In this episode Jay Zhao and I talk about:

• What investment opportunities Jay is currently excited about?
• Jay’s favorite investment so far – Sleeper
• How can a Venture Capitalist stay honest and humble?
• How are the interests of entrepreneurs and venture capitalists aligned?
• What is the best way for founders and VC’s to find a “common match”?
• Is the ‘big stagnation’ real? Will AI solve our GDP growth issue?
• What is the best company to start in China right now?
• Is China now ‘more entrepreneurial’ and ‘more common-sense’ than the US?
• Is China now in a similar phase as Germany was post world-war I?
• What role does the ‘superiority complex’ play in China, Germany or Japan.
• What are China’s best cities?

Jay Zhao is an entrepreneur-turned-VC, and is currently Managing Partner at Leonis Capital, he was a Partner at T Fund (aka TCL Ventures) and Walden Venture Capital before.

You can reach Jay via LinkedIn.

Welcome to the Judgment Call Podcast, a podcast where I bring together some of the most curious minds on the planet. Risk takers, travelers, adventurers, investors, entrepreneurs, or simply mind partners. To find all the episodes of this show, please go to iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or go to judgmentcallpodcast.com for more resources, including how to become a guest, how to advertise, and to see all the lectures, podcasts, and books I would like to you, would like you to listen to or read. Please also go to our website at judgmentcallpodcast.com. Like this show? Please consider leaving a review on iTunes or Like us and subscribe to us on YouTube that will make it easier for other users like you to find us later on. This episode of the Judgment Call Podcast is sponsored by Mighty Troubles Premium. Full disclosure, this is also my business. What we do at Mighty Troubles Premium is to find the best travel deals for you as they happen. We do that in economy, premium economy, business, and first class, and we screen 450,000 new airfare deals every day just for you and present the best based on your preferences. Thousands of subscribers have saved up to 95% of their airfare deals. In case you didn’t know, Americans and Europeans can already travel to more than 80 different countries again, South America, in Africa, and in Eastern Europe. To try out Mighty Troubles Premium for free, go to mightytroubles.com slash mtp.com. That’s too much for you to type, just type in mtp4u.com, mtp4u.com to start your 30 day free trial. I’m very excited today to be here with Jay Sao and Jay as an entrepreneur turned VC and is currently a partner of Tfund, which is also called TCL Ventures, and TCL is a big Chinese mainland corporation, and Tfund is a subsidiary of the company and makes venture investments worldwide. Before that, Jay was a partner at Walden Ventures and a principal at Granite Ventures, both in the Silicon Valley. Welcome to the judgment call podcast. Jay, it’s good to have you. You’re having me. Hey, absolutely. Absolutely. You’re very curious. Maybe you can first shed a little bit more light on the current fund you’re working with that you’re running, the Tfund, and maybe give us an idea about TCL. And also, we want to know what brought you to the dark side, so to speak, or brought you to venture capital, leading entrepreneurship. Maybe you can give us some idea of your background. Yeah, happy to do that. So just to give you a new update. So I’m now an advisor to Tfund. After starting Tfund about two and a half years ago, I’m actually running my own fund. It’s a site fund. It’s just getting started, just like a startup. So it’s a call. Congratulations. Thank you. It’s exciting, really humbling journey as well. It’s really about focusing on backing automation economy companies. The fund is called Leonis Capital, and the idea is that we will be the first check writer to back AI first companies in both the US and China. So we don’t really care where the company come from. But we love to back global mining founders that fits along with the thesis. And to give you, like you said, I had the fortune to start venture fund like Tfund. That was backed by TCL, which is one of the largest consumer electronic company in the world. And the idea was really to invest in entrepreneurs in China, in the US, and also in Israel. So quite ambitious goal. And we set it up the entity very similar to Google Ventures, where we combine the best of venture investing, as well as corporate resource and insight to helping those companies. And we did good amount of investment in 2018 and 2019. And maybe we’ll talk more about it later on. But as you know, as tech decoupling between US and China get more advance over the past two years, the investment just kind of getting harder to do. Having said that, most investment that we did in all those three regions have performed really well. Before that, I was leading early stage investment into venture fund. One is called Walden, and the other one is Branded Ventures. Both are really well established fund. I learned quite a lot. One was started in 1974, along with Sequoia and Klein and Perkin. So if you want to learn the classic and the best way to practice venture, then you can’t find a better place to learn the craft from. So I built my experience and my track record at those two funds. Some of the investments that we did at those venture funds are companies. I’m thinking about more consumer driven companies. So we’re an investor shareholder in Airbnb, and also an investor in Pandora and an early shareholder in Netflix, as well. And then on top of that, obviously, we also invest in a lot of enterprise companies, successful enterprise companies like Anamplan, Maketa, to name a few, both of them are in the range of $5 billion to $10 billion market cap company now. But most people recognize consumer brand much easier than the enterprise companies. But for us, for Leonid’s capital, we focus on both. We might talk a little bit more about AI driven companies in enterprise space and also in consumer space. Yeah. That’s a really good theme. I know you recognize how much of a password it is right now, but there is a big theme in the market out there, and I’m a personal user and developer with AI, so I know what it can do. We had Stephen Schwartz on a couple of episodes ago, who’s a statistics professor and was one of the first founders, I’d say, of an AI startup back in the 80s. And he gave us a very interesting view how this is partially just a high partiality of the statistics and partially does something great going on, which I learned from David Orban last week is really the way of acceleration of the AI is way faster than Moore’s law. So I feel we all have heard at least some buzzwords and some of us in the audience have played around the different AI mechanisms. Give us an idea of what your last fund, and I know that was already focused on AI. Give us an idea of what kind of are you looking for, what’s the perfect startup that you would like to invest to right now, and if AI is still as much of a focus in your new fund, and if so, what does it mean using AI in the enterprise? Because when we think of AI, we think first of Google algorithms or Facebook algorithms or self drawing cars, right? Yep. That’s a good question. So AI is a really broad term, right? People kind of throw different meanings and their own understanding into the term of AI. And a couple of years ago, there was a debate about whether AI is going to end in humanity or not. And I think that was the emotion that kind of mixed with the typical movies that we have seen in the past. But I think in reality, in terms of venture investment opportunities, we’re mostly talk about vertical AI. So the AI driven or AI enabled applications for either consumer case or enterprise case. I don’t think it’s a hype. I don’t think it’s a fact for sure, because what we have done is that we have looked at in a tech evolution over the past, let’s say 40, 50 years. Every 10 years, you have a mega trend that’s taking place. So if you think about it, in the 1980s, that was IT and infrastructure. And then to the waiver of internet. And then we have cloud and then mobile. And now we believe at 2020 and going forward next 10, 20 years, it’s going to be AI driven automation economy. So those are the bigger mega trends that we try to wrap our heads around. Not only to identify the next iconic companies, not just unicorn companies, the iconic company that will last 50 or 100 years or even longer. And those companies creation are really strongly tied to the mega tech trend. And not only that, if you think about the creation of venture capital fund, it’s the same thing. You cannot create, we talk about timing for entrepreneurs, for companies, you have to write the perfect wave or you have to be at the right place at the right time. Same idea with venture capital fund. Sequoia was started when the whole wave of IT infrastructure and PC was just around the corner. And they were backing, in the early stage of venture capital, were backing a lot of semiconductor companies, the infrastructure type of companies. But for the one that did well, you gained your reputation and gained your first step of success by making those investments based on the trend. And then later on, you have a newer and younger venture fund that’s better identify the tech trend like internet, like mobile and like cloud. So similarly, with AI first companies and automation economy companies, it actually calls for different type of investors, maybe more nimble, maybe have a different pattern recognition for those companies to describe. So to answer your question, you ask, like, what are the type of companies that we’re excited about? You know, we can kind of go in very depth about it because we wrote a whole thesis about, you know, this investment opportunity and why we started living in this capital. But to sum it up, you know, we are excited about AI first companies to solve really specific problems in real industries. So for example, how do you use AI to solve the inefficiency problem or increase inefficiency, in front of a manufacturer setting, all for healthcare setting, all for payment and Vintech. So those are the day to day life, what we call the real economy in people’s day to day life. But with AI first approach, you’re not just talking about, you know, the digitization of a cloud software, you know, kind of just kind of put your data from offline to online. But instead, we’re seeing the trend of big or small companies migrating and trying to strategize in what, how can we better utilize the data. Not for just business insight, but actually for real action, you know, for either for software delivery or for people’s user experience from the consumer side. So I really like what you just said, and I think it is very honest of you because it kind of is rare for venture capitalists to admit that they’re actually trend followers, right? They need to see and identify a trend, but also they need to figure out who is going to make this trend even bigger. This could be the public market, so it could be other follow on investors. So that’s something that a lot of venture capitalists don’t really want to talk about. But going back, and I hope I’m interpreting you correctly here, but going back to AI, a lot of people might not be familiar with the relatively broad scope that we just talked about. Once you look back into the investments you did in the last two or three years, what is the portfolio company from the last two or three years that you were most excited about or read? Things kind of worked out exactly like you wanted them to be. Yeah. I mean, that’s a really tough call, right? So the beauty of early stage investing is that the delta could be, the performance delta could be really high. That’s when you hear about the return of 10X and 100X and even more, because you were able to take the risk early on, and therefore you were a meaningful partner to the founders. But at the same time, that’s a scary thing, because a lot of things could change, and you have to deal with a lot of unknowns. One company that kind of came to mind is really about backing the founder at the early stage. It’s a company called Sleeper, S.L.E.E.P.E.R. So they are the number one leader in the fantasy sports space. So if you are a sports fan or you love playing fantasy sports with your friends, they are really the number one app out there. So what they have built is not only a really slick app, but if you think about the type of founder that we like, the one with global perspective and global minded, they started a company about four years ago, three or four years ago. So with the idea that if you look in the U.S., we have a lot more consumer app that’s single purpose focused. You go to Yelp for business rating review, and then you go to Facebook for the social content, and then you go to a messaging app or WhatsApp for text messaging. But then if you look at China, WeChat is one of those very successful and widely adopted super app out there. So with Sleeper, they have their idea about building a super app for sports fans in a place that you can consume content, you can play games, you can message with other people, and you can even give things, do the virtual gifts with your friends. It’s not a kind of, I would say it’s kind of like a noble concept to the very least, to do a lot of investor in the valley. But to me, I think it makes sense, because if you compare the consumer behavior in both countries, some are different, but a lot are the same. The key is that you can build and execute a well crafted product around that thesis. So for that company, I was lucky enough to be able to bond with the team and roll the first personal check, and then onboard an asset advisor. Right now, they raise a B round from a well established firm like Andreessen and General Pathless, so both the big funds manage like $2 billion asset management. So it’s quite a right from where they were to where they are now, but at the beginning it was not that easy, but after we invested in the company, then they had the difficulty in terms of how to sustain the user growth, and how to keep engaging users in the scalable and efficient way. And to the point that, I think there was a confusion period that we don’t know where the product direction would be, and we’re getting involved going forward. So that’s really, when you hear about early stage ventures, an investor talk about early stage investments, it’s really just about the team, Nan, Weishi, and Ken, they’re the type of founders that demonstrate that they have a conviction about the idea to the degree that before they raise any capital, they’re just really working around the garage. You talk about Silicon Valley companies, but they really work around the garage, sleep on the couch, and just nothing will kind of dissuade them to not pursuing a sleeper. So to me, that was a good sign. That’s one of the best quality that you can look for in early stage founders. And if you ask me, if you go to sleeper.com, they do a lot of different things now, including allowing people to play game, fantasy sports game around eSports. That’s something I didn’t anticipate when we were investing in the company. I like how you described this as a partnership, it’s something that you did together with the entrepreneurs. I’ve been raising money the last 20 years. I have a dozen startups that I’ve been involved in, most of them on the operational side. And I always find that you get the typical VC pitches, like we’re going to be your partner, we’re going to open up the doors, we’re going to give you a follow up funding. And once the trend changes, and it always changes, as you just described, every company goes all through these pivots usually. And what usually happens is that they give you a year, and then if your numbers don’t look very explosive, they typically either replace you, they cut off your funding, they don’t give you a follow up funding. This is often a problem that you get a very different pitch from the initial investors. And often what they do in the end is transform it to someone who is both very, not as personal, often very arrogant, it seems to be an occupational hazard in the VC industry. Not very open to the ideas anymore. And obviously if your startup rises very well, then these attitudes change. What I’m trying to say is there isn’t really a partnership, and maybe this is a good thing, it’s really based on what happens within 12 to 18 months as a startup, if it really explodes, you’re going to be invited to all the parties. If it’s one of the 95% that doesn’t really explode, then maybe it’s growing, but it’s not really within that vector that we see was looking for. Maybe the best you can hope for is a referral to a company that buys you. So I always feel like the VC reputation and the actual, especially if you go further in the later funding rounds, it’s slightly different in reality. And I know you trying to establish a different personality of a VC, do you think you can keep that up? Or is it something that everyone starts out humble and curious and wants to make a decent amount of money, the first billion is in, they become arrogant and far off and very difficult to talk to? Yeah, so this is a very good question, and obviously I’ve been thinking about it a lot. So one of the things, well, perspective that I have is I was an entrepreneur myself before turning to VC, so I know how difficult it was to raise capital and how difficult it was to face a lot of rejections, and even if you get the funding, you still have to go through the road across the ride with the up and down. So with that type of experience, it’s truly either you have the experience or you don’t. And that’s what enabled you to build that empathy and connection with the founder at the early stage. So I will kind of break down your question in two parts. One is at a high level, and I do think there is a disconnection between what VC just in general has put in front of themselves as a face. Many VCs call themselves founder friendly and will align with you, kind of do everything that they can to get the allocation that they need into the deal, and then afterwards things kind of evolve, things change. I think that has been the practice over the past five to eight years, roughly, when capital is more abundant than the high quality of deals. But I do think it’s important to recognize the interest between founder and venture fund are not completely aligned, that they just talk about that, right? Because what, for example, what could be a life changing exit or events of an exit that’s say $10 million or $20 million, that could be a life changing to entrepreneurs, start his or her first company. But that might not be meaningful to a billion dollar venture fund, because you’re not driving the type of return they’re looking for, so they really don’t care, right? They would rather have the optionality for you to go big or go home than to have that small realization of exits. And I think oftentimes, you know, either founders, they don’t want to recognize that because they would rather kind of prioritize the brand name of the firm, the high number of the fund size over what’s really aligned under the hood. I’m not saying you should go either way. You should go with the big fund and then you should go with the small fund. It just each fund, their fund size kind of dictate their interest alignment with you and type of goal that you’re trying to achieve. That’s for sure. Jay, I’m totally with you there. And I think entrepreneurs have learned that lesson. That’s obviously a disconnect. But I mean, people who don’t realize this as an entrepreneur, they’re idiots if you ask me and they don’t know what you’re doing, right? I mean, there needs to be a certain professionalism, even to entrepreneurs, even if you talk about 18 year olds. So I mean, that is obviously true if you take money at $100 million valuation, then $150 million is not a great exit, $150 million is losing money. So I think entrepreneurs understand that if they kind of make the deal with the devil and go with the big fund raise on a high valuation, maybe actually too high, they do have to shoot for an extremely high exit relatively quickly. Well, that’s dependable at least within the fund running time. So I think entrepreneurs know that, but I still feel the general pitch of a partnership is kind of rare. I mean, I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but I’d say it’s 90% marketing and 10% real from my point of view. But maybe I’m wrong. It’s the opposite. Maybe the entrepreneurs lie and they do lie all the time. I’m fully with you. I mean, the entrepreneurs lie all the time and the VC is lying all the time. So I’m just focusing on VCs now. Yeah, no, no, I hear you. I think the point that you’re trying to make is that, you know, how much is a real service and real value had versus just, you know, marketing and an ellipse service, right? That’s being delivered to the business partners. And I think that’s good points. You know, for my own personal experience, I have spent time at two different venture fund that was well established and co founding one venture platform at T fund and now fully starting my own. And for a period of time, I actually was really obsessed with the whole formation and foundation of venture capital fund or venture capital firm, because if you think about it, not many venture capital firm can sustain as long as, you know, Walden, as long as Sequoia, as long as Client of Perkin. And obviously Sequoia is the one that’s not only sustained long, but also they being the number one for so many, so many years. So what’s the secret between that and many other venture fund that was starting from one and then quickly become irrelevant in year five or year 10, right? So that was an interesting question to me. So one of the questions and one of the reasons is being, well, there’s multiple reasons. But one of the reasons at a high level is that for venture funds, that’s not able to sustain because if you think about venture venture fund like a product, like a startup, you’re not delivering value to the end customers. You might be able to get away with it, you know, for the fund one, which usually lasts five to 10 years. But if you’re not delivering value to them, then just like companies, you’re not sort of serving in market and then you become quickly irrelevant. So the way that you think about this is that, you know, what’s needed for a company’s entrepreneur’s journey, right? So you have different phase, you know, from pre seed to seed to Series A, Series B and going beyond. So for us, and for the stage I’m passionate about, it’s really the early stage. So you’re talking about seed and Series A. So for these stage companies, we, the bonding is super important. We’re not interested in doing the brain surgery of replacing founders because if you are thinking about that, just even one thought at that early stage, then you might not as well just not partner with a company, right? So that’s not what you should be focusing on. But what you really want to do in the value add for that stage is that one, and you see I2I with that founder at a personal, not just at business level, obviously you’re doing business together, but at the personal level, like, is your value aligned? The way I think about this is that, you know, and I often tell this to entrepreneurs that we raise capital at the early stage, you’re not just taking check, but instead you’re actually looking for a co founder, right, except that it just happened to be this co founder is going to bring, you know, good amount of capital with him or her. So you really want to make sure that value and the vision is really much aligned. Now going forward, if you raise your speed and beyond, then you might not need the advice and service from that early stage co founder, which is totally fine, you know, as you scale up. So that’s one thing you really want to do. And the second thing is that how can the early stage investor be value adding to you to find in helping you find the first batch of customers and how can he or her really, really really make the business going, kind of get off the ground really quickly. So that often means a lot more, you know, customer introductions. So for us, we actually have the CXO and advisory board that purposefully construct to help a company that we invest in terms of accelerating their go to market and setting up POCs. So you will see many venture fund talk about it, but few of them will actually set up a program in the structure to be embedded in the venture platform that you do to support venture partners. But frankly, it’s too early to tell, you know, we’ll see, you know, like right now it’s with where we started about self, we kind of put out our product roadmap out there. There’s a lot more work for us to do, you know, we’re going to deliver the results. So ask me that question five years later, and hopefully I can give you a better answer. I mean, I buy your approach. I think it’s a really good one. I also like Daniel Gross’s approach, you know, this accelerator, making everything remote. And basically, he I think he’s thinking it may be a little far, he’s basically making entrepreneurship a basic algorithm. So you basically don’t interact on a personal level, but you’re just looking at numbers and it’s fully remote where you never have to talk to anyone. You basically assume you can be being defrauded anyways, but you’re making it up in numbers. So I like this approach in terms of basic innovation. I think it’s very hard to pull off on scale. It’s definitely very, and he’s funded by Mark Andreessen and by Strike. So they see this as a great way to try and out and nurture a different ecosystem. But I heard you talk about that before that as a VC, you need to be part historian, part biologist, and I would say you will also have to be a philosopher, like you have to identify these big trends and then put them into abstract rules that you can follow. So called first principles. So you don’t have to start from scratch all the time. And I also feel you just said that there’s a lot of psychology involved, you know, it’s been like a dating app. You got to find out are you on a platonic level and that’s obviously different. But are you able to deal with that person for the next five years and have board meetings, have Zoom calls all the time or will you be annoying after six months and then, you know, it’s really not worth it. It’s not worth your time. I’m struggling with this because in my personal experience, often the most annoying people that I knew, because they were so annoying and socially awkward and like really abrasive, they delivered a lot of good returns because basically no one else would talk to them because everyone tried to avoid them. But like this was their social motivation to really excel at their job. So sometimes I feel the clicking with someone is not necessarily the person that will be the most successful. But, you know, I have trouble making that judgment obviously a lot of times myself. Yeah. So, yeah, I think that’s absolutely right. So the part that we’re trying to, so this kind of tied to your previous question is how do we evaluate early stage company when there are so many uncertainties and what are we looking for in terms of early stage companies? The part that the team is obviously important. So I agree. I mean, a lot of tech founders, they’re really good at the technology and the product they build. But not all of them has the kind of, you know, what you call the salesman type of personality that’s super sociable and very easy to, you know, get along with. And if you think about like the, you know, the book Steve Jobs, right, at the earliest of his career, he didn’t have a good, you know, easy time fundraising because his personality was just very hard to get along with. So I think for us, like the lesson for me, certainly the takeaway lesson is that you really have to lower your ego. So it’s not about you get along with that person at the level that satisfy your ego. And frankly, you know, from the position of writing checks, a lot of people will want to say what you would like to hear instead of the troops, right? So that’s a part that you really need to pay attention to. So there’s a phrase that, you know, I think is really appropriate in investing world, which is, you know, just observe the presence. So observe the presence, meaning you have to listen and you have to listen hard. That’s why you have two years and one month, right? So you want to listen to what the other person have to say and to value whether there is some truth in it or not. But the other part, I would say early stage is about founders, but founder doesn’t make up the whole equation. So the other part is the market, the market sizing. And that come from an independent, rather independent point of view. How do you think the market will involve and how big the market size is? And that’s kind of when we think about venture investing. And then one of the reasons I named the fund, Leonid’s capital, you know, Leonid’s kind of represent the, you know, the star constellation, right? And it’s bright and it’s long lasting, but more importantly, it’s a component of nature. So that’s how we think about different things that going on in business world, especially in startup and incumbent their competition. A lot of it kind of represent to, you know, what we have learned from ecology, biology, very similar in terms of how the in animal world, people compete or in animal world, animals compete, animals can thrive when the new species, you know, come along to present a different dynamic to the ecosystem. So the same thing, you know, when we think about marketplace, sorry, when we think about the big market or emerging market, we really want to understand how the dynamic play into fact. And if that founder’s point of view makes sense on that. So that’s how, you know, it’s really case by case, but that’s kind of like general framework that we use when we evaluate all these companies. Yeah. No, that’s very good. And that kind of is a nice way to lead into another set of questions I have for you. You know, there is Peter Fields thesis that you’re probably very familiar with about the big stagnation that we have since the 70s, basically what he talks about, and that seems to accelerate in the wrong way. We have a low productivity growth, which leads to low GDP growth. And it’s not really clear where that came from, but why it was so much higher in the period after the Second World War, there’s a couple of hypotheses, like people coming back from the war being exposed to technology, then there wasn’t really an infrastructure to be settled into. And so they start companies and these companies have huge productivity jumps. And there was a lot of basic research done obviously during the Second World War in order to make weapons. So there’s a lot of ideas that float around, and nobody really seems to have a good answer why this happened. And I talked to a couple of prior guests, and some of them are really excited about is that AI alone might add 10, 15 trillion, almost doubling the GDP of the U.S. in the next 10 years, because what AI has the potential to do is basically frayers of anything that’s slightly repetitive with extremely good decisions and anything that comes along, businesses, outside businesses. And I think we do basically have an AI that makes good decisions for us. So our first question is, what is your gut feeling about the big stagnation? Is it just like something people yammer about, but it’s actually nothing to worry about? And second, do you think AI is going to be that key component to get us to the singularity of what Ray Kurzweil described, and this is going to be the most driving factor? So I kind of agree with what you said. So I don’t think we should worry too much about it. But if we look at the world view, it really depends on how much you’re swimming and how much you zoom out, right? So if you zoom out by, let’s say, 10, 20 years or like 40, 50 years, then yes, there seems to be kind of at least plateau of productivity after World War II, and we kind of hit this space of the growth. But if you zoom out even further in the time scope of 100 and even 1,000 years, that you can see each time human beings, like our productivity growth is highly associated with two things. One is the information breakthrough, and two is energy breakthrough. So one of the more recent examples, obviously, is industrial revolution, right? So when we have the machine can replace a lot of manual work in the manufacturing setting, then you’ll see a huge unleash of value creation in most of the developed world. And then kind of going forward to where we’re announced, I mean, I think people kind of underestimate how much the internet, the value of the internet really created for our society. So people joke that we were hoping for a flying car, but instead we got 140 characters, right? But true, I mean, I think both things, it’s not Apple to Apple comparison, but at the same time, if you have any tool, any type of social network can facilitate the efficiency of information exchange, that’s productivity. I mean, that helps human society as a whole to be more productive at the holistic level. So that’s not discounted. So just on the information piece, I think going forward, we’ll have a lot more information, a lot more innovation in the next 10, 20 years. But to your question about AI, as we discussed previously before, I think a lot of exciting things come from the vertical AI. So initially, when I say initially, we’re talking about like 10 years, 20 years type of time frame, initially a lot more companies will be vertical focused AI companies. So less likely to see kind of Google of AI or AI first type of Google that solve every problem that’s just being super horizontal. But instead, you’re going to see who is the AI leader in the FinTech space? Who is the AI leader in the healthcare space? And who is the AI leader in the digital media space? And in terms of digital media, we can already have one that we can look at and we can start to evaluate some early data, right? And that company is Bydance. So Bydance, they’re really good at distributing content and distributing information. So what that does is that instead of, and that’s hugely disrupted to a lot of industries, not just a music app, but to Google, the search engine to Google and also to Alibaba, to eCommerce. The reason being, the old way, when I say old is actually not that old, right, five years ago, 10 years ago, people are searching information by thinking about what I want. And then you kind of go to your website or call the phone and then type something in Google and search something. So that’s human look for information. So what TikTok or Bydance has done is reverse that equation and become information look for human, right? So we kind of, the algorithm kind of know what type of information that you want or you need and kind of predict like at what time you’re logging into the app, usually at 11 p.m. or usually at 10 a.m., then it knows that what type of information you want, you want to see. So it kind of pushed the information to you. It kind of reversed that equation from human look for information to information look for human. And simple as that, it’s just super powerful. So and the other point I would make quickly is that one thing that we have never seen about AI companies is that because unlike the software company, unlike the cloud companies, because the data advantage, it’s super critical to these AI first companies, the ability to acquire those data in a proprietary way and a cost effective way is going to be the key to make or break the next iconic AI companies or AI first companies. And at the same time, because of that component, you’re able to accumulate value in a much faster speed and scale. And that’s what I meant in the blog post that I wrote a few months ago about what does it mean when we talk about AI first companies. So what that means is that if you look at Bydance, if you look at UiPass and a company that’s like since time, all these companies get to the scale of 10 billion to 100 billion in the relatively short amount of time for the very reason that like network effect, like the typical kind of marketplace network effect that we have observed in Facebook, in Uber, and in many other companies that we have seen in the last tech trend, these AI companies have the data advantage. And just like Snowball, it’s going to get a growing bigger, but only going to be more aggressive in terms of growing the value in a much faster speed. So that’s something that we’re pretty excited about. And that’s why when we think about funding the next companies, the successful investments is not just about unicorns. We want to back the next iconic company that will get to the trillion dollar valuation one day over the next 10 years. So that’s a really tall order. And I’m surprised to use it, that TikTok example, because it uses an advanced way, advanced, but in the essence, a collaborative filtering that has been around since the 2000s with the Amazon, and that Netflix has been having their challenge, and there’s parts of unsupervised learning in it and part of supervised. So in a core algorithmic basis, this has been around for at least a decade. And I fully agree with you, it hasn’t been applied in that sense. Instagram and Twitter, they kind of played with it, but they never really got into it. They stuck to this follower concept, and TikTok just basically changed it. But I think what everyone is surprised about in the entrepreneurial community is not necessarily the algorithm, but the scale they pulled it off. It’s clearly that the way of viral content and the initial seats they could afford, and when you have to buy those seats, but then the viral takeover of that has been pretty astonishing. It’s so impossible to predict this. So my point of view, you probably have better data, if something will take off wirely at some point, and if so, and how big it will get, that’s really, really complicated to predict. I have no predictive model for this, and maybe if you find an AI that has a predictive model for this one day, maybe it’s just the nodes in the network that you have to address. I want to move a little bit further into, because ByteDance is a very unique entity, and maybe you know more of the backstory, driven by some relationship to Chinese state run companies. I know ByteDance itself is probably not state run. What is the impact of the state run approval in China typically for startups? If you would go to Shanghai or Beijing, what kind of company would you start, and what are the reasons why it would work better in China than it does in the US? So let me try to unpack that a little bit. So in terms of the content, I think different countries have different regulations in terms of what contents are allowed within its own law and its own territory. So as an investor, frankly, we are mindful of the regulation, and we think companies, you operate in that certain market, then you’re obliged to comply with the law. So you can disagree with the law, and that’s a different issue. But from the capitalist standpoint of view, that’s how the game is set up. That’s how you run your business. So there’s no question about that piece. So the second piece is about the startup opportunity and the exciting opportunity in China that might not be the same dynamic in the US. So I would say two things. So one, I think most people, especially my peers on the investment side in the US, kind of not fully appreciate or not fully understanding what’s going on in China in terms of how fast the technology has been evolving and how aggressive the government has been pushing for the upgrade of a lot of vertical industries that we have talked about. So I would give you some quick example. So at Pfont, we were funding a lot of the manufacturing, what we call the smart manufacturing or manufacturing automation robotic companies. So these companies, they are US companies, some Israeli companies, some Chinese companies. So we have the fortune to see the same investment thesis in three major ecosystems and how they play out. And one thing kind of surprised me kind of when you actually have the front row C to see what’s unfolding is that the customer adoption speed and the willingness to try new things are actually much bigger, the number of customers much bigger and speeds much faster in China than what we have here in the US. So they just talk about like, so maybe it’s just, you know, US economy and Chinese economy is just a different face. I mean, US is more service driven and it’s at different kind of level compared in different nature compared with Chinese economies. But at the same time, you know, we think about, you know, two sides of governments push for technology upgrade, you know, when, I mean, before Trump, right, there was a whole talk about, you know, you really leveraging technology to position US as the leader over the next, you know, 20, 30 years. Now, you know, with Trump, you know, things kind of changed quite a bit over the past four years. But with China, the thing, you know, putting politics aside, with China, that has been quite consistent. I mean, over the past 10 years, everybody knows like where the country’s priority is and the government is pushing the private company, either private company or the state run company to upgrade their, their software technology and hardware technology to be more efficient. I mean, there is more reason, you know, behind that, right, you know, as China economy is upgrading from export driven to internal consumption driven. It’s just a inevitable step that you have to take. But it’s amazing to see, you know, how over the past like five, 10 years, you know, China definitely progressed quite a lot on the industrial side. So that’s. I find it’s really fascinating. So I grew up in a communist country in Eastern Germany, and I didn’t think it was a lot of fun. It was kind of depressing. But I think what China has figured out, and that’s, that’s really, that’s really interesting to me. And that’s where I’m very hopeful about that is they have this virtuous circle of a state direction, which is almost bigger and almost always bigger in the communist or somewhat communist country, even if that label obviously has many, many different meanings. The virtuous cycle of taking a lot of money from save it from Chinese savers, putting it back into technology, but also into basic infrastructure. So the amount of money that was sunk into infrastructure is way beyond the level of a developing country with the same income level. And that is a great thing, right? If you pour so much money into infrastructure, yes, a lot of money might be wasted. But in the end, that pace of because the citizens become more productive once they were productive to make more money, they pay more taxes, and you make more money. So I know you’re a big fan of Ray Dalio. And I think people have overlooked that quite a bit is how well this worked out for China, because it has a start, a stronger state complex. But once it goes into the right direction, you kind of end up more as Singapore is with the autocratic government, but that has pushed people in the right direction, at least for now that might be over now, who knows. And the US on the other side is at the end of their cycle with a lot of debt. And what surprised me the most is the COVID response that we’ve seen in the US and in China, and the news came out today that China seemingly, we never know if these statistics are real, barely had any GDP contractual. What that makes for me, and I’ve traveled a lot to China, and I’ve seen how it changed over the years, and I went to second tier, third tier cities that are still 10 million people cities, but I’ve seen them change over the years. What I find interesting is that in many places, and this is not true probably for the service industry, not if you, I don’t know, create a new brand in the service industry. But for a lot of industries, a lot of places, I actually feel China is now ironically more common sense, more down to earth, more entrepreneurial than many places in the US, like the Bay Area public officials, extremely hostile to technology. And so, you know, a lot of states, a lot of cities are extremely hostile and that’s driven by their voters against technology and anything it has to do with entrepreneurship, which I find very surprising. The way I grew up, and I think we have this, the entrepreneurial mindset is still, it’s very strong in Eastern Europe, you know, people who went through this experience, it’s very strong now in China. So there’s a lot of areas that came up where, if you would have asked me 10 years ago, would have never predicted this. Yeah. Well, I think no. Maybe I’m an idiot, right? You’re the expert. Well, no, I mean, I think it’s hard for anybody to predict, right? I mean, I think it’s fair to say, you know, over the past, like since what? Since 1990s to now, like it’s near 30 years, 30 years China has lived like billions of people out of property, property, and, you know, has developed amazing technology domestically and some kind of even going abroad. And you know, to the point that you talk about is the infrastructure piece, the high speed railway, the speed of deployment, it’s just frankly amazing. I mean, I read, I probably read the same article that you were reading this morning, like the lens of high speed railway in China can make across the US from East Coast to West Coast seven times. So that’s kind of, I wish we had that in the US, you know, wouldn’t that be amazing? You know, if everybody don’t have to drive everywhere and just take the high speed train and so they can make business meetings more productive and faster and you can see your family and relatives easier. So that’s a good thing. I wish, you know, in the US, you know, we have that and we can, you know, make those happen a lot faster at the same time, you know, I think it’s, if you ask me, I’m kind of in the middle in a way, you know, I was born in China. I came to the US, you know, for school and later kind of immigrated here as a US citizen. So I still have family in China. So in a way, I kind of see both sides point of view and a lot of times I can understand, you know, both sides framework and the viewpoint of the world. And unfortunately, you know, just like the cultural adjustment, right, when I first came to the US, the cultural adjustment, cultural shock that I first experienced. And I think a lot of times when a media and the top level people talk about the other side, there is a cultural misunderstanding and there’s cultural miscommunication here and there. I don’t know how that will be solved, if anyway, but for the work that we do, at least, you know, you know, I hope that we can foster more innovation and start up in both countries because more activity, more business activities is always a good thing for both countries. And when we have that, you kind of advance the understanding, you know, one little step at a time. And, you know, that’s kind of the hope and a little bit higher purpose of what we do in terms of what we want to achieve. Yeah. I think the frustration on the US side is something where you feel we help China to create this economy. Well, you know, you can say this is all bullshit in China, what it figures out on their own, who knows, maybe. Yeah. But I think the hope in a lot of officials in the US, I don’t think this is shared necessarily by the broader public, is that there was this hope, you know, once the economy gets going, China is going to look not just look like Taiwan, it’s going to be like Taiwan. And there was going to be hope that people had. And that didn’t really work out so well. And maybe that’s very understandable. And I think this is what on a broader basis, really, is now creating this uncertainty, what’s got to happen if this goes on, because China is probably more entrepreneurial, as you just said, and more business minded. And once this keeps going, I don’t think the catalyst that it will stop in the next five or 10 years, I think it will just keep growing at that rate and will obviously play to their strength. People are getting uneasy what this means for the rest of the world. I think the parallels people draw is like Germany, which, you know, people had big hopes after the first world war in 1929, while in a republic, it all looked like fantastic. And then Germany just used their advantage in science, their advantage in technology, and used it against the good of the world. And that happened very quickly, right? It happened in a less than 10 year period from Germany was the model case for rebuilding Europe after this devastating first world war. And 10 years later, it was basically just heating up Europe in a really nasty way. So I think it doesn’t mean that the Chinese mainland will work out the same way, it might be completely different. I’m just saying, I feel this is what’s behind this retracement of what the America was hoping for China would be. And of course, they are their own country, they can make up their own mind. But I think this is the disappointment in people’s eyes that I see. Okay. So let’s break that down a little bit. So I think the first point about, like, you know, I’m on a different page than the U.S. kind of helped China build the economy where it is today. I think that might be a little bit overstatement because there is still a lot of effort, like a lot of things that need to be put in, you know, on China side, either in terms of leadership, in terms of, you know, entrepreneurs, their work to get to where China is today. But what is fair is that the U.S. agreement of having China join WTO and entering into the international market, that’s a huge deal for China to play at a global scale and therefore a global growth economy. And at the same time, you know, it’s not the one side trade, right? You know, a lot of the U.S. company do want to have a place where they can set up manufacturing environment and taking advantage of lower cost laborers. So it just capitalists network. So you know, putting the just, you know, kind of ideology, you know, on the side. What’s happening? It’s just free market. It just capitalists network. That’s what happened over the past, you know, 10, 20 years. Now the second thing about the, you know, the politics side, that part, I have a different opinion, you know, I think democracy is definitely a good thing. But it’s not the solution to all. And I think when most people, you know, think about a fear of China, I think about it in the 90, 10, 90 or 80, 20 rule, you know, to be generous. I think 80% of people kind of are fearful because they don’t know China. They have no knowledge, never been to China. And what they know about China, obviously, is through the media and through the movies through the past things that they have heard about. Now the 20% are other ones, you know, being to China, maybe like yourself, and also scholars that kind of point out, you know, with these two countries, it’s going to be the number one and number two in the global stage, you know, what’s going to happen, what’s the dynamics going to be. I have my own point of view, but at the same time, you know, I would just say different country might have different system in place, you know, for the reason, given the cultural and given the history, that’s why it’s there. And that’s why it might have worked for them for a period of time, whether China will turn something, you know, kind of look in history, like Germany, you know, after World War I become, you know, what happened with World War II, based on what I know, if you look at the history of China, it’s not, it’s not that, how do I say this, it’s shared a different type of nature in terms of, you know, aggression and expanding its geographic map. And I think Ray Dalio, he kind of pointed out a little bit in his book. And I think that’s part, I’m not smart enough to articulate it, but, you know, this deeply rooted in how China sees the world is not in a way that, you know, China sees the world like we want to take over all the map, like all the territory in the world. This more rooted in a way that China want to have its place in the world that’s being recognized and being respected, you know, by the countries of other countries. Yeah, I like Ray Dalio, he spoke a lot, and I know we both agree on that. The one part I don’t agree is he’s too much of a China bull, and I think he’s drunk to cool it a little much. But on the other hand, I fully agree with you too, an autocratic government doesn’t have to be bad. It can be much better, and the history of democracy and the way we see it as one thing that solves it all, I think it’s a lie. What it does, it long term reduces the risk, often at the cost of reducing progress, like we’ve seen India, right, India’s way behind, and it can’t make up their mind about anything. So democracy, and especially if you don’t have institutions for long running democracy, I think it’s kind of almost like a virtual signaling on the right many times, you push on this value of democracy, but it’s actually, if it doesn’t have the institutions, if it doesn’t have the waters, if it doesn’t have the people who know about China, as you say, and not just from the movies, but actually know by understanding and talking to people, like it’s a big part of what we want to do with this podcast. If people don’t have this opportunity, they’re not able to participate well in their democracy because they’re basically sheep, right, they’re not enlightened about what they’re actually voting for, even if you just vote for a person, in turn, this person might actually have an agenda on specific topics. So I think that’s very interesting. I think we agree on both sides. What I do feel, and that makes me a little crazy when I go to China, and I know this is because I grew up in Germany with this, Germany has a huge superiority complex, and this is because they didn’t have the role they wanted in life, and they lost two wars. I don’t know what it is, but when you go to Germany and you talk to people, and they are honest, and they have a couple of drinks, they will all bring out the superiority complex, which is kind of ugly, if you ask me. And Germans are not the only ones, Japan has that, China has that, there’s a bunch of countries who have it, like India doesn’t have it, for instance, they have a superiority complex, let’s say on a scale from 1 to 10, they may be at 2, and Germany and China and Japan, they are closer to 10 in terms of superiority complex. And I felt, well, this is great, that it kind of pushes you forward, it’s often the demodernation of doing things better, being better at manufacturing, doing everything perfect, which drives the economy to an extent, I think is very dangerous to a sword, and I feel we have that in China. Wait, so just so I understand. So when you say superiority complex, meaning that you say your experience in China is at 10, like failing high, meaning they feel pretty good? No, it’s pretty, well, it’s good for the economy, I mean, I always feel, because it kind of pushes you into this, this sphere where you feel like, let’s say Germans, they go southern Europe or they go to Africa, and they’re in this arrogant world view of, it needs to be like in Germany, Germany is the best country in the world, the water doesn’t run, this country is the best. I see. And Americans have that too, but it’s more, you know, they’re more playful, they’re more open to other ideas, they behave like this, but they don’t really mean it, in my point of view, they probably are the five in my scale. But I feel China and Japan are pretty high in that, and I always feel a good driver for economy, but really scary if the scale tips of whatever reason this country is really pissed, because then they’re going to be really pissed. I see. So I actually have a really different point of view. I actually think the scale for China is fairly low, I mean, compared with Germany or compared with Japan, I think there is a deep rooted insecurity in a lot of Chinese people. Not just about like, well, I mean, mostly it’s about what happened in China’s history over the past 200 years, right? China was like, you know, just fall behind, invaded many times, and, you know, signed a lot of fair treaties based on what we have learned. So that part, I think China is still kind of in the recovery phase, that kind of seated insecurity in the nation’s psyche in a lot of ways. So that’s for one. And the second part is just the pure pressure, the pure competition dynamic. When you’re living a country that has, what, you know, 1.3 billion people, or, I mean, just huge amount of competition that you have to go through at every step of your life, right? Either it’s getting to a best college, the National College Exam, where we have to compete with, not like in the US, but you have to compete with hundreds, thousands of other people to get to that one spot. It’s just kind of embedding you when you grow up in China. So I don’t think, I think most Chinese people, and frankly, including myself, grow up in China, we have this deep sense of insecurity, we don’t feel like we are better than anybody, but we do feel like we have to work hard to get a place in this world. I agree with you, but I feel like it’s the mirror of the superiority complex, the insecurity. There’s the same thing of a different side of one coin for me. But I think we need more time to dive into this. I feel this is really, it’s complicated because it’s very abstract, it’s a big generalization, but I feel there’s a lot behind it that drives people’s everyday life and their attitudes that nobody really talks about. Yeah, I mean, we can talk more about it like the next call, you know, some other time offline as well. I like that idea. I have some quick questions prepared for you. If you want to answer them, ideally just with saddles or two, that would be great. What do you think is your most contrarian view that you hold? In terms of investing or? Sorry, can you say that again? In terms of investing or just? No, anything, anything, anything that you can share on the podcast. Most contrarian. I would start with investing then. I think the activity, investment activity between US and China right now overlooked, the business activity is not going away. So whoever can unlock that and help entrepreneur to start journey in both countries will have a lot to gain. So that’s one of our investment pieces. Going somewhere, we’re going back to China a little bit, but what’s just for personal reasons, what’s your favorite city in China? Shanghai. Can you tell us why in a short explanation? So Shanghai has a lot of activity in enterprise space, in the robotics space that we care about. Plus, for me personally, it’s strategically located between Beijing and Shenzhen. So when you fly to both places, take meetings, it’s only two or three hours away both ways. So I like that a lot. Plus, I mean, Shanghai has the best food, best view and best everything. So it’s definitely one of my favorite places to stay in China. If it can’t be one of the big cities, it wouldn’t be one of the smaller cities, like just less than 10 million people. Shaman. Shaman will be a great place to live. I don’t know about the work though, but Shaman is an island city in the south part of China, right next to Taiwan. We’re really relaxed, a lot of seafood. I spent some time over there, and I really enjoy Shaman quite a lot. Okay, going to a very different topic. Records files prediction, 2038, eventually it was revised from 2045 to 2038 island last week. Do you think the singularity is actually going to happen, or it’s just someone drinking too much of a Kooled. Well, I mean, if you put the time scale long enough, anything could happen, right? But for the time points that you refer to, I kind of doubt it. But you know, separate topic, but I do think humans are going to Mars. So one day, hopefully in my lifetime, in your lifetime, that you know, be able to make the trip and really kind of have human species live outside of the Earth. And I do think that’s kind of in your term, and that’s achievable. Okay. I always ask that to get a sense of where people stand, but it’s something I’m personally very interested in. Do you think we live in the simulation? What does your gut feeling say? And do you feel like, if not, will we start to simulate ourselves at some point? Super question. I don’t think we’re living in the simulation because it has a lot of characteristic that’s similar to simulation, but I think we live in the real world, I mean, with a lot of things that has consequences. So to that regard, you know, the answer is no. Do you think we will simulate ourselves because this is a big topic about AI, right? If you can create something very close to AGI, like a little bit of consciousness may be thrown in, you can kind of download that piece of, say, problem solving that you have in your brain, put it in an AI, it won’t be a fulfillment, but it will be part of, like I say, it’s your Chinese speaking personality that you apply to Chinese philosophy. And you can put this in a simulation and then run through a million different options out there and it will present you, but not just because it’s kind of a personalized AI. So you simulate solving this problem with the AI, but also your own brain and then you just look at the results. You think we’re going to do this relatively quickly or that’s too much science fiction? I think that’s definitely something exciting. I think it’s achievable. And I think probably like 10, 20 years, probably that’s the time scale that we’re looking at. But one thing I would say though, like we’re probably not able to get the full autonomous AI type of solution for a time being of 10, 20 years, it’s always going to be human in the loop to solve a problem, either it’s the scenario that you described or for the enterprise company or that. Would it be my next question, so one of the founders of GPT3, he kind of made that argument that there’s a good chance and an opportunity that the GPT5, which is supposedly out in two years or less, is going to feel like AGI to pretty much everyone who tests it. We won’t know how it thinks and probably won’t have a lot of feelings to share, but he felt like on a purely Turing test of beyond level, we will have trouble to distinguish it from an AGI. Do you think that’s realistic or GPT3 is just a bunch of statistics and is that what’s going to happen? I think that’s realistic. And I think for passing the Turing test, that’s sufficient enough. Now there is something kind of deeper about just on the philosophy and things man made is not going to be as 100% perfect as what happened in nature. Our consciousness and our brain are built by nature and there is just things about how complex our organism has to involve to what we are now. I think humans either is AI or anything that we have built and get to maybe 80%, 90% of the complexity or in terms of beauty of the design of the product, but I just think that last 5% to 10%, we just never be able to feel the gap against what is being created in nature. Yeah, that’s interesting. I feel there is so much to the human brain, but it kind of feels to me those are survival mechanisms, right? That we adopted them because they made us better at surviving and predicting the future with a Turing is better than surviving. So you’re highly selected for the surviving, obviously. I feel that a machine would be driven by the exact same survival mechanisms, right? So if we reinvented morality, we reinvented religion, and we invented them because it made us better at surviving, I assume because otherwise religion wouldn’t be around anymore, people would have got rid of it a long time ago. When I feel AI will go through the same pressures, which is just as a hyperspeed that could happen in, say, 10 years would be it to go through the last 10,000 years and I feel AI will come up with very similar conclusions that we have sooner or later, but it will be much faster at this. And there’s obviously this big debate that once we have AI, it will only look at us for a moment, but it will be 10 minutes later, it’s already way past human AI. Do you think that’s what’s going to happen, or no, this is going to take a long, long incremental path? Yeah, that’s a good point, and it’s a good statement. I don’t know if we have built that environment yet, meaning if you can create artificial environment or the ecosystem, per se, similar to nature with the evolution, with the survival of the fitness, then you kind of just let AI, that machine, evolve by itself, and then you can run that simulation and run that process just for a long time or for a short amount of time and see what comes out from the other end. If that’s the premise, then I think it’s possible you can create AI, either it’s algorithm, you know, like GTP, sorry, yeah, GTP3 or GTP5, that can get to as close as human consciousness. But my point of view previously is that, I think, in the reason I cannot explain, and it’s just kind of like, you know, from the philosophy that I subscribe to, there’s always that one to two percent that you cannot get to the complete nature made consciousness. And then, you know, you can have conversation, you know, just like they, you know, you and me talking, right, maybe one day I will be replaced by AI, and which should be sufficient to have this conversation, but I think the first meeting with the entrepreneurs will be run by AI. I promise you that in like five years from now. Yeah, I think that that job can be replaced and will be replaced. And you know, for me, I’m looking forward to that for sure, although, you know, definitely will replace part of my job. The second thing back to entrepreneurs, that’s my last question, we touched on that earlier. But if you, the insight you have now and say you would not do venture capital anymore, or you’re too bored, if you would do a couple of startups now, what would be areas you would be looking into, but as specific as you can, as you can share them? Yeah, so this is a good question. So actually, I might write a post just in terms of the startup that we request, and we will kind of outline the concrete ideas that we’ll be thinking about. So the way that I think about this is that, again, to our earlier discussion, we investing company from the point of view of partnership, just like co founder. So except that we happen to write checks, and we can’t write multiple checks. So if I were to start a company today, which is equivalent of way to saying, you know, which companies, and I think are promising, I would like to be a co founder. So again, so in terms of high level verticals, in turn, like legal AI for legal compliance, and AI for healthcare, AI for manufacturing, and AI for like finance and fintech. And one of the idea I’m pretty excited about, I mean, just to give some concrete context around it. So there was a lot of human hours being spent in terms of legal document review. And, you know, filing forms all of that. So that can be easily replaced by AI. But it cannot just be done by PhD in computer science or statistics. It has to be paired with somebody has domain expertise in terms of what to build and how to solve the problem. So I’m actually, we’re actually looking at a few companies in this space. And if I were not doing that thing, you know, I might find a co founder that has that domain expertise and really build it out, because it’s a large enough industry has billions of dollars spending, both from the consumer consumer and also the business end. But at the same time, you don’t have automated solution, you know, for it. So and also one more thing I would add on the scale of B2P and B2C, this is the case that I’m more excited about B2C side, because a lot of consumers are not really well educated by what type of forms to fill out in terms of the certain things that they want to do. They are the higher lawyer, or they go to legalism and figure it out themselves. But a lot of them have got the exact number. But like if you think about like 40 to 50% of a lot of legal actions or legal things that consumer everyday people like us want to do like fighting tickets or, you know, taking somebody to a small claim court or, you know, just kind of avoid the spam call, all those things can be done in an automated way. And the market is huge. So I think there is a lot of opportunity in that area, for sure. Yeah, that sounds like a great opportunity. It’s definitely something everyone wants to get rid of. Nobody wants to deal with forms and like small legal matters, even if I can do it, it would be fantastic. Yeah. On that positive note, thanks for doing this, Jay. That was awesome. Thanks for coming to me about China. I know this is a sensitive topic. No, it’s fun. It’s great chatting with you. Thanks for your insight. Thanks a lot. Awesome. Talk to you soon. Bye bye. Cheers.