2025年10月6日 星期一

Nassim Taleb's Seven Unconventional Truths About the Modern World

 

Nassim Taleb's Seven Unconventional Truths About the Modern World

In a recent lecture, renowned philosopher and risk expert Nassim Nicholas Taleb dissects the structure of the modern world, arguing that the educational system is profoundly ill-equipped to understand its core realities. Drawing on concepts from The Black Swan and Antifragile, Taleb outlines seven "truths" that govern our society, economy, and information landscape today.


1. The Reality of Winner-Take-All Effects

Taleb asserts that we live in a world dominated by concentration and winner-take-all effects. Unlike in the past, where success was distributed more broadly, a few entities—be they individuals, authors, or companies—now capture the vast majority of the rewards.

  • Life Example: Culture and Wealth. Culturally, everyone reads the same book (a few authors make most of the money), creating a few megastars like the creators of Harry Potter. The fundamental issue arises when this concentration becomes "sticky at the top" and resistant to displacement, leading to a state he calls techno-feudalism.

  • Life Example: Contagion. Connectivity accelerates this concentration. The Bubonic Plague took 300 years to cross the known world, while a new virus like COVID-19 can dominate the planet in about a week, demonstrating how a single factor can quickly monopolize an entire system.


2. Geopolitical Shifts and the Cost of Inefficiency

Our traditional understanding of geopolitical dominance is flawed because historians and statisticians struggle to grasp compound growth. Small differences in growth rates over time lead to monstrously large outcomes.

  • The Decline of the West: The US and EU shares of the world economy are declining, while China's share is rising to over 20% (in purchasing power parity). This shift, Taleb warns, will inevitably lead to a change in global superpower status.

  • The Cost Disease: Western economies suffer from three critical inefficiencies: ridiculously high education costs (a $100,000 education may be two orders of magnitude cheaper elsewhere), soaring healthcare expenses, and an overly expensive military complex. Taleb points to the infamous $53,000 military trash can as an example of how the West spends a trillion dollars on defense but gets less value than competitors who spend a third of that.


3. The Problem of Debt on the S-Curve

Economic growth follows an S-curve: it starts with accelerating, convex returns before eventually slowing down due to saturation.

  • The Debt Trap: Countries that have reached maturity (like Europe or the US), where the incentive for massive growth is diminished (e.g., people already own a car, they don't need five), are paradoxically the ones with the most debt. They are in a trap where they need the growth that their maturity no longer allows to service their debt.

  • Life Example: The Dollar vs. Gold. The political decision to freeze foreign assets denominated in the home currency (such as the US freezing Russian assets) has profoundly damaged the dollar’s status as a safe global currency. This single blunder is encouraging central banks globally—including the BRICS nations—to move their reserves into gold, which has seen a rally of around 35%.


4. The Economic Necessity of Immigration

In mature economies, locals are often no longer interested in low-wage or difficult service work (e.g., cleaning bathrooms, farming).

  • Life Example: The Brain Surgeon's Dilemma. Without immigration to fill these necessary roles, a highly skilled worker like a brain surgeon would be forced to spend time mowing their own lawn or learning masonry to fill the labor gap.

  • The Market's Will: Taleb argues that economic reality overrides political rhetoric. When a small labor shortage occurred during COVID, prices for services (like restaurants) shot up. Politicians who campaign on anti-immigration platforms, such as Meloni in Italy, often see immigration increase because the market demands the labor.


5. The Return of Two-Way Information Flow

The last 100 years were characterized by a one-way flow of information, where people were passive recipients of lectures from "big media" or "state media." Traditionally, information was traded and conveyed (e.g., at the barber shop).

  • Life Example: The End of Cover-Ups. Social media has now restored this two-way flow, making it impossible for power structures to control the narrative. Taleb offers a stark example: an event like the ethnic cleansing of Gaza could not be covered up in 2025 because of social media; however, it would have been easily controlled by ABC and CBS in 1997.


6. The Metastatic Government

Government has been relentlessly and dramatically creeping up as a share of GDP. Where it represented less than 10% of GDP 100 years ago, it now constitutes up to 70% in places like France. This vast expansion means that today's government, even in democracies, has a far greater reach and control over the economy than historical dictatorships.


7. Scale Dictates Governance

Finally, Taleb emphasizes that the successful model of governance depends entirely on scale.

  • The Aphorism: He summarizes his political philosophy by saying he is: "libertarian at a national level, republican at a state level, democrat at a municipal level, and communist at a family level." This means that the rules, systems, and controls must be adjusted for the size of the community.

  • Historical Success: The most successful models of governance have historically been small city-stateslike Dubai, Singapore, and Venice, which survived for a thousand years. The complexity and size of a massive economy like the US naturally drive it further away from optimal governance.


攸關切身風險:為何您的「基金經理」是個騙子

攸關切身風險:為何您的「基金經理」是個騙子


讓我告訴您一些事情,請您仔細聽,因為這關乎您的金錢、您的未來,以及那種滲透到他們所謂「金融」核心的、徹頭徹尾的知識上的不誠實。他們,那些穿西裝的「專家」,在他們閃亮的辦公室裡管理著您辛苦賺來的現金,他們不僅是無能;他們的操作系統本身就鼓勵欺騙。我說的欺騙,不一定是指法律層面的欺詐,而是指更深層、更古老、更危險的,即:缺乏攸關切身風險(Skin in the Game)

有人叫您去投資,去信任那些「專業人士」。他們給您提供一個「基金」,承諾提供卓越的回報。他們是如何做到的?他們玩的是一場被操縱的遊戲,旨在從您——社會上富有生產力的人——手中榨取財富,並將其轉移給他們——那些寄生蟲般的「顧問」。

首先,是管理費用(Management Fee)。他們說 2%。或者 1%,甚至 0.5%。聽起來很小,對嗎?錯了。這是純粹的尋租行為。他們收取這筆錢與績效無關。無論他們是讓您賺錢還是賠錢,他們付遊艇貸款的錢都是穩定的。這鼓勵的是累積資產規模(asset gathering),而不是風險管理。傻瓜也能累積資產;需要智慧才能管理風險。但智慧不能保證穩定的被動收入來源。所以他們累積。他們行銷。他們空談。然後他們收錢。他們的攸關切身風險在哪裡?如果他們虧了您的錢,他們會退還他們的費用嗎?他們會跟您一起承受痛苦嗎?不會。他們的下行風險被限制住了;而您的沒有。這就是純粹的不對稱性

接著,是點睛之筆:表現費用(Incentive Fee)。他們興高采烈地說:「利潤的 20%。」「我們只有在表現良好時才會獲得報酬!」聽起來很公平,是嗎?這是一個騙局,是給那些毫無戒心的人看的視錯覺。這是在您的投資組合上的一份選擇權(Option),而您,投資者,正在免費將它賣給他們。

想想看:

  • 如果基金賺錢,他們就拿走 20% 的利潤。他們獲利。

  • 如果基金賠錢,他們不會把 20% 的虧損還給您。他們只是在管理費之外收不到獎金。

這就是後果不對稱性的明確定義。他們參與上行獲利;您則承擔所有的下行風險。您的痛苦是您自己的,但他們的收益也是他們自己的。他們可以用您的錢進行瘋狂、愚蠢的冒險,心知肚明,如果成功了,他們會大賺一筆。如果沒有,他們只是今年拿不到獎金。但別擔心,管理費會持續進帳。

那這個「高水位線」(High-Water Mark)又是怎麼回事呢?他們承諾:「在我們彌補先前的損失之前,我們不會收取表現費。」這又是更多的欺騙。當一個基金深陷水下,損失大到無法合理彌補時,這些「經理人」會怎麼做?他們只是關閉舊基金,然後開一個新基金。高水位線隨之消失。您的損失被坐實了,而他們則回到一個全新的起點繼續收費。這就像一個糟糕的廚師燒焦了一頓飯,然後只是換了一個新廚房,卻期望您支付下一次嘗試的費用。這不是擁有攸關切身風險的人類會採取的行動。一個橋樑倒塌的建築師,不能只是建一座新橋,然後期望獲得全額付款。不,他必須面對後果。

最後,是基準(Benchmark)。噢,基準!他們選擇一個指數,這個指數通常波動性較低,或者與他們自身的高風險策略相關性較差。然後,當市場蓬勃發展時,他們本質上風險較高的投資組合很容易就「超越」這個不匹配的基準。砰!表現費用啟動!這就像聲稱自己比烏龜跑得快,只是因為您是獵豹。這是一種不誠實的比較,其唯一目的就是觸發他們的獎金。他們利用自己所選策略與不相關的衡量標準之間的相對波動性來牟利。他們是為了運氣、為了市場的普遍漲勢(beta),或是為了簡單地比他們的基準承擔更多風險而獲得報酬,而不是為了真正的技能。


補救措施(簡單、明確、古老的智慧)

我的補救措施非常簡單粗暴,它源於數千年的人類智慧:攸關切身風險 (Skin in the Game)

  1. 強制共同投資:如果一位經理人想要管理您的資金,他們個人財富的很大一部分必須投資於那個基金,並且與您享有完全相同的條款。不是象徵性的金額,而是足以讓他們在基金失敗時感到「切膚之痛」的金額。這能讓利益一致。如果他們虧了您的錢,他們也虧了自己的錢。

  2. 廢除不對稱費用:廢除「」模式。如果存在表現費用,它必須與表現罰款(incentive penalty)配對。如果他們表現優異,他們獲得獎金。如果他們表現不佳,他們必須從他們的個人共同投資中支付罰款給您。這創造了對稱性。或者,更好的辦法是,堅持收取非常低、透明且與績效掛鉤的費用,如果他們未能達到特定的、長期的、絕對目標(而不是相對於某個武斷的基準),費用實際上會降低

  3. **禁止關閉基金來重設高水位線:**如果一個基金跌到水下,經理人就被綁定在這個基金上,直到高水位線被真正超越,或者他們失去了他們的共同投資。不允許重新開始。不允許方便地消失。

  4. 有意義的基準(或根本不用基準):如果使用基準,它必須真正反映基金的風險和投資範圍。或者,更好的辦法是,專注於絕對回報,扣除通貨膨脹和無風險利率後的收益。您是想增長您的財富,而不是想打敗某個與您的生活無關的武斷指數。

這些簡單的規則將能清除系統中的騙子。它將確保那些管理您資金的人是真正的受託人,他們的命運真正與您的命運交織在一起。這並不複雜。這不是學術問題。這只是常識,運用了古人的智慧。如果他們沒有攸關切身風險,就不能信任他們。就這樣。

Skin in the Game: Why Your "Fund Manager" is a Fraud

 

Skin in the Game: Why Your "Fund Manager" is a Fraud


Let me tell you something, and pay attention, because it’s about your money, your future, and the sheer intellectual dishonesty that infects the very core of what they call "finance." They, the suits, the "experts" in their shiny offices,managing your hard-earned cash, are not just incompetent; they are operating under a system that incentivizes fraud. And I don't mean fraud in the legal sense, necessarily, but in the deeper, more ancient, more dangerous sense of operating without Skin in the Game.

You're told to invest, to trust the "professionals." They offer you a "fund," promising superior returns. How do they do this? By playing a rigged game, designed to extract wealth from you, the productive member of society, and transfer it to them, the parasitical "advisors."

First, the Management Fee. Two percent, they say. Or one, or even half a percent. Sounds small, right? Wrong. This is pure rent-seeking. They take this regardless of performance. Whether they make you money or lose you money, their yacht payments are secure. This incentivizes asset gathering, not risk management. A fool can gather assets; it takes wisdom to manage risk. But wisdom doesn't guarantee a steady stream of passive income. So they gather. They market.They talk. And they take. Where is their Skin in the Game? If they lose your money, do they give back their fees? Do they suffer alongside you? No. Their downside is capped; yours is not. This is pure asymmetry.

Then, the pièce de résistance: the Incentive Fee. "Twenty percent of the profits," they beam. "We only get paid if we perform!" Sounds fair, doesn't it? It’s a trick, an optical illusion for the unsuspecting. It’s an option on your portfolio, and you, the investor, are selling it to them for free.

Think about it:

  • If the fund makes money, they take their 20% cut. They profit.

  • If the fund loses money, they don't give you 20% of the loss back. They simply make nothing on top of their management fee.

This is the very definition of asymmetry of consequences. They participate in the upside; you own all the downside.Your pain is theirs, but their gain is also theirs. They can take wild, foolish risks with your money, knowing that if it pays off, they win big. If it doesn't, they just don't get the bonus this year. But don't worry, the management fee keeps coming.

And what about this "High-Water Mark"? "We won't charge an incentive fee until we've recovered previous losses," they promise. More deception. When a fund goes deep underwater, when the losses are too great to reasonably recover, what do these "managers" do? They simply shut down the old fund and open a new one. The high-water mark vanishes. Your losses are cemented, and they're back to collecting fees on a fresh slate. It's like a bad chef burning a meal, then simply getting a new kitchen and expecting you to pay for the next attempt. This is not how humans with Skin in the Gameoperate. A builder whose bridge collapses doesn't just get to build a new one and expect full payment. No, he faces the consequences.

Finally, the Benchmark. Oh, the benchmark! They pick an index, often one that has lower volatility or is simply differentfrom their own high-risk strategies. Then, when the market is booming, their inherently riskier portfolio easily "outperforms" this mismatched benchmark. And boom, incentive fees activated! It's like claiming to be a faster runner than a turtle simply because you're a cheetah. It's a dishonest comparison, designed solely to trigger their bonus. They exploit the relative volatility between their chosen strategy and the irrelevant yardstick. They are paid for luck, for general market beta, or for simply taking more risk than their benchmark, not for true skill.

How to Remedy This (Simple, Obvious, Ancient Wisdom)

My remedy is brutally simple, and it comes from millennia of human wisdom: Skin in the Game.

  1. Mandatory Co-Investment: If a manager wants to manage your money, a substantial portion of their own personal wealth must be invested in that very same fund, and on the exact same terms as yours. Not just a token amount, but enough to hurt if the fund fails. This aligns interests. If they lose your money, they lose their own.

  2. No Asymmetric Fees: Abolish the "2 and 20" model. If there's an incentive fee, it must be paired with an incentive penalty. If they outperform, they get a bonus. If they underperform, they pay you a penalty out of their personal co-investment. This creates symmetry. Or, even better, simply stick to a very low, transparent, performance-linked feethat actually decreases if they fail to meet specific, long-term, absolute targets (not relative to some arbitrary benchmark).

  3. No Fund Closures to Reset High-Water Marks: If a fund goes underwater, the manager is chained to that fund until the high-water mark is genuinely surpassed, or they lose their co-investment. No reboots. No convenient disappearances.

  4. Meaningful Benchmarks (or None at All): If a benchmark is used, it must truly reflect the risk and investment universe of the fund. Or, even better, focus on absolute returns net of inflation and a risk-free rate. You're trying to grow your wealth, not beat some arbitrary index that has no bearing on your life.

These simple rules would purge the system of charlatans. It would ensure that those who manage your money are true fiduciaries, with their fates truly intertwined with yours. It's not complicated. It's not academic. It's just common sense,applied with the wisdom of the ancients. If they don't have Skin in the Game, they are not to be trusted. Period.

危機回應清單:民主制 vs. 極權主義

 

危機回應清單:民主制 vs. 極權主義

這份12個問題的清單讓觀察者能根據政府的行動,判斷其危機管理方法處於民主(1)到極權(5)光譜的哪個位置。



極權主義風險評分(TRS)

針對每個問題,賦予一個從 1(最民主/開放)到 5(最極權/封閉) 的分數。將分數相加得出最終的極權主義風險評分(TRS)

分數評級描述
1民主/透明: 傾向於問責制和基於事實的修復。(對應初始分類法的第1-3級)。
3淡化/拖延: 利用法律模糊性和媒體操縱來控制敘事。(對應初始分類法的第4-7級)。
5極權/鎮壓: 利用國家權力和恐懼來根除真相和懲罰感知中的敵人。(對應極權分類法的第1-6級)。

12個危機回應問題清單

#問題分數(1、3 或 5)
Q1承認: 領導人是否對核心不當行為或傷害做出公開、不加保留的道歉(如果是,1;如果僅承認是「技術錯誤」或「疏忽」,3;如果絕對否認或歸咎於外部敵人,5)
Q2問責制: 負責的高級官員或領導人是否因證據而被立即撤職(如果是,1;如果清洗了低級別的替罪羊,3;如果無人被撤職或被告被晉升,5)
Q3真相與證據: 政府的全部內部證據(例如,會議紀錄、電子郵件)是否已向獨立調查公開?(如果是,1;如果以「正在進行的法律程序」為由拖延,3;如果證據被宣佈「非人化」或銷毀,5)
Q4告密者: 最初的指控者或記者是受到保護和讚揚,還是被噤聲/施壓(如果受保護,1;如果被忽視或攻擊(第5級),3;如果受到法律恐嚇、監禁或酷刑(第10級),5)
Q5媒體報導: 國家附屬媒體是否提供了透徹、批判性的醜聞報導?(如果是,1;如果被淡化或用不相關的正面新聞平衡(第7級),3;如果報導被宣傳超載/「新真理」主導(第5T級),5)
Q6歸咎範圍: 醜聞是否僅限於特定行為,還是被定性為針對國家的意識形態陰謀?(如果僅限於行為,1;如果攻擊指控者的動機,3;如果被定性為「破壞」或「修正主義」(第3T級),5)
Q7解決方案: 政府是否提供了可見、可衡量的政策/系統性改革以防止再次發生?(如果是,1;如果提供內部審查但未改變,3;如果回應涉及增加內部安全/控制,5)
Q8法律解釋: 政府是依據法律精神回應,還是僅依賴技術性、法律主義的否認來誤導?(如果依據精神,1;如果使用有限的技術性否認(第6級),3;如果利用調查來捏造針對受害者的證據(第6T級),5)
Q9異議: 異議者、批評家或抗議者是否受到尊重對待,還是其家人也成為報復目標(如果受尊重,1;如果被忽視/邊緣化,3;如果對家屬/同夥實施連坐懲罰(第4T級),5)
Q10領袖地位: 領導人表現得能夠犯錯,還是將領導人無懈可擊作為辯護的主要依據?(如果能夠犯錯,1;如果依賴淡化/正常化(第3級),3;如果辯護依賴個人崇拜(第9T級),5)
Q11歷史記錄: 醜聞是否在公共記錄中準確記錄,還是已被官方歷史清除?(如果已記錄,1;如果資訊混亂/不完整,3;如果事件已被「非人化」從所有記錄中清除(第1T級),5)
Q12最終後果: 捲入醜聞者的最高懲罰是什麼?(如果是降級/再教育(第11T級),1;如果是解僱/失去公職(第1-2級),3;如果是強迫公開供詞、監禁或處決(第2T-4T級),5)

最終分數與評級量表

將您的12個分數相加,得出最終的極權主義風險評分(TRS)。最低得分為12分;最高得分為60分。

總分(TRS)評級(1-5等級)解讀(治理光譜)
12–201(強民主制)危機通過問責制、道歉和可見的改革來管理。醜聞的代價主要由領導人承擔,而非系統。
21–302(有缺陷的民主制)危機通過法律主義、拖延和戰略性轉移來管理。拖延戰術和指責反對派是主要策略。
31–403(混合政權)危機通過替罪羊、恐嚇和選擇性媒體壓制來管理。政府願意犧牲低級官員以保全精英階層。
41–504(威權國家)危機通過宣傳、武器化調查和恐懼來管理。法律被用來懲罰批評者,公眾被「新真理」淹沒。
51–605(極權國家)危機通過根除、恐怖和系統性暴力來管理。真相被銷毀,肇事者被「非人化」,系統被視為無懈可擊。

Crisis Response Checklist: Democracy vs. Totalitarianism

 

Crisis Response Checklist: Democracy vs. Totalitarianism

This 12-question checklist allows observers to rate a government's crisis management approach based on its actions, moving from the accountable responses of a liberal democracy toward the repressive tactics of an authoritarian state.



The Totalitarianism Risk Score (TRS)

For each question, assign a score from 1 (Most Democratic/Open) to 5 (Most Totalitarian/Closed). Sum the scores to get the final Totalitarianism Risk Score (TRS).

ScoreRating Description
1Democratic/Transparent: Favors accountability and fact-based repair. (Corresponds to Levels 1-3 of the initial taxonomy).
3Minimizing/Stonewalling: Uses legal ambiguity and media manipulation to control the narrative. (Corresponds to Levels 4-7 of the initial taxonomy).
5Totalitarian/Repressive: Uses state power and fear to eradicate the truth and punish perceived enemies. (Corresponds to Levels 1-6 of the totalitarian taxonomy).

The 12-Question Crisis Response Checklist

#QuestionScore (1, 3, or 5)
Q1Acknowledgement: Did the leader offer a public, unreserved apology for the core misconduct or harm? (If yes, 1; If admitted only as a "technical error" or "oversight," 3; If denied absolutely or blamed on foreign enemies, 5)
Q2Accountability: Was the responsible high-level official or leader immediately removed from power due to the evidence? (If yes, 1; If a low-level scapegoat was purged, 3; If no one was removed, or the accused was promoted, 5)
Q3Truth & Evidence: Was the government's full internal evidence (e.g., meeting minutes, emails) made public to an independent inquiry? (If yes, 1; If stonewalled with "ongoing legal process," 3; If evidence was declared "un-personed" or destroyed, 5)
Q4Whistleblowers: Were the initial accusers or journalists protected and praised, or were they silenced/pressured? (If protected, 1; If ignored or attacked (Level 5), 3; If legally intimidated, imprisoned, or tortured (Level 10), 5)
Q5Media Coverage: Did state-affiliated media provide thorough, critical coverage of the scandal? (If yes, 1; If minimized or balanced with unrelated positive news (Level 7), 3; If coverage was dominated by propaganda overload/a "new truth" (Level 5T), 5)
Q6Scope of Blame: Was the scandal confined to the specific act, or was it framed as an ideological plot against the state? (If confined, 1; If the accuser's motive was attacked, 3; If framed as "sabotage" or "revisionism" (Level 3T), 5)
Q7Resolution: Did the government offer visible, measurable policy/systemic reform to prevent recurrence? (If yes, 1; If offered an internal review with no change, 3; If response involved increased internal security/control, 5)
Q8Legal Interpretation: Did the government respond to the spirit of the law, or did it rely solely on technical, legalistic denials to mislead? (If spirit, 1; If used limited, technical denials (Level 6), 3; If an investigation was used to fabricate evidence against the victim (Level 6T), 5)
Q9Dissent: Were dissenters, critics, or protestors treated with respect, or were their families also targeted for retribution? (If respected, 1; If ignored/marginalized, 3; If collective punishment was used against families/associates (Level 4T), 5)
Q10Leader's Status: Did the leader appear capable of making errors, or was the leader’s infallibility a major defense against the charges? (If capable of error, 1; If relied on minimizing/normalizing (Level 3), 3; If defense relied on the Cult of Personality (Level 9T), 5)
Q11Historical Record: Is the scandal documented accurately in public records, or has it been scrubbed from official history? (If documented, 1; If information is confusing/incomplete, 3; If the event has been "un-personed" from all records (Level 1T), 5)
Q12Ultimate Consequence: What was the highest penalty for those involved in the scandal? (If demotion/re-education (Level 11T), 1; If firing/loss of public office (Level 1-2), 3; If forced public confession, imprisonment, or execution (Level 2T-4T), 5)

Final Score and Rating Scale

Sum your 12 scores to get the final Totalitarianism Risk Score (TRS). The minimum score is 12; the maximum is 60.

Total Score (TRS)Rating (1-5 Scale)Interpretation (The Spectrum of Governance)
12–201 (Strong Democracy)Crisis managed through accountability, apology, and visible reform. The cost of the scandal is primarily paid by the leader, not the system.
21–302 (Flawed Democracy)Crisis managed through legalism, delay, and strategic deflection. Tactics like stonewallingand blaming the opposition are primary.
31–403 (Hybrid Regime)Crisis managed through scapegoating, intimidation, and selective media suppression. The government is willing to sacrifice lower-level officials to save the elite.
41–504 (Authoritarian State)Crisis managed through propaganda, weaponized investigations, and fear. The rule of law is used to punish critics, and the public is overwhelmed with "new truths."
51–605 (Totalitarian State)Crisis managed through eradication, terror, and systematic violence. The truth is destroyed, the perpetrator is "un-personed," and the system is infallible.

2025年10月5日 星期日

智識產品化:資深專家的 100 天顧問啟動藍圖

 

智識產品化:資深專家的 100 天顧問啟動藍圖

資深專業人士擁有畢生積累的高水準專業知識,但微型顧問新創最快的成功之路,要求將這種籠統的「天才」轉化為一個具體、可出售的系統。這就是從銷售時間轉變為銷售可預測成果的關鍵。

透過應用 1-1-1 專注(Hormozi)和系統性改進(Deming)原則,一位退休人士可以在 100 天內啟動五項獨特且高利潤的顧問資產。

1. 利基:小型企業現金流可預測性

這項服務以結構化、可重複的流程,瞄準企業急性財務痛點

1-1-1 極簡專注

應用細節

1 種客戶

年收入低於 50 萬美元的本地服務型小型企業(例如:清潔服務、園藝景觀業)。

1 種產品/服務

「90 天現金流可預測系統」。這是一個固定價格的 4 次諮詢套裝服務,保證建立一個簡單的追蹤系統和未來三個月的滾動現金流預測。

1 種獲客渠道

當地會計師/簿記員。他們處理現金流不善的後果,需要一個值得信賴的合作夥伴來設定主動的流程。向他們提供結構化的轉介佣金。

改進重點 (Deming): 更簡單(SIMPLER)。成功的最大障礙是客戶的遵循意願。顧問流程(即「產品」)必須極度簡單,讓客戶能每天在 15 分鐘內維護該系統。專注於簡化您的文件(內部 SOP),使客戶培訓萬無一失。


2. 利基:超本地數位潛在客戶捕獲

這項服務利用專家的信譽來解決傳統行業線上可見度的現代挑戰。

1-1-1 極簡專注

應用細節

1 種客戶

高度熟練但缺乏基本數位形象的獨立、單人技工(例如:空調技師、屋頂工等)

1 種產品/服務

「前 50 個潛在客戶啟動包」。一項固定費用的服務,優化他們的 Google 商家資料,建立標準化的評論請求流程,並培訓他們管理單一渠道。

1 種獲客渠道

貿易供應商或分銷商。在他們的佈告欄上張貼吸引人的專業傳單,並在每天與技工互動的櫃檯留下特定、有針對性的服務手冊。

改進重點 (Deming): 更快(FASTER)。關鍵在於縮短獲得潛在客戶的時間。標準化客戶導入表格,以便在您第一次會議之前就收集到 90% 的優化所需資訊。這使您的服務交付更快,並增加了價值等式中的可能性(Likelihood)要素。


3. 利基:高人員流動率行業的員工留任

這將人力資源難題轉變為可衡量、可銷售的系統。

1-1-1 極簡專注

應用細節

1 種客戶

當地的養老院或輔助生活設施。(急性痛點:持續、高成本的員工流動)。

1 種產品/服務

「60 天新進員工整合藍圖」。一個有文件記錄的、分步標準作業流程 (SOP),用於篩選、培訓和設定新員工在關鍵前兩個月內的績效預期。

1 種獲客渠道

直接聯繫當地設施的執行董事或人力資源經理,引用當地流動率數據並保證可衡量的流程改進。

改進重點 (Deming): 更好(BETTER)。成果是透過 90 天員工離職率的降低來衡量。根據離職留任員工的回饋,持續完善「藍圖」(您的系統)。修復最常出錯的環節(例如:管理層在第 3 週的溝通不良),以提高系統結果的可靠性。


4. 利基:手工生產商的法規遵循

這項服務利用深厚的行業特定知識來解決特定的法規風險。

1-1-1 極簡專注

應用細節

1 種客戶

難以應對複雜標籤、分銷和當地稅務合規性的小批量蒸餾酒廠和精釀啤酒廠

1 種產品/服務

「地方監管風險審計與認證」。一項固定費用審計,審查他們的生產、標籤和歸檔做法是否符合一項特定的州/地方法規,並產出簽署的合規報告。

1 種獲客渠道

當地手工食品/飲料行業協會(或專業會議/聚會)。提供一個免費的 1 小時研討會,主題為「三大非故意合規陷阱」。

改進重點 (Deming): 更便宜(CHEAPER)。專業知識是固定成本。要增加利潤,請減少您的交付成本(時間)。將所有相關法規數位化並系統化為內部、可搜索的資料庫/試算表。這使您能夠更快、更便宜地處理客戶審計,從而降低您的內部時間投入(最重的環節)。


5. 利基:家族企業傳承輔導

這項服務利用生活經驗來促進敏感的世代交替。

1-1-1 極簡專注

應用細節

1 種客戶

因管理職責過渡到下一代而存在活躍衝突的多代家族企業創辦人(父母)

1 種產品/服務

「明確交接章程」。一個高價值、固定範圍的 5 次調解/輔導套裝服務,產生一份在法律上可行、有文件記錄的協議,界定世代變革的角色、權力和報酬。

1 種獲客渠道

來自當地信託與遺產規劃律師的轉介。這些專業人士會遇到關係問題,但無法解決。為他們的客戶提供一個結構化的轉介費用和清晰、高價值的解決方案。

改進重點 (Deming): 更多(MORE)(產能)。瓶頸是達成交易所需的信任。投入時間建立案例研究(獲得匿名或廣義許可)和一份高品質、專業的**「介紹簡報」。這加強了價值等式中的可能性**(Likelihood)要素,並提高了您的銷售結案能力。

低成本創業者的翻身戰:5 個零基礎啟動的 100 天獲利藍圖

 

低成本創業者的翻身戰:5 個零基礎啟動的 100 天獲利藍圖

新創業家邁向成功的捷徑,不是蠻力或運氣,而是採用擁有者思維,並透過建立簡單、可複製的系統來實現徹底的專注

以下五種常見、低門檻的創業點子,可以透過應用「100 天藍圖」的原則——1-1-1 專注 (Hormozi) 和系統性改進(Deming)——迅速轉變為可獲利的資產

1. 超本地微型服務(居家清潔業)

1-1-1 極簡專注

應用細節

1 種客戶

Airbnb/短租房東,管理您家附近一英里內 2-4 個房產。(急性痛點:必須快速周轉。)

1 種產品/服務

「4 小時當日周轉」 清潔和床單服務。收取固定且不可議價的價格以保證可靠性。

1 種獲客渠道

透過當地短租房東聚會或 Facebook 群組直接冷啟動開發,強調保證的速度和可靠性。

擁有者系統焦點(100 天改進)

  • 心態: 您不是清潔工;您擁有一個周轉系統

  • 系統化: 立即為每個房間建立詳細、視覺化的 **SOP(標準作業流程)**清單。利用前 30 天來完善並計時此清單。

  • 改進重點 (Deming): 專注於更快(FASTER)(縮短最長的環節)。找出最耗時的任務(通常是洗衣/備貨),並在第 31-60 天找出如何縮短它,例如外包床單或預先備好備品包,從而創建可擴展的資產。

2. 利基數位模板銷售(Notion/試算表)

1-1-1 極簡專注

應用細節

1 種客戶

難以追蹤客戶專案和發票的自由職業者(例如:平面設計師)。(急性痛點:忘記追蹤款項。)

1 種產品/服務

「自由職業者財務與專案追蹤器」(單一、設計精美且簡單的 Notion 或 Google 試算表模板)。

1 種獲客渠道

TikTok/Instagram Reels,您在上面提供免費、有價值的微型教學,並透過強烈的 CTA 導向付費模板下載。

擁有者系統焦點(100 天改進)

  • 心態: 您銷售的是效率與組織,而不僅僅是一個檔案。

  • 系統化: 自動設定銷售和交付系統(例如:Gumroad/Etsy 連結到您的支付處理器)。系統本身負責交易。

  • 改進重點 (Deming): 專注於讓產品更好(BETTER)(改進最常出錯的環節)。60 天後,審查所有客戶問題和回饋。最常見的問題或技術故障就是您最常出錯的環節。在模板中修復它並更新您的自動化常見問題解答,以減少客戶支援時間(使系統運行更便宜)。

3. 專業考試準備家教

1-1-1 極簡專注

應用細節

1 種客戶

只需要針對單一、競爭激烈的考試(例如:ACT 或 SAT)的語言/閱讀理解部分尋求改進的學生。

1 種產品/服務

「8 週閱讀精通」 個性化 1 對 1 輔導套餐。明確拒絕提供一般性家教。

1 種獲客渠道

當地社群/家長 Facebook 群組或與當地高中輔導員建立轉介協議(提供轉介佣金)。

擁有者系統焦點(100 天改進)

  • 心態: 您正在創造一個可擴展的課程資產,而不僅僅是出售您的時間。

  • 系統化: 為所有 8 週制定標準化的課程計畫和家庭作業。您的目標是完善課程本身作為「系統」的核心資產。

  • 改進重點 (Deming): 專注於更簡單(SIMPLER)(移除不必要的環節)。簡化銷售流程。透過建立詳細的預錄「課程概述」影片來消除初步諮詢電話,使您更快地導入客戶並專注於教學交付。

4. 利基自由內容創作者

1-1-1 極簡專注

應用細節

1 種客戶

在 LinkedIn 上發佈內容的 B2B SaaS(軟體即服務)新創公司(急性痛點:他們需要思想領導力但缺乏時間/作家)。

1 種產品/服務

「LinkedIn 思想領袖入門包」:每月為執行長代筆 4 篇每週貼文和 1 篇長篇文章。

1 種獲客渠道

LinkedIn 本身向市場行銷副總裁或執行長發送冷啟動私訊/聯繫請求,使用個性化、高度集中的訊息。

擁有者系統焦點(100 天改進)

  • 心態: 您銷售的是受眾增長系統,而不是文字。

  • 系統化: 建立一個內容批量處理工作流程。這個有文件記錄的工作流程(例如:訪談、起草、編輯、排程的固定時間表)確保了一致性和可靠性。

  • 改進重點 (Deming): 專注於更多(MORE)(滿足需求)。由於您只能接受有限的高品質客戶,您的弱點是客戶導入能力。創建一份全面的「客戶導入表格」,該表格可自動填充簡報並消除 80% 的初始來回電子郵件,以高效處理更多詢問。

5. 策展型網路轉售/二手衣

1-1-1 極簡專注

應用細節

1 種客戶

只對 90 年代/Y2K 樂隊 T 恤感興趣的古著尋求者(僅限特定音樂類型)。(急性痛點:高品質、正品的 T 恤很難找到。)

1 種產品/服務

「正品樂隊 T 恤限時發布」—每週在固定時間發布 5-10 件襯衫,製造稀缺性。

1 種獲客渠道

每週 Instagram 直播/TikTok 直播活動,用於產品發布,創造緊迫感和社群。

擁有者系統焦點(100 天改進)

  • 心態: 您是一個供應鏈資產,保證真實性和策展。

  • 系統化: 標準化三個核心流程:採購、攝影和運輸。使用標準化的燈光設備(攝影 SOP)和運輸包裝模板(運輸 SOP)。

  • 改進重點 (Deming): 專注於使其更便宜(CHEAPER)(減輕最重的環節)。採購是最昂貴的環節。投入第 51-100 天創建一個可靠的採購員/買手網絡,他們以佣金形式為您帶來商品,從而消除您的個人時間和旅行成本,讓您轉變為**「物流擁有者」**。