u/Odd_Classic_5351

有没有人知道 Robinhood Ventures Fund I (RVI) 和 Fund II (RVII) 的募资规则？另外，对于一只专注于风险投资的私募基金，通过公开市场发行筹集资金是否可行？

Does anyone know the offering rules for Robinhood Ventures Fund I (RVI) and Fund II (RVII)? Also, is it a viable approach for a VC-focused private fund to raise capital through a public market placement?

Don’t trust anyone’s public persona, don’t label others, and don’t believe the labels others put on you.

控制你能控制的，做到完美；放下你无法控制的，继续前行。

Control what you can, perfect it; let go of what you can’t, and move on

With the increasing number of stock tokens like RWA, are there any arbitrage opportunities? Are there any experienced traders who can share their insights?

Here’s the checklist I usually run through before putting on an options trade:

1. Pick the underlying. I only sell puts on stocks I’d be comfortable owning for the long term. Broad ETFs like QQQ and SPY are also good candidates.
2. Pick your timing. If a stock or ETF looks overheated, I’m happy to wait. I’m still bullish on QQQ over the long run, but I’d rather wait for a pullback before selling puts. Bollinger Bands can be useful for timing the entry.
3. Choose the expiration and strike. I usually look at 30–45 DTE and keep the delta around 0.20 or lower. Then I work out the expected return after commissions and fees. The yield has to make sense.
4. Run the Wheel. If I get assigned, I’m perfectly happy to own the shares and start selling covered calls.

I just sold a put on COIN. The annualized return on the trade is around 16%, and I’m comfortable owning COIN if the stock drops below my strike.

For me, the key is pretty simple: only sell puts on stocks you actually want to own.

What profit opportunities exist in stock tokenization? I welcome your thoughts and discussion.

二十多年前，Y集团与X集团几乎同时起步做一级市场业务，都是中国国内较早从事PE/VC的大平台。Y集团偏金融背景，X集团偏产业背景。

那时候，我在Y集团。

说实话，当时我们多少有点看不上X集团。觉得他们投资不够专业，没有金融机构灵活，不擅长抓机会、做交易、找项目，甚至不会"抄作业"。

二十多年过去，再回头看，结果却很值得反思。

X集团的CVC体系已经枝繁叶茂。从早期投资，到产业协同，再到基金管理，逐渐形成了一套能够持续自我生长的体系。

反观以金融资本为背景、强调机会捕捉的Y集团，虽然也抓住过不少机会，但整体波动更大，风险事件更多。后来不少团队分化、独立，后续发展也并不轻松。

这些年的经历，让我越来越觉得，一级市场长期做得好的机构，大概可以归纳为两类。

第一类，是产业资本（Corporate Venture Capital，CVC）。

它们最大的优势不是金融技巧，而是产业认知。它们比别人更早看到需求，更理解技术，也更容易创造协同价值。对它们来说，投资不是一笔交易，而是整个产业布局的一部分，因此能够耐心布局，一步一步把价值做出来。

第二类，是长期站在技术前沿的人。

他们一般是行业技术大咖，虽未必有"上帝视角"，但拥有更长远的产业视角，能看到的是未来五到十年的技术演进，而不是未来几个季度的市场情绪。

他们投资时关注的往往是几个关键词：**早、 新、 硬、 准、 熟**——早期、新方向、硬科技、准确判断，以及熟人（长期积累的产业人才和网络）。

金融资本当然也有自己的优势。它擅长资源配置、风险定价和交易组织，但产业的发展不会因为金融模型而改变。真正的超额收益，很多时候来自认知，而不是估值模型。

如果缺少产业能力支撑，一级市场很容易变成追热点、抓机会、赌退出。行情好的时候快速扩张，行情不好时迅速收缩，甚至不断推倒重来，很难真正沉淀形成自己的能力圈和资本积累，也很难享受到长期复利。

这二十多年的经历，让我越来越相信一句话：

**风险资本，最终还是要建立在产业资本之上。**

一级市场拼到最后，比的未必是谁更会找项目，而是谁更接近产业，谁更理解技术，谁真正参与了价值创造。

真正能够穿越周期的机构，大多都有自己的"根据地"——要么是一条产业链，要么是一项核心技术，要么是一群持续创造价值的人。

只有风险资本在自己的根据地里扎根、生长，形成持续的现金流和产业能力，它才有可能细水长流并茁壮成长。

I plan to use the wheel strategy on Pfizer PFE and COIN, and I might also consider QQQ if it drops further. I'm not making any recommendations; if any bro have similar experience, please feel free to share.

Over the past century, how many consumer electronics products have remained scarce for long? Almost none. 😄

Once something becomes scalable, supply eventually catches up—and often overshoots demand.

If you're investing in AI applications, don't just watch the AI infrastructure story. Keep an eye on biotech as well. The next wave of outsized returns may come from where AI meets life sciences.

https://preview.redd.it/52jxa1ekd4gh1.png?width=1033&format=png&auto=webp&s=e7e97a51fd4bdfc5d03e8956f0a32e0e123c737f

"Sincerity at its highest allows one to foresee what lies ahead."

The longer I invest, the less certain I become. Anyone who has made investment decisions knows the feeling.

When facing an uncertain future, we immerse ourselves in research—financial statements, macroeconomics, history, technology, even geopolitics. We build models, test assumptions, and run endless scenarios.

Yet experience has taught me something humbling: all that analysis often matters less than the quiet intuition I had at the very beginning.

Our knowledge is finite. The unknown is not. The more I learn, the more I realize how much remains unknowable. The longer I invest, the more I respect the market.

Being small is rarely the problem. Arrogance is.

The most valuable instinct doesn't come from noise or overconfidence. It appears only when the mind is clear, the ego is quiet, and humility leaves room for insight.

The world is infinitely complex.
I choose to approach it with sincerity, humility, and an open mind.

You are free to choose your own path.

The first rule of every gold rush is simple: sell the shovels.

That strategy has worked exceptionally well in the AI era. Since the arrival of ChatGPT, capital has poured into semiconductors, networking, memory, power infrastructure, and data centers. Investors who owned the "shovel makers" have been handsomely rewarded. In many cases, the market has priced the infrastructure more aggressively than the gold itself.

But investing is always about looking one cycle ahead.

The real question for the next three years is no longer who sells the shovels, but where the gold actually is.

Despite extraordinary technological progress, many frontier AI companies are still investing heavily with profitability yet to arrive. Even the largest technology companies continue to spend tens of billions of dollars pursuing their next breakthrough. Infrastructure has become crowded, well understood, and richly valued.

History suggests that when the cost of the tools falls, innovation accelerates downstream.

As GPUs become more abundant, inference becomes cheaper, and AI infrastructure scales globally, the greatest opportunities are likely to emerge at the application layer—not in the models themselves, but in the industries they transform.

AI-powered manufacturing. AI-driven drug discovery. AI in life sciences. Autonomous mobility. AI-native entertainment. Robotics. And countless "AI + X" businesses that have yet to be imagined.

Ironically, an oversupply of shovels may become the strongest catalyst for the next wave of value creation. Lower infrastructure costs expand access, reduce barriers to entry, and unlock entirely new business models.

The greatest investment opportunities are often built on yesterday's excesses.

https://preview.redd.it/8c2jcg8g1afh1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=efc50ca7924fd67071b878851876284f1b97a552

Perhaps the next fortunes won't be made by selling the shovels—but by finally discovering where the gold has been waiting all along.

One thing I've always liked about Alphabet is the word "Bets."

Most companies call them "new initiatives" or "innovation projects." Alphabet simply calls them Other Bets—a reminder that the future is uncertain, and breakthrough businesses are built by making a series of intelligent bets.

In 2025, Alphabet generated over $400 billion in revenue. Almost all of it came from Google Search, YouTube, Android, and Google Cloud. Other Bets contributed only a tiny fraction of revenue while losing billions of dollars.

From a short-term perspective, that doesn't look attractive.

From a long-term perspective, it may be one of Alphabet's greatest strengths.

Waymo is already operating commercial autonomous ride-hailing services. Isomorphic Labs is applying AI to drug discovery. Wing is building drone delivery networks. Intrinsic focuses on industrial robotics, while X continues to incubate moonshot ideas that may not pay off for years.

Most of these projects will probably never become major businesses. That's the nature of investing—and innovation.

But they don't all need to succeed.

If just one of these bets becomes the next Google Cloud, or even the next Android, the returns could justify years of investment.

To me, that's the real story behind Alphabet.

Google Search and Cloud generate the cash flow. That cash flow funds long-term bets. And those bets give Alphabet a chance to participate in the next technological shift, whether it's autonomous driving, robotics, AI-powered healthcare, or something we haven't imagined yet.

As investors, maybe the question isn't "Which bet will win?"

Maybe it's "Which companies have the financial strength, patience, and culture to keep making great bets?"

对小细节的敏锐观察需要清晰的洞察力和果断的取舍；做出重大决策需要冷静的头脑、深入的考虑和在承诺之前的谨慎行动。能够在瞬间看透事物的本质，以及坚持不懈的毅力——这两者都是生活中非常优秀的品质。通过时间的培养，每一种都能带来截然不同的满足感。

Sharp observation of small details calls for incisive clarity and decisive trade-offs; making big decisions requires a calm mind, thorough consideration, and deliberate action before commitment. The ability to see through to the essence of things in a minute, and the perseverance to keep going—these are two excellent qualities to have in life. Cultivated over time, each can lead to a remarkably different kind of fulfillment.

Let’s cut the crap. AI is changing the game, but not in the way most pundits think.

The old VC model – source deals, write checks, take a board seat, pray – is dying. Not because of valuations, but because we no longer add enough value. Founders don’t need us for intros or “strategy” anymore. That’s all commoditized. Meanwhile, compute costs, data moats, and research talent are the real bottlenecks. If your partners can’t read a model architecture, you’re already irrelevant.

So what’s the new play? Look at a16z. They’re not a fund – they’re a production studio. Scouting researchers before they even have a deck. Running in-house labs. Building marketing machines that make tech CEOs look like movie stars. They option talent, package it with compute and distribution, and greenlight “projects” like film slates. Equity is just the producer’s cut.

That’s a paradigm shift – but only for the top tier. The middle 80% of VCs will get squeezed out. The winners will be vertically integrated R&D shops with the risk appetite of venture and the ops of a tech giant.

Now, the Hollywood model has its own problems – budget bloat, agency conflicts, overhyping duds. Most movies flop. But in AI, the hit rate matters less than owning the pipeline.

Here’s what keeps me up:

· Are we overrating a16z’s PR, or is this genuinely smarter?

· Does this shut out founders who don’t want to be “produced”?

· Do we need bigger funds to play this game, or smaller technical pods?

.What should small-scale funds do?

Keen to hear from folks on the inside – or LPs who are betting on this.

Studying old news is often more interesting than following today's headlines.

In 2000, Cisco’s stock price hit $52 and its valuation surpassed $200 billion; major institutions unanimously recommended the stock, predicting the dawn of the internet economy.

From 2000 onwards, Cisco’s stock price spent the next 25 years in decline from that all-time high.

The predictions were actually correct: by 2025, Cisco’s revenue had tripled and its net profit had quadrupled compared to 2000—yet investors paid the price for those future expectations for a full 25 years!

Price is what you pay; value is what you get.