奇葩 VC 大赏:10 种典型加密 VC,你遇到过几种?

深潮Pubblicato 2025-05-12Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-05-12

不要为了融资而妥协选择投资人。

作者:rosie

编译:深潮TechFlow

在这个行业里,我们或多或少都要和风投(VC)打交道。有些风投是天赐之物,但大多数并不是。以下是一份“野外辨识指南”,帮助你在为时已晚之前认清他们的真面目。

免责声明:这篇文章是讽刺作品。如果你感到被冒犯,那你可能属于1-9类中的某一类。

创作本文时没有伤害任何风投。

1.反空投布道者

他们会高谈阔论“构建真正的价值”,但一旦他们的代币解锁,就会立刻抛售。他们真正的意思是:“我们不支持做空投,但我们自己的空投我们会照收不误。”这些人会在你的项目暴跌80%时教你如何设计代币经济学(Tokenomics)。风投抛售俱乐部的第一条规则是:你不能谈论风投抛售俱乐部。

2.营销家族推销员

他们投资了5万美元,现在却想通过逼你花6万美元雇佣他们表亲的营销公司来回本。这家营销公司只有三个客户:你和另外两个同样是这家风投投资的项目。他们的营销策略?找几个买了同款NFT的网红发付费推文。

3.过时理论家

他们的投资理念自2021年以来就没更新过。还在谈论“Web3社交”和“元宇宙基础设施”,但在你做演示时,偷偷在桌下搜索“TEE技术是什么”。不过现在只要你的商业计划书里有“AI”字样,他们绝对会投。

4.创始人友好型失踪者

他们会花三周时间深入研究你的项目,让你填17张表格,介绍你认识他们的整个团队,但当需要打款时却完全消失。六个月后,他们会在推特上祝贺你从其他投资人那里成功融资。

5.传统金融转行侠

2022年才加入加密行业,但绝不会让你忘记他们曾经在高盛工作。他们可能现在活跃在Crypto Twitter(CT),但依然沉迷于在LinkedIn上炫耀过去的经历。他们的全部价值增值服务是“专业邮件模板”和“股权结构最佳实践”。从没用过硬件钱包,还会问“Gas费是什么”。

6.FOMO急先锋

几个月来完全无视你的项目,直到看到另一家风投在推特上提到你的领域。突然间,他们跑到你的私信里要求“紧急通话”。他们会给出糟糕的投资条款,并附带24小时的爆炸性截止时间。而你一旦接受,他们却又花3周才把文件发过来。

7.长期主义纸手党

他们看了一场Cathie Wood在CNBC的采访,听她说比特币到2030年会涨到150万美元,从此开始不停重复“我们是长期主义者”“我们和创始人对五年愿景高度一致”。然而,一旦市场下跌30%,他们就会恐慌性抛售,并把责任推给“不可控的市场环境”。不过,他们还是会坚持保留董事会席位。

8.空头思想领袖

他们靠着转发别人的观点积累了5万粉丝。置顶推文是关于“建设者文化”(builder culture),但他们自己从未真正建设过任何东西。他们会提议“指导”你的项目,条件是拿走2%的代币份额。而他们的建议通常是:“你试过让匿名推特网红帮你宣传吗?”

9.早期投资高要求者

他们会装出一副投资你种子轮是“恩赐”的样子,但却要求享受B轮的优待。你需要每天更新进展,允许他们控制董事会,并直接接触你的开发团队。他们会在周日晚上11点发消息问你:“快速问一下——什么时候能买兰博基尼?”

10.真·建设者独角兽

他们会问正确的技术问题,经历过多个周期,不会浪费你的时间。他们提供的不仅是资金,还有实际的价值。他们理解你的愿景,因为他们自己也曾身处行业前线。

他们就像独角兽——你可能觉得他们不存在,但一旦找到,你再也不会考虑其他风投。

最后的建议

不要为了融资而妥协选择投资人。找到合适的合作伙伴,是项目成功和半年后转型为“面向DeFi用户的AI驱动Web3社交层”(译者注:讽刺只有宏大叙事和口号而不落地)之间的关键差异。

Letture associate

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit20 min fa

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit20 min fa

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit23 min fa

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit23 min fa

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit59 min fa

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit59 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片