the discoveries, and you have like the OpenAI or Anthropic data centers that are just running code, you know, managed by the employees of those companies, and they're vertically integrating and producing all the drugs and selling the drugs to people, making all the mathematical and physical discoveries and publishing all the papers—if all of that is happening and it's owned by the AI labs themselves, I think that's a bit of a dystopian outcome and unlikely to happen for a couple of reasons. Not just technological and market, but I think also, if that happens to a significant degree, people will lose their license to operate, right?

我觉得更可能是——

I think it's much more—

我觉得，纳维-斯托克斯方程被证明，或者黎曼猜想，或者任何这类东西，结果可能是一样的，但如果是某个普通外行用——

I think you could have the same outcome of Navier-Stokes being proven, or the Riemann hypothesis, or any one of these things, and it'll be much more accepted if it was like a random lay person using—

它可能会被庆祝。是的。

It might be celebrated. Yeah.

我完全同意。而且我觉得事情就会这样发生。这是一年后最可能的情景。还有一个混淆因素：很多进入这些 AI 实验室的人本身就是前研究者，所以他们对做研究很兴奋，而从他们的角度看，他们不明白为什么这件事反响这么差。就像：哦，我是个研究者，我被招进一个研究机构做研究，现在这些学者都对我生气。但没错，我觉得——我也跟这些公司的人说过——我觉得如果他们找一些数学家合作，会好得多，这样就不会显得像是有一个黑暗数据中心的反乌托邦未来，一家公司要做所有的科学发现。

I think for sure. And I think that's how it's going to happen. That's the likely scenario one year from now. I think you also have the confounding factor of a lot of the people that are going into these AI labs are former researchers, and so they're excited by doing research, and I think they're confused as to why this is being poorly received from their perspective. It's like, oh, I'm a researcher. I was brought into a research organization to do research, and now all these academics are mad at me. But yeah, I think that—and I've said this to folks that work at the companies—I think it would have been much better if they found some mathematicians and collaborated with them, to not make it seem like there's this dark data center dystopian future where one company is going to make all of the scientific discoveries.

我们能不能聊一聊，一方面你们想作为 Robinhood 的一部分来扩展所有权的新方式，另一方面 Robinhood 如何与 AI 领域正在发生的事交汇。也许我们可以先从你们在代币化上做的事，或者你对它的愿景开始。

Can we talk a little bit about both the new ways you want to extend ownership as part of Robinhood, and then also how Robinhood is intersecting with what's happening in AI. Maybe we can just start with what you guys are doing with tokenization, or your vision for it.

好。代币化其实是一项新创新，思路几乎和稳定币类似。稳定币的运作方式是：你拿一些美元或国债，放进一个包装里，放进一个盒子里，然后针对这个盒子铸造和销毁代币，传统资产仍然托管在银行这样的传统机构，而代币可以在 DeFi 上自由交易。所以它们可以流向世界任何地方。它们可以按零碎份额交易。它们可以在不同协议或借贷池中互换。这就打开了一个——

Yeah. So tokenization is really—it's a new innovation, and the idea is almost similar to stablecoins. So the way a stablecoin works is you take some dollars or treasuries, put them in a wrapper, put them in a box, and then you mint and burn tokens against the box, and the traditional assets stay custodied at a traditional institution like a bank, and then the tokens can trade freely on DeFi. So they can move anywhere around the world. They can trade in fractional amounts. They can be swapped in different protocols or lending pools. And that opens up just a—

软件特性。

Software characteristics.

对。所以你可以把这个概念扩展到任何现实世界资产。我们已经用股票做了这件事。你可以把股票放进一个盒子里，针对它铸造和销毁代币，它们就可以像软件一样在互联网上的区块链上到处交易。你也可以用私营公司来做——不是股票，而是一个持有私营公司股份的 SPV。运作方式相同，只是在赎回等方面有些细微差别。你还可以用艺术品、收藏品、房地产来做。所以我们推出的——我们多年来一直在尝试和试验代币化。去年我们在法国南部办了一场活动，推出了股票代币，也就是美国股票的代币化版本，我们是在欧洲做的，但没有完全启用 DeFi。所以如果你是使用 Robinhood 的欧洲客户，你可以交易它们，感觉非常像真实股票，但你实际上不能把它们发送到以太坊或区块链上，放进池子里，或与其他智能合约组合。今年我们又进了一步。我们重新推出了具备完整 DeFi 特性的股票代币，并与 Robinhood Chain 一同推出，这是我们为现实世界资产打造的新区块链。Robinhood Chain 已成为历史上增长最快的区块链之一——我认为在很多指标上都是最快的——我们看到的是开发者活动的爆发。我想我们最近宣布，它在开发者活动上也是排名第一的链。开发者把股票代币变成了类似乐高积木的东西，开始构建各种有趣的智能合约——NFT、组合资产，比如你会把一个 meme 币和一个股票代币关联起来——而这还只是第一个月、第二个月的活动。是的，我认为这些金融原语作为开发者平台的基础会变得非常非常大。而我觉得比这更让我兴奋的是，Robinhood Chain 是赋能长尾国家的一种方式。所以那些资本市场或金融体系不够健全的国家的人——比如南美或非洲的一些地方——任何有智能手机和非托管钱包的人，现在都能以极低的成本接触美国市场。所以，就像我认为稳定币成为这些国家的人获取美元的默认方式一样，股票代币和类似产品将成为所有这些人获取美国股票的默认方式。

Yeah. So you can kind of extend that concept to any real-world asset. So we've done it with stocks. So you can put stocks in a box and mint and burn tokens against them, and they can trade all over the internet on blockchains like software. You can do it with private companies—instead of a stock, it's like an SPV with private company shares. Behaves the same, with some slight differences around redeeming and things of that nature. You could do it with art, collectibles, real estate. So what we launched—and we've been playing around with tokenization and experimenting with it for many years. So last year we had an event in the south of France where we launched stock tokens, which are tokenized versions of US stocks, and we did it in Europe, but it wasn't fully DeFi enabled. So if you're a European customer using Robinhood, you could trade them and they felt very much like real stocks, but you couldn't actually send them out on Ethereum or on the blockchain and put them in pools or compose them with other smart contracts. Now this year we took it one step further. We relaunched stock tokens with fully DeFi enabled characteristics, and we launched it in conjunction with Robinhood Chain, which is our new blockchain built for real-world assets. And Robinhood Chain has become one of the fastest growing—I think the fastest growing across a lot of metrics—blockchains in history, and what we've seen is just an explosion of developer activity. I think we announced recently it's the number one chain in developer activity too. And developers have taken stock tokens, which have become kind of like Legos, and have started building all sorts of interesting smart contracts—NFTs, pooled assets where you'll take, for example, a memecoin and link it with a stock token—and this is just sort of month one and month two type activity. Yeah, I think these financial primitives as the foundation of a developer platform will become really, really big. And I think what's more exciting to me than this is Robinhood Chain is a way to enable the long tail of countries. So people in countries that don't have highly functioning capital markets or financial systems—like places in South America or Africa—anyone with a smartphone and a non-custodial wallet can now get exposure to US markets at incredibly low cost. So in the same way that I think stablecoins became the default way for people in these countries to get access to dollars, stock tokens and products like that will be the default way to get access to US equities for all of these people.

愿他们不仅能接触到铜锅，还能接触到财富创造。

May they have access to not just copper pots but wealth creation.

正是如此。

Exactly.

还有私营公司。Robinhood Chain 和代币化真正的愿景就是：把在 Robinhood 上行之有效的一切都搬到链上，让所有这些国家的人都能用上。我想我学到的一点是——很多人，你知道，我们运营区块链是新手，运营这些链上智能合约产品也是新手。Robinhood 受到的很多批评——比如我们被称为“公司链”，对吧？他们说，最好的区块链都是由这些组织和联盟管理的，一切都是去中心化的，而你们是一家公司在管理一条链，这怎么能一样好？好吧，也许你牺牲了一点组织去中心化的纯粹性，但你得到的是专注的领导力，以及某个人——或某一群人——带着非常非常清晰的方向推动事情前进。另外一点，我也认为链上有 Robinhood 支持的产品是件好事。很多链采取的做法是“让百花齐放”，让开发者自己去建这些东西。我们也很喜欢开发者，但我认为拥有像股票代币这样有我们背书、人们可以信任的基础组件——我们看到这恰恰会激发更多人在其上构建的兴趣，因为某种程度上人们知道，好吧，Robinhood 在背书，它们是正规的，那是个值得信赖的品牌，我们知道它们不会消失。所以这比只是某个地方两三个工程师的团队提供这些基础组件，能给他们多得多的信心去构建。

And private companies, and really the vision for Robinhood Chain and tokenization is: let's just take all the things that work on Robinhood and put them on chain and make them available to people in all these countries. And I think one thing I've learned is — a lot of people, you know, we're new to operating a blockchain, we're new to operating these onchain smart contract products. And a lot of the criticisms that Robinhood has received — like we've been called a corpo chain, right? Like, the best blockchains are managed by these organizations and consortiums and everything's decentralized, and you guys are a corporation managing a chain. How is that going to be as good? Well, maybe you sacrifice a little bit of organizational decentralization purity, but what you get is just focused leadership and someone — or some group of people — with very, very clear direction pushing things forward. And the other thing is, I also think it is good to have Robinhood-backed products on the chain too. A lot of chains take the approach of, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom, let the developers just build all this stuff. We love the developers as well, but I think having primitives like stock tokens that have our backing, that people can trust — we've seen that that just creates more interest to build on them, because to some degree people know, okay, Robinhood's backing them, they're legit, that's a trusted brand, we know they're not going to go away. So that gives them much more confidence to build than if it was just a team of two or three engineers somewhere offering these primitives.

有没有一个你希望存在于股票代币之上的组合，或者已经来自生态、让你很兴奋的例子？

Is there an example of a composition that you think should exist on stock tokens, or has already come from the ecosystem, that you're excited about?

我在想的一件事是——对，就是怎么把这些衍生品，比如期权，拿过来？能不能做出真正好用的、智能合约原生的期权合约？传统市场有过大量的创新，但某种程度上被阻碍了，因为要摆脱大型机、迁移到更现代的东西上太难了，还要照顾所有那些依赖系统可预测、慢速运转的交易对手方。所以我认为很大一部分就是：我们提供基础组件，让开发者以新的方式把它们组合起来。我不想预设开发者会想出什么，因为我根本没法告诉你，股票挂钩的股票代币挂钩 NFT，或者股票代币与 meme 币的交易对，会成为一种东西。我就是完全无法预见这些东西会多快成长并变成现实。

I mean, one of the things that I'm thinking about is — yeah, it's like, how can we take some of these derivative products like options? Can you make really nice smart contract native options contracts? There's been a tremendous amount of innovation in the traditional markets that's to some degree stymied by how hard it is to just move off of mainframes onto more modern things, and to take all the counterparties that rely on the system being predictable and slow-moving. So I think a big part of it is just: let's provide the primitives and let the developers put them together in new ways. And I don't want to presuppose what developers come up with, because I wouldn't have been able to tell you that stock-linked stock token-linked NFTs or stock token meme pairs would become a thing. Like, I just had no way to foresee how quickly those things would grow and become real.

它不一定是所有权。你对预测市场怎么看？

It's not necessarily ownership. What is your perspective on prediction markets?

对，我其实认为预测市场确实和所有权有关，因为很多人拥有独特的知识和想法，他们对一些也许不是所有人都知道的事情有犀利的观点。比如你可能是 AI 模型开发方面的专家。我们有很多合约，让你可以就本周、本月或今年哪个 AI 模型最好进行投机和对冲。而在预测市场出现之前，把这种知识变现的方式非常间接——比如你也许可以交易谷歌股票或英伟达股票的衍生品——

Yeah, I mean, I actually think prediction markets do tie into ownership, because a lot of people have unique knowledge and ideas, and they have hot takes on things that maybe not everyone knows. Like, you might be an expert in AI model development. We have lots of contracts that allow you to speculate and hedge on what AI model will be best this week, or this month, or this year. And the way to monetize that knowledge before prediction markets was highly indirect — like maybe you could trade derivatives on Google stock or Nvidia stock —

不够精确。

Imprecise.

对。所以能够把自己的知识变现、而且更直接地变现，这一点很重要。这其实也是我们宣布、并计划推出 KPI 合约的原因之一。很长时间以来，如果你想——假设你在研究一家公司，你相当有把握它会超出盈利预期，EPS 或营收。过去，如果你买入股票，或者买入股票的期权，有时候公司确实超出了盈利预期，但股价却因为某个不相关的原因下跌了——比如业绩指引之类的。所以 KPI 合约现在让你可以真正交易 EPS 数据、营收数据，或任何对公司可能重要的其他 KPI。所以我认为有这一面：你可以真正把自己的信念变现，可以更精确地对冲。比如有一个“加州亿万富翁税会通过吗”的合约，我认为对某些人来说是个有用的对冲工具——不是我本人，我没有用它对冲，但有人可以。另一面是，我认为它是一种新的信息来源。我几乎把它看作——在纯粹形态下，预测市场是新闻的演化。那么未来的新闻是什么样子？我不认为是《纽约时报》。但我认为它可能是类似的东西，有头版、商业版、生活方式、文化、体育——体育是其中很大一部分。你可以通过赔率看到正在发生什么、未来可能发生什么。所以很多人甚至不交易这些东西，他们就是喜欢打开 App 看看。

Yeah. And so there is an important thing with being able to monetize your own knowledge and doing it more directly. It's actually one of the reasons we announced — and we're planning to launch — KPI contracts. So for a long time, if you wanted — say you're studying a company and you have a pretty good idea that it's going to beat earnings, EPS or revenue. Well, in the past, if you bought the stock, or you bought an option on the stock, sometimes the company would beat earnings, the stock would go down for some unrelated reason — guidance and one of these things. So KPI contracts now allow you to actually trade the EPS print, the revenue print, or any of the other KPIs that might matter to a company. So I think there's that aspect where you can actually monetize your belief. You can hedge more precisely. For example, there's a "will the California billionaire tax pass" contract, which I think is a useful hedging instrument for some people — not me personally, I'm not hedging with it, but one could. The other thing about it is I think it's a new source of information. I think of it almost as — in pure form, prediction markets are an evolution of news. So what does news look like in the future? I don't think it's the New York Times. But I think it could be something like it, where you have your front page, your business section, lifestyle, culture, sports — and sports is a big part of it. And you can just see what's happening and what's likely to happen in the future through the odds. So a lot of people don't even trade these things. They just like to open the app and check out.

就是我。

That's me.

会发生什么？

What's going to happen?

你觉得人们会让智能体替他们交易吗？什么时候？影响是什么？

Do you think people let agents trade for them, and when, and what's the impact of that?

对。我们今年早些时候发布了一个产品，基本上就是 Robinhood MCP。我们叫它智能体交易，我们还有智能体信用卡。所以在更广泛的智能体金融领域，我认为有两样东西已经找到了产品市场契合点。一个是智能体交易——非常明显，让智能体替你执行交易、为你执行策略。我们看到了非常强劲的采用：自发布以来的几个月里，超过 15 万名客户在我们这里开通了智能体交易账户。

Yeah. So we launched a product earlier this year, which is basically a Robinhood MCP. We call it agentic trading, and we have an agentic credit card as well. So in the broader realm of agentic finance, I think there are two things that have product-market fit. One is agentic trading — very clearly, having an agent execute your trades and do a strategy for you. And we're seeing really strong adoption: over 150,000 customers have opened agentic trading accounts with us in the few months since we launched it.

哇。

Wow.

而且如果你看工具调用量，工具调用一直沿着这条平滑的指数曲线增长——我们上次公布的数字大约是每天 3000 万次工具调用。所以智能体交易显然找到了产品市场契合点。我们从只有一个 MCP 开始，几周前在我们的 Hood Summit 活动上，我们发布了 Robinhood Agents，基本上又往前走了一步：运行框架和整个 UI 现在都在 Robinhood 账户里了。所以你可以把它想成——如果你是 Claude Code 或 Codex 用户，它几乎就像那样的工具，只是为交易做了优化。所以你可以跑循环，说：好，每天执行一次我的策略，再平衡我的投资组合，看看机会。

And if you look at the tool calls, the tool calls have just been following this smooth exponential — the last number we announced was something like 30 million tool calls per day. So agentic trading clearly has product-market fit. And we started by just having an MCP, and a couple weeks ago at our Hood Summit event, we announced Robinhood Agents, which is basically taking it one step further: the harness and the entire UI is now inside a Robinhood account. So you can think of it as — if you're a Claude Code or Codex user, it's almost like a tool like that, optimized for trading. So you can run loops and say, okay, every day execute a run of my strategy, rebalance my portfolio, look at opportunities.

我们有 skills，所以你可以做投资组合再平衡之类的事情。我们有智能体应用。我们上线了一个应用商店，比如你可以接入一个卫星数据源，如果你想创建一个策略，去数零售商停车场的车辆，或者类似的东西，我们会把它提供出来。我认为它的演进方式是：我们会去看各种 coding harness 具备的所有能力，然后想办法提供非常干净、交易者原生的版本，让成为一个活跃交易者变得非常非常简单。

We have skills, so you can do a portfolio rebalance or all sorts of other things. We have agent apps. We launched an app store where you can, for example, connect to a source of satellite data, and if you want to create a strategy that counts cars in parking lots of retailers, or something of that nature, we'll make that available. And the way I think that'll evolve is we're going to look at all the capabilities that the coding harnesses have and see how we can provide really nice, clean, trader-native versions of that, that just make it really, really easy to be an active trader.

太棒了。你觉得这对参与者结构或者金融基础设施会有什么影响？因为你描述的很多事情，机构交易者本来就有能力做，但成本高、门槛也高，对吧？所以如果这些被民主化了，意味着什么？

Amazing. What do you think the impact is of this on either participant mix or financial infrastructure? Just because many of these things that you describe, institutional traders have the ability to do this, but it's expensive and sophisticated, right? And so if that's democratized, what does that mean?

这其实就是这个产品的北极星。就是：我们能不能把对冲基金或者成熟的算法交易公司的能力，装进普通人的口袋里？就像如果你是一个很厉害的计算机科学研究生，你可以写一个交易策略，如果你再费更多功夫，你还能把它部署起来，能在数据中心拿到机架空间、连上交易所——我们能不能把这一切都简化，让 Robinhood 的智能体和我们的 MCP 像让任何人都更容易成为软件工程师那样，让更多人更容易成为量化交易者。我认为结果就是交易活动会变多。一开始它会集中在相对小的一群成熟用户里，但他们的交易活动很可能会大幅增加，然后随着时间推移，它会逐渐渗透到越来越多的人口中。

Well, that's really the north star of the product. It's: can we put the capabilities of a hedge fund or a sophisticated algorithmic trading firm into the pockets of normal individuals? So in the same way that if you were a sophisticated grad student in computer science or something, you could write a trading strategy, and if you went through even more effort you could deploy it, you could get rack space in the data center connected to the exchanges — can we just streamline all aspects of that, so that in the same way that it's made it easier for anyone to be a software engineer, Robinhood agents and our MCP can make it easier for more people to be quant traders. And I think the outcome of that is there will just be more trading activity. I think at first it'll be concentrated in a relatively small group of sophisticated people, but their trading activity will likely increase quite substantially, and then over time it'll just filter to more and more of the population.

对，我觉得编程是个很好的类比。有很多人想——有些人本来就写代码，他们是最早采用 coding agent 的，产出成倍增长。但现在也有一些人，以前根本不会去碰 VS Code 或 Cursor，但有人教他们怎么用 Claude 或 Codex，现在他们就能很轻松地建一个网站。所以我觉得它会整体抬高水位。我相信做软件、把东西自动化的欲望，比我在这波编程和智能体式编程 AI 出现之前以为的要广泛得多。但想靠一个信念赚钱，感觉是一件更普遍得多的事。

Yeah, I think coding is a good analogy. There's lots of people that want to — there's people that code, and for them, they were first to adopt the coding agents and their output multiplied. But then now there's people that just wouldn't have picked up VS Code or Cursor before, but someone showed them how to use Claude or Codex and now they can build a website really easily. So I think it'll lift the tide across the board. I believe the desire to make software or automate things is much broader than I perhaps thought before any of the coding and agentic coding AI happened. But wanting to make money off of a belief feels like a much more universal thing.

对。而且我觉得随着它变得更容易——很多人都是有想法的，对吧？如果你能把这个想法变成策略，摩擦尽可能小，如果我们能让它接近买一只股票的摩擦，那我觉得会有多得多的人去做。

Yeah. And I think that as it becomes easier — a lot of people have ideas, right? And if you can take that idea and turn it into a strategy with as little friction as possible, if we can get it to approach the friction of just buying a single stock, then I think a lot more people will do it.

这个问题可能没有答案，但有没有什么明显的方式，是金融基础设施或风险管理需要为此改变的？

There may not be an answer to this question, but is there an obvious way in which financial infrastructure or risk management needs to change in reaction to this?

我不觉得有。我跟你说说我们第一天就有的保护措施。现在你必须创建一个新的独立账户，和你的 Robinhood 主余额隔离。你可以创建一个 MCP 账户，可以创建一个智能体账户，你得把钱转进去。然后对于选择开启交易审批的客户，默认情况下你必须批准你的交易，但之后你可以把它关掉，这样你就可以——权限。

I don't think so. So I'll tell you the safeguards we have on day one. Right now you have to create a new separate account which is segregated from your main Robinhood balance. So you can create an MCP account, you can create an agentic account, you have to move money in there. And then for customers that choose to have trade approvals, by default you have to approve your trades, but then you can turn it off so that you can — permissions.

没错。

Exactly.

其实它没有听起来那么危险，因为它并不能进到你的其他账户里——那笔钱不是给你用的。所以它是沙箱化的。它是一个沙箱化的——也许不算完全物理隔离，但已经很接近了。而且我们在 Robinhood 内部构建了很多——我们打磨了很多用于沙箱和 harness 的基础设施。

Well, actually it's not as dangerous as that, because it's not like it can go into your other accounts and — it's not money for you. So it's sandboxed. It's a sandboxed — maybe not quite air-gapped, but pretty close. And we built a lot of the — we refined a lot of the infrastructure for the sandboxing and the harness in-house at Robinhood.

对。到目前为止，我认为它还不是市场里很大的一部分。我看不到有明确的大规模重构必要，原因是高频交易已经存在很久了。市场大约 20 年前就完全电子化了，所以从交易所到很多券商，都已经适应了这个新现实：大部分工作流是算法交易，发生在新泽西的数据中心里，而不是很多人仍然以为的那样——纸质票据、场内交易员和交易池。所以我不觉得监管上有什么根本性的东西必须改变。但随着它变大——我毫不怀疑它会变大——我们可能会遇到一些特殊情况，需要更明确的监管。

Yeah. So far I think that it's not just a huge percentage of the market. The reason I don't see any clear massive overhauls necessary is that high-frequency trading has been a thing for a really long time. I mean, markets went fully electronic about 20 years ago, and so everything from the exchanges to a lot of the brokers have sort of conformed to this new reality of most of the workflows being algorithmic trading that happens in data centers in New Jersey, rather than what a lot of people still think happens, which is paper tickets, floor traders, and a trading pit. So it's not clear to me that anything fundamental has to change with regulation. But as it gets bigger, and which I don't doubt it will, we might run into special cases for which we need more regulatory clarity.

对，我更多是从基础设施的角度。如果就拿编程作类比——我没有，也许我们都该预见到，但我觉得当时并不明显：面对代码生成几个数量级的增长，CI/CD 会彻底撑不住。

Yeah, I was more from an infrastructure perspective. If you just use coding as a proxy — I did not, maybe we all should have, but I think it was not obvious that CI/CD was going to completely fall over in the face of orders-of-magnitude growth in code generation.

哦对。

Oh yeah.

所以我的问题是：当然我们早就有高频交易了，但如果每个人都是高频交易者，那感觉就是一种新的负载。

And so that was my question, which is like, yes of course we've had HFT, but if everybody is a high-frequency trader, that feels like new load.

对。我是说，这个技术栈里有好几层，对吧？而且我们应该预期——我们的链上技术栈略有不同，它已经有 MCP 了，但我们有链上工具，其中很大一部分是——我讲过 Robinhood Chain 是现实世界资产最好的链。它也是 AI 智能体最好的链。所以我们在那里看到很多智能体式交易，在我们的 CFI 中心化产品上。我们对整个系统有很多端到端的控制，对吧？我们有自己的数据库，有策略运行所依赖的代码、沙箱。这些工具很多都是我们自己构建的。我们得把这一切都优化好。但一旦它通过我们的系统，就会到达做市商这样的地方，它们都是极其成熟的软件公司。我是说，你说的是 Citadel、Jane Street、Jump Trading。这些都是低延迟、高频的玩家。所以我不太担心它们扩容来满足需求。然后是交易所，因为高频交易和算法交易的压力，交易所已经真正优化了它们的 API 来处理巨大交易量。但话说回来，我认为算法交易在总交易量中占比仍然很低。所以我觉得我们会提前得到一些预警。

Yeah. I mean, there's a couple of different layers in the stack, right? And we should expect — our onchain stack is slightly different, that already has MCPs, but you have our onchain tools, which a lot of it is — I talked about Robinhood Chain being the best chain for real-world assets. Also, it's the best chain for AI agents. So we're seeing a lot of agentic trading there, on our CFI centralized offerings. We have a lot of end-to-end control over the entire system, right? We have our databases, we have our code that the strategies are running on, the sandboxes. We build a lot of those tools. We have to optimize all of that. But once it gets through our system, you get to places like the market makers, which are all extremely sophisticated software shops. I mean, you're talking Citadel, Jane Street, Jump Trading. These are low-latency, high-frequency folks. So I'm not so worried about them scaling to meet the demand. And then you have the exchanges, and the exchanges, because of pressure from HFTs and algo trading, have really optimized their APIs to handle huge volumes. But that said, I think we're still at a low percentage of total trading being algorithmic. So I think we'll have some warning.

考虑到你如此坚信所有权，以及民主化的所有权对社会稳定很重要，也关乎人们的机会，我觉得有一种感觉是，AI 革命并不是一个被广泛拥有的东西。你对这里的解决方案有什么想法吗？也许你也可以谈谈 Trump accounts。

Given you're such a strong believer in ownership and then democratized ownership as important to societal stability, and also just opportunity for people, I think there's a sense that the AI revolution is not a broadly-owned thing. Do you have an idea of what the solutions here might be? And maybe you can talk about Trump accounts as well here.

是的。我认为我们去年就发现了这个问题。这涉及几件事，对吧？首先，所有主要的创新型 AI 公司都是私有的。我是说，有一些例外。你可以看看 Nvidia 和 Google，但这些公司在真正进入 AI 的新阶段之前就已经相当大了。所以如果你几年前想投资一个大语言模型，想获得 OpenAI 或 Anthropic 的敞口，作为个人投资者你基本上没戏。

Yeah. And I think we identified this problem last year. It's a couple of things, right? First, all of the major innovative AI companies are private. I mean, with some exceptions. You can look at Nvidia and Google, but those companies were already quite big before they really got into this new phase of AI. So if you wanted to invest in a large language model a couple years ago and you wanted exposure to OpenAI or Anthropic, you're basically out of luck as an individual investor.

我认为这有很多原因。一个是私募市场变得——高增长的成功的公司在私募市场融资变得非常容易。你知道，它们基本上有——

And I think there's a lot of reasons for that. One is private markets have gotten—it's gotten really easy for high-growth successful companies to raise money in the private markets. You know, they basically have—

在大规模上。

At massive scale.

大规模。而过去不是这样的。回到 80 年代，像 Microsoft 这样的公司，甚至 90 年代的 Amazon，它们上市时的估值是几亿美元。所以在公开募股期间进入的个人投资者可以赚到 1000 倍。现在，如果你有一个 AI 实验室以一万亿或两万亿美元的估值上市，为了让 IPO 时的个人投资者赚到那种回报，他们得涨到千万亿，对吧？太疯狂了。我认为这基本上不太可能。也许可能发生，但我认为会难得多。

Massive scale. And that didn't used to be the case. Back in the '80s, a company like Microsoft, even in the '90s with Amazon, they went public at valuations in the hundreds of millions. So individual investors that got in during the public offering could make a 1,000x. Now, if you have an AI lab that goes public at a trillion or two trillion, in order for an individual investor at IPO to make that type of return, they'd have to get into the quadrillions, right? It's crazy. I think it's unlikely basically. Maybe it could happen, but I think it's going to be much tougher.

相反，收益不断集中到越来越小的一群风险投资家或机构投资者手中。然后我们还在想，为什么人们对数据中心不满？你想想，如果我是一个个人，我从这些活动中没有任何经济收益。事实上，你可以说，它威胁我的生计、我的工作，它污染我的社区。它们制造了所有这些噪音。

And instead, the gains keep getting concentrated into a smaller and smaller group of venture capitalists or institutional investors. And then we're wondering, well, why are people upset about data centers? Well, if you think about it, if I'm an individual, I don't benefit economically from any of this activity. In fact, you could say, well, it's threatening my livelihood, my job, it's polluting my neighborhood. They're making all this noise.

然而把 AI 和加密这样的东西放在一起对比。加密并不是——并不是每个交易加密的人都赚钱，现在比特币是多少，85,000？如果你几个月前在 120,000 买入，你就亏了。2022 和 2023 年对加密行业来说至少可以说是艰难的。那些年很多人亏了钱，但 2024 年他们全力出动，我认为以有意义的方式左右了选举。

And yet juxtapose AI with something like crypto. Crypto has not been—it's not like everyone trading crypto makes money, and right now Bitcoin is, what is it, 85,000. If you bought at 120,000 a couple of months ago, you're down. 2022 and 2023 were rough for the crypto industry to say the least. A lot of people lost money in those years, but yet in 2024 they came out in full force and swung the election, I think, in a meaningful way.

而只要有一点对加密监管越界的迹象，你就有一大群人在社交媒体上狂轰滥炸，给他们的议员发消息，寸土必争地抗争。我认为很大一部分原因是加密从一开始就是由个人广泛分散持有的，而机构几乎是后来才进来的。而 AI 则不同。

And if there's even a hint of regulatory overreach for crypto, you have this army of people that are just blasting social media and messaging their congressman or woman and just fighting every inch of it. And I think a big part of it is crypto is distributed broad ownership by individuals from the beginning and it's almost—institutions are coming in late. Whereas AI is the difference.

那我们怎么办？我们推出了两样东西。我们相信每个人都应该能够投资私有公司，而我没法有效地说服公司更早上市——尽管我有时会尝试。比如我们确实有我们的 IPO——我是说，我们是承销商。我们活跃在那条管道里。但个人投资者应该从私有公司中受益，并成为大股东。这就是 Robin Hood Ventures 背后的真正愿景。

So what do we do about it? Well, we launched two things. We believe that everyone should be able to invest in private companies, and I can't convince companies to go public earlier too effectively—even though I try doing that sometimes. Like we do have our IPO—I mean, we're an underwriter. We're active in that pipeline. But individual investors should benefit from private companies and be a huge shareholder. That's really the vision behind Robin Hood Ventures.

我们怎样才能让个人散户投资者不是你种子轮和 A 轮股权结构表中的重要组成部分变成一种反常？所以他们应该——他们实际上应该处于尽可能早的阶段。所以 Robin Hood Ventures Fund One，我们实际上为此有一个创新的结构。你可以把它看作一家公开上市的风险投资公司。

How can we make it so that it's an anomaly to not have individual retail investors as a big constituent of your seed and Series A cap table? So they should get—they should actually be at the earliest possible stage. And so Robin Hood Ventures Fund One, we actually have an innovative structure for this. You can kind of think of it as a publicly traded venture capital firm.

所以我们做的是，我们用了我们的 IPO 渠道，那是最大的 IPO 散户渠道。我们用它通过 IPO 从 Robin Hood 客户、个人散户那里筹集资金，然后用它投资初创公司。然后这些基金在纽约证券交易所公开交易。所以它们就像股票一样交易。

And so what we did was we used our IPO channel, which were the largest retail channel for IPOs. And we used that to raise capital in an IPO from Robin Hood customers, individual retail, and then we use that to invest in startups. And then the funds are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. So they trade just like a stock.

Robin Hood Ventures Fund One 是后期私有公司。OpenAI 在那个基金里。你还有几家其他公司。Finex，很多 AI 公司，11 Labs，Crusoe——我们最近宣布的。所以那是超后期。然后我们问自己，我们怎样才能真正走到极端，让人们获得种子轮和 A 轮的敞口？

And so Robin Hood Ventures Fund One was late-stage privates. OpenAI is in that fund. You have a couple of other companies. Finex, a lot of AI companies, 11 Labs, Crusoe—we recently announced. So that was ultra late stage. And then we asked ourselves, well, how can we actually go to the extreme and give people exposure to seed and Series A?

这就是 Robin Hood Ventures Fund 2 的由来——想法是与 YC 合作，用一种结构让人们获得尽可能早阶段的敞口，那里风险最高但机会也最大。那就是 Rich Aberman 为我们管理的基金。然后我们还有私有公司的代币化，它以不同的方式解决那个问题，但目前是在美国以外。

And that's where Robin Hood Ventures Fund 2—the idea came to partner with YC and use a structure to give people exposure to the earliest possible stage where the risk is highest but opportunity is also greatest. And that's the fund that Rich Aberman is running for us. And then we have tokenization of privates which solves that problem in a different way but right now for outside of the US.

而北极星是，我们能不能让一家私有公司像股票或加密一样，以零碎数量 24/7 实时交易。你应该能够以低金额 24/7 交易 Anthropic，拥有某种程度的高质量所有权，至少和拥有 SPV 的 LP 权益一样好，对吧？而这应该对所有人可用。所以这需要在美国推动一系列事情——合格投资者规则是其中之一。但是的，我们非常有动力去引领并实现它。

And the north star is can we get a private company to be real-time tradable 24/7 in fractional quantities just like a stock or a crypto. You should be able to just trade Anthropic 24/7 in low dollar amounts with some degree of high quality ownership at least as good as owning LP interest in an SPV, right? And that should be available to everyone. So that requires pushing on a bunch of things in the US—accredited investor rules being one of them. But yeah, we're highly motivated to lead that and make that happen.

那正是我想问你的问题，也就是，比如如果你是一个风险投资家，有一个你认为会在私有市场赚钱的投资组合——

That was my question for you, which is, if you are, for example, a venture capitalist with a portfolio you think is going to make money in privates—

有些人会有有限合伙人的选择，有机构，有你的朋友可以帮你赚钱。显然，关于合格投资者和认证的规则限制了零售兴趣。你的观点显然是，其中一些规则需要更新。

Some people will have a choice of LPS, there's institutions, there's your friends you can make money for. Obviously there are rules around QP and accreditation around taking retail interest. Your view is clearly like some of those rules need to be updated.

是的，你知道，SEC 上周宣布了一项倡议，允许一条单独的路径，所以他们指示 FINRA，也就是主要的经纪自营商监管机构，创建一个考试，一个认证考试，个人可以去考试中心参加一个 2 小时的考试来获得认证。我认为……

Yeah, you know, there was an initiative by the SEC. It was announced last week to allow a separate path, so they directed FINRA, which is the primary broker-dealer regulator, to create an exam, an accreditation exam where you can go as an individual and get accredited by taking a 2-hour exam at a testing facility. And I think...

而不是基于资产？

Versus it being asset-based?

而不是基于资产。或者还有，你知道，你可以附属，你可以有 Series 7 执照，那是与金融公司的附属关系。但是的，所以这是一个基于知识的考试。我认为这绝对是一个积极的步骤。我认为他们正在做事情，但是的，我认为目标应该是降低摩擦，因为有多少人会去考试中心参加考试？所以我认为需要做更多的工作，我们将继续站在推动这一点的前沿。

Versus it being asset-based. Or there's also, you know, you can be affiliated, you could have a Series 7, which is an affiliation with a financial firm. But yeah, so it's a knowledge-based exam. And I think it's definitely a positive step. I think they're doing stuff, but yeah, I think the goal would be to make it lower friction because how many people are going to go and sit for an exam at a testing facility? So I think more work needs to be done and we're going to be at the forefront of continuing to push for that.

我认为反对这种规则演变的主要论点会是某种防止欺诈和家长式管理的意识。你如何看待这一点？

I think the main argument against such evolution of rules would be some sense of protection against fraud and paternalism there. How do you think about that?

对于我们的客户？你知道，我们花了很多时间与他们交谈，了解他们关心什么。他们最关心并同意的一件事是：我应该掌管我的钱，没有人应该告诉我如何花费或投资我的钱。当我们问客户，你同意这一点吗？我的意思是，压倒性的同意。所以并不是说他们个人会想要进行每一种高风险投机投资，但他们不认为政府或任何人有资格告诉他们 broadly 如何处理他们的钱。现在，当然，我认为人们应该绝对清楚这些产品是什么，所以我们应该确保告诉你它是什么，给你尽可能多的信息。但是，你知道，我想到这一点。我会告诉你不要投资热门的 IPO 吗？IPO 肯定有风险。模因币，甚至模因币都有完美的监管清晰度。如果你想买模因币，你可以自由地这样做。SEC 甚至写了一封信说这些不是证券，它们是收藏品。你知道，道路是清晰的。所以我认为从几个不同的角度来看这是愚蠢的，尤其是，你知道，模因币在任何数量下都完全没问题，但私人公司……

For our customers? You know, we spend a lot of time talking to them, figuring out what they care about. And one of the things they care about most that they agree with is the statement that I should be in charge of my money and nobody should tell me how to spend or invest my money. When we say to our customers, do you agree with this? I mean, just overwhelming agreement. So not to say that they'll personally want to do every type of risky speculative investment, but they don't think that it's the government's place or anyone's place to tell them what to do with their money broadly. Now, of course, I think that people should be absolutely clear on what these products are, and so we should make sure to tell you what it is, give you as much information as possible. But, you know, I think about this. Am I going to tell you not to invest in the hot IPO? IPOs are risky for sure. Meme coins, even memecoins have perfect regulatory clarity. If you want to buy a memecoin, you are free to do so. And the SEC even wrote a letter saying these are not securities, they're collectibles. You know, it's clear the way. So I think it's silly from a couple of different angles, not the least of which is, you know, memecoins are completely fine in any amount, but private companies...

从纯粹的风险导向来看，限制私人公司是不合理的。

It's not rational from a pure risk orientation to restrict private companies.

是的，我认为这是对的。而且人们很聪明，对吧？我认为应该有一些合理的监管。我支持这一点。但我认为我们只是走得太远了，使合格投资者规则变得必要的条件不再成立。我的意思是，这些规则来自互联网之前的时代。你甚至无法获得任何信息。而现在，关于一切的信息涌入，特别是私人公司，以及可以为你搜索和综合信息的 AI 模型。所以是的，我认为现在这有点不太合理了。

Yeah, I think that's right. And people are smart, right? I think that there should be some sensible regulation. I'm in favor of that. But I think that we've just gone too far and the conditions that made the accredited investor rule necessary no longer hold. I mean, these rules are from a time before the internet. You couldn't even get any information. And now there's just an influx of information about everything, particularly private companies and AI models that can just scour and synthesize it for you. So yeah, I think it makes a little bit less sense now.

你能谈谈 Robinhood 在支持特朗普账户方面做了什么吗？

Can you talk about what Robinhood is doing to support Trump accounts?

是的。所以这是我们为国家服务的方式，我们为此感到非常自豪。Robinhood 被选为特朗普账户的唯一初始受托人和经纪人，我们正在与 BNY（美国最古老、最具传奇色彩的银行）以及财政部和国税局合作，使这个项目成为现实。是的，其背后的想法是，我们能否让每个孩子从出生起就通过低成本的多元化 ETF 拥有美国经济的一部分，通过标普 500 指数。对于每个新生儿，即 2025 年 1 月及以后出生的所有孩子，在未来三年内，他们将获得财政部提供的 1000 美元种子资金。迈克尔和苏珊·戴尔通过他们的基金会又增加了超过 60 亿美元，用于低收入邮政编码地区的儿童，还有很多人跟随，比如格温·肖特韦尔承诺捐赠 SpaceX 股票。布拉德·格斯特纳是这个项目的智囊和架构师，他推动了它，并且还向印第安纳州的公民及其子女捐赠了一大笔钱。所以我们正在提供基础设施，构建应用程序。你知道，我们喜欢它，因为我认为这是真正将家庭股票持有率从 65% 提高到 95% 的最佳方式。所以，当它成功时，我认为它将在几十年内带来一个更加稳定和繁荣的社会。我们的目标是让它成为政府有史以来推出的最佳产品，以及特朗普总统遗产中最持久的积极方面。这就是我们的目标。

Yeah. So this was like our way of serving our country, which we're very proud of. So Robinhood was selected as the sole initial trustee and broker for the Trump accounts and we're working with BNY, which is America's oldest and most storied bank, and with Treasury and IRS to make this program happen. And yeah, the idea behind it is can we get every child from birth to own a chunk of the US economy through the S&P 500 through a low-cost diversified ETF. And for every newborn child, so everyone born in January 2025 onward for the next three years, they get $1,000 seeded by Treasury. And Michael and Susan Dell through their foundation added another over $6 billion to children in lower income zip codes and a bunch of other people are following like Gwynne Shotwell committed a donation in SpaceX shares. Brad Gerstner, who is the brains and the architect behind the program, he pushed it forward and also made a really big donation to the citizens of Indiana and their children. And so we're kind of powering the infrastructure, building the app. And you know, we love it because I think it's the best thing for actually getting household stock ownership from 65% to 95%. And so, when it's successful, I think it'll lead to a much more stable and prosperous society in many decades. Our goal is to make this like the best product the government's ever launched and the most enduring positive aspect of President Trump's legacy. That's our goal.

这是一个了不起的努力。给你的孩子报名吧。所以最后一个问题。安德鲁·里德，我们都很熟悉，他形容你是一个奇怪的组合：无限的智商和在处理金融市场、公关和庞大用户群的变幻莫测时最稳定的手。你如何保持冷静或镇定，或者你对许多收听的企业领袖有什么建议？

It's an amazing effort. Sign your kids up. So last question for you. Andrew Reed, who we both know well, described you as a strange combination of unlimited IQ and the steadiest possible hand when working with the vagaries of the financial markets and PR and large user bases. How do you keep your levelheadedness or cool or what advice do you have for the many business leaders that listen?

我认为小时候经历很多挑战让我非常习惯于应对挑战，对吧？你知道，我有一个非常支持我、了不起的家庭，伟大的父母，但我们是一起经历的，对吧？我们同时移民到美国，我不是那种被给予东西的孩子，对吧？几乎就像你是这个家庭的一员，我们都必须想办法解决。我有我的部分，他们有他们的部分。所以，你知道，显然他们是个孩子，但从很小的时候就被赋予很大的自主权，几乎像平等的人一样对待。你知道，我们在 Robinhood、Harmonic 等所有事情上经历了很多商业挑战。但是，当你退后一步说，‘好吧，这与驱逐出境的威胁相比如何？这里 5% 的通胀就让你惊慌失措？我们小时候经历的 2000% 的通胀呢？’所以你知道，有时我会用这个来思考我自己的孩子，对吧？

I think going through a lot of challenges as a child just made me very used to going through challenges, right? And you know, I had a very supportive and amazing family, great parents, but we were kind of in this together, right? We all immigrated to the US at the same time and I wasn't like a child that was given things, right? It was almost like you're a member of this family and we all kind of have to figure this out. I had my part, they had their parts. So it was, you know, obviously they're a child but kind of treated with a lot of autonomy almost as an equal from a very young age. And you know, we run through a lot of business challenges at Robinhood, at Harmonic, at all these things. But, you know, when you step back and say, 'All right, well, does it compare to the threat of deportation? What about the inflation here of 5% and freak out about it? What about the 2,000% inflation that we went through as children?' So you know, sometimes I think about that with my own kids, right?

你为他们创造挑战吗？

Do you create challenge for them?

我们尝试。我的意思是，我尝试构建挑战，但你必须构建它，对吧？这有点难。他们得到很多积极的东西，比如他们可以有导师。

We try. I mean, I try to construct challenge, but you have to construct it, right? It's a little bit harder. And they get a lot of positives like they could have tutors.

他们能去各种各样的博物馆，而我小时候没有这些。他们有安全感。但我觉得，必须去挣扎、去承受，这一点非常重要。我尽量去营造那样的环境，但我觉得自己还没想明白。所以我认为这是很大的一部分。而且，大概就像我们之前聊的，这里面有相当一部分是先天与后天的问题。也许我天生就是这样。我也不知道其中有多少是环境造成的。

They could go to all kinds of museums that I didn't have. They have safety. But I think there's something very important about having to struggle and endure. I try to create that environment as much as possible, but I think I haven't figured it out. So I think that's a big part of it. And also, probably as we were talking before, it's a good bit of nature versus nurture. Maybe I was just born like that. And I don't know how much of it's the environment either.

我觉得如果把它提炼成给其他领导者的建议，那就是一种乐观的看法：无论你正在经历什么挑战，都会让你在未来更加沉稳。

I think if we take it away as advice for other leaders, it is just the optimistic take that whatever challenge you're going through will make you more level in the future.

我觉得这是贝索斯说的，对吧？应对所有这些挑战最好的办法就是脸皮变厚。这一点你可以控制自己，但你控制不了外部世界。所以如果你真能做到，我觉得这似乎是一种并非人人都具备的强大超能力。

I think Bezos said this, right? The best approach to all of these challenges is just grow thick skin. You can control that about yourself, but you can't control the outside world. So if you can actually do that, I think it seems to be a big superpower that not everyone is capable of.

太棒了。非常感谢你，Vlad。这次聊得非常好。

Awesome. Thanks so much, Vlad. This is great.

谢谢你们邀请我。

Thanks for having me.

在 Twitter 上找到我们，账号是 No Prior Pod。想看到我们的脸就订阅我们的 YouTube 频道。在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你收听节目的任何平台关注本节目，这样你每周都能收到新一期。也可以订阅邮件，或在 no-flyers.com 找到每一期的文字稿。

Find us on Twitter at No Prior Pod. Subscribe to our YouTube channel if you want to see our faces. Follow the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. That way you get a new episode every week. And sign up for emails or find transcripts for every episode at no-flyers.com.