Lux資本（Lux Capital）的合伙人萊娜塔·昆蒂妮可沒想到她會(huì)成為一名風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資家,。

她成長(zhǎng)于巴西，就讀法律學(xué)校,，職業(yè)生涯的初期是一名律師,。昆蒂妮當(dāng)初所在的律師事務(wù)所恰好服務(wù)一批投資于巴西初創(chuàng)企業(yè)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資家客戶,。

她告訴《財(cái)富》雜志的投資清單欄目，“當(dāng)我看到巴西的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施開始就位,，電子商務(wù),、內(nèi)容服務(wù)和媒體開始發(fā)展，我開始對(duì)這一切充滿了好奇,?！?

昆蒂妮試水投資領(lǐng)域始于斯坦福大學(xué)的捐贈(zèng)基金，該基金投資于幾十家私募基金和風(fēng)投公司,。三年后,，她轉(zhuǎn)向了風(fēng)投，以普通合伙人身份加入了Felicis風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本（Felicis Ventures）,，她投資過的公司包括Cruise（后被通用汽車收購(gòu)）,、Dollar Shave Club（后被聯(lián)合利華收購(gòu)）、男裝電商Bonobos（后被沃爾瑪收購(gòu)）以及Rigetti Computing量子計(jì)算公司,。

如今她就職于紐約的風(fēng)投公司Lux資本,，該公司主要投資于尖端科技類的創(chuàng)業(yè)項(xiàng)目。Lux資本的投資哲學(xué)是什么,？越是雄心勃勃的項(xiàng)目,，就越要投。

《財(cái)富》雜志與昆蒂妮探討了她作為有限合伙人投資于那些瘋狂的“登月”項(xiàng)目的經(jīng)歷,，以及在科技領(lǐng)域建立堅(jiān)實(shí)的道德基礎(chǔ)的重要性,。

《財(cái)富》：你在做斯坦福捐贈(zèng)基金的投資人時(shí)，篩選階段你會(huì)側(cè)重看一位基金經(jīng)理的哪些素質(zhì),？

昆蒂妮：說(shuō)到底,，是要能持續(xù)產(chǎn)生回報(bào),。有一些機(jī)會(huì)和想法,，在當(dāng)時(shí)的商業(yè)環(huán)境下是可行的，但你無(wú)法把它快進(jìn)10年看到它的演變,。做一個(gè)有限合伙人,，你得對(duì)一只基金鎖定至少10年期的承諾，老實(shí)說(shuō),，當(dāng)這只基金開始第二輪籌款時(shí),，你都沒有足夠時(shí)間來(lái)驗(yàn)看成果，而且在很多情況下,，你鎖定承諾的不止一只基金,。所以你必須考慮清楚：這個(gè)人是你愿意多年合作下去的伙伴嗎？

正因如此,，業(yè)績(jī)紀(jì)錄很重要,。沒有業(yè)績(jī)紀(jì)錄,，你無(wú)從考察一個(gè)基金經(jīng)理，而這時(shí)候如果你仍打算投資,，那你實(shí)際上是在追隨一種信仰,。你得相信，這個(gè)人是真的看到了差異化的機(jī)會(huì),，并在時(shí)代的浪潮中能作出正確的決定,。

Lux資本喜歡投資于一些被認(rèn)為瘋狂的、難以實(shí)現(xiàn)的“登月”項(xiàng)目,。從投資人的角度看,，是什么給了你信念去押注那些其他投資人避之不及的公司？

昆蒂妮：投資所謂“登月”項(xiàng)目,，一個(gè)方面是因?yàn)槭袌?chǎng)在那兒,。如果你有治愈癌癥的藥，人們會(huì)購(gòu)買嗎,？會(huì)的,。如果你設(shè)計(jì)出了完全自動(dòng)化的交通工具，人們會(huì)用嗎,？會(huì)的,。

所以這種情況的市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)接近于零，只存在巨大的技術(shù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn),，這一點(diǎn)我不敢低估,。接著就要問，什么樣的科技進(jìn)步,，會(huì)讓這一項(xiàng)目實(shí)現(xiàn)突破,？

投資之前，我們會(huì)問自己三個(gè)問題,。第一個(gè)是“為什么現(xiàn)在投”,，對(duì)于尖端科技類項(xiàng)目的投資，這一問題極為關(guān)鍵,。給那些以往難以實(shí)現(xiàn)的各種新試驗(yàn)打開大門的,，是綜合因素包括科技研發(fā)平臺(tái)的改進(jìn)和一系列的新發(fā)現(xiàn)。

我們花很多時(shí)間去想清楚的另一點(diǎn)是,，對(duì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本來(lái)說(shuō),，在適當(dāng)?shù)臅r(shí)間框架下，這個(gè)項(xiàng)目的可行性如何,。如果某創(chuàng)始人說(shuō)他們研發(fā)某項(xiàng)目要花費(fèi)15年,，恐怕就不合適了。

第三個(gè)問題是：“確定了公司的成長(zhǎng)時(shí)間表之后,，如何理順業(yè)務(wù),，實(shí)現(xiàn)增長(zhǎng),？”有些公司里有對(duì)科技非常內(nèi)行并且肩負(fù)使命感的人，投資這樣的公司就很有趣,，因?yàn)樗麄兏苣繕?biāo)驅(qū)動(dòng)而非機(jī)會(huì)主義,。

哪些公司符合這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，能舉個(gè)例嗎,？

昆蒂妮：Planet公司（小型地球影像衛(wèi)星開發(fā)者）的創(chuàng)始團(tuán)隊(duì)就是這樣,，他們?cè)黄鹪诿绹?guó)航空航天局（NASA）工作。后來(lái)他們開始思考,，造那些大衛(wèi)星既費(fèi)錢又費(fèi)力,，卻只能拍攝地球很小一部分的影像，且大量數(shù)據(jù)無(wú)法獲取,。為什么不發(fā)射能繞地球飛行的影像傳感器,？正是為這念頭所驅(qū)使，他們離開NASA開始創(chuàng)業(yè),?？陀^的要素都具備了，他們就成功實(shí)現(xiàn)了這一跨越,。

你談到過科技的人性化,。你如何看待未來(lái)10年里，人與機(jī)器,，人與機(jī)器人的關(guān)系演變,？

昆蒂妮：在這個(gè)時(shí)代，科技為我們所做之多已經(jīng)到了讓人難以置信的地步,。平衡點(diǎn)在于要明白我們到底需要機(jī)器做什么,，以及我們?cè)诙啻蟪潭壬闲湃嗡鼈儯@些都是當(dāng)下有趣的話題,。

由于科技的強(qiáng)大和普及,，“我懂什么”和“我信什么”這兩個(gè)問題會(huì)變得越來(lái)越重要。人們開始意識(shí)到,，在科技的后端有許多擺不上臺(tái)面的事,，比如說(shuō)關(guān)于假新聞的爭(zhēng)議和算法偏見的話題,，這些事是嚴(yán)重的,，而且已經(jīng)屢見不鮮。

我們消費(fèi)者會(huì)想,，到底發(fā)生了什么,，我們?cè)撔攀裁矗惺裁粗坪獯胧?。?duì)消費(fèi)者而言,，科技從未如此強(qiáng)大,，也從未如此嚇人。換句話說(shuō),，科技固然為我做了很多,，可你還瞞著我干了些什么？

建立恰當(dāng)?shù)闹坪鈾C(jī)制,，是科技公司目前面對(duì)的大機(jī)會(huì),，它會(huì)讓人們繼續(xù)相信科技、擁抱創(chuàng)新,。說(shuō)說(shuō)人工智能吧,，我們?nèi)祟悅€(gè)體是無(wú)論如何都無(wú)法處理和搜索如此巨量的數(shù)據(jù)信息的，人工智能實(shí)在有用,。計(jì)算機(jī)可以處理低端的,、重復(fù)性的工作，其速度人也是望塵莫及,，但人可以有情緒有判斷,，這就是很強(qiáng)的人機(jī)關(guān)系。

在人工智能的浪潮下,，人需要發(fā)展哪些技能,？

昆蒂妮：情商會(huì)變得非常重要。以往一切的努力都是要拓展科技的邊界,，讓我們可以做得更多更快,。而現(xiàn)在，問題將從“我能做嗎,？”變成 “我該做嗎,，以及我該怎么做？”我認(rèn)為科技帶來(lái)的人所不欲的后果將成為現(xiàn)實(shí),，所以我支持對(duì)倫理問題的探討,。

你曾寫過文章闡述組織內(nèi)共情和倫理的重要性。創(chuàng)始人在塑造公司文化時(shí),，應(yīng)該考慮些什么,？

昆蒂妮：每個(gè)人都會(huì)談到使命和遠(yuǎn)景。但實(shí)際上,，我覺得從公司創(chuàng)立的第一天開始就要想清楚的是,，我們公司支持什么，不支持什么,，邊界在哪里,。

我們有什么樣的價(jià)值觀？不能只考慮關(guān)鍵績(jī)效指標(biāo)1是增長(zhǎng)，2是利潤(rùn),。賺錢固然重要,，但當(dāng)今科技業(yè)的變化是，你不僅要會(huì)賺錢,，也要有道德,。

創(chuàng)始人必須不斷問自己，如何在組織內(nèi)建立透明度和信任度,，另外如何衡量和激勵(lì)正確的行為也同樣重要,。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：宣峰?

Lux Capital partner Renata Quintini wasn’t supposed to be a venture capitalist.

She grew up in Brazil, went to law school, and began her career as an attorney. Quintini was working at a law firm that represented venture capital clients who were backing Brazilian startups.

“It was during a time when the Internet infrastructure was getting laid out in Brazil, and e-commerce, content, and media was all starting to develop,” she told Term Sheet. “I became really curious.”

Quintini decided to try her hand at investing as an investment manager at Stanford University’s endowment, which backs dozens of private equity and venture capital firms. After three years, she made the move to the VC side and joined Felicis Ventures as a general partner. There, she invested in companies including Cruise (acq. by GM), Dollar Shave Club (acq. by Unilever), Bonobos (acq. by Walmart), and Rigetti Computing.

Now, she’s at Lux Capital, a New York-based venture firm focused on deep tech investing. The firm’s guiding philosophy? The more ambitious the project, the better.

Term Sheet caught up with Quintini to discuss her experience as a limited partner, investing in moonshot projects, and the importance of a strong ethical foundation in tech.

TERM SHEET: As an investor at Stanford’s endowment, what did you look for in a fund manager during the vetting process?

QUINTINI: When you come down to it, it’s about delivering returns consistently. Sometimes you can have stories and opportunities that make sense right now, but you can’t fast-forward 10 years from now and see how they’ll evolve. When you become an LP, you’re locking yourself up for at least a 10-year commitment on that one fund, and honestly, by the time people come back to raise their second fund, there hasn’t been enough time for you to actually see results. So in most cases, you’re actually making a more than one-fund commitment. You always have to think about — is this someone I want to be in business with for many, many years to come?

So a track record is important. If it’s someone who doesn’t have a track record, you don’t have a lot to draw from. And if you still decide to invest, you’re really going after the belief. You need to believe that this person really sees a differentiated opportunity, and you trust they’ll be able to make the right decisions as the landscape evolves.

Lux likes to invest in companies that are considered moonshots. As an investor, what gives you the conviction to bet on a company that other investors tend to shy away from?

QUINTINI: One thing about moonshot investing is that you know the market is there. If you cure cancer, are people going to buy the drug? Yes. If you figure out completely autonomous transportation, will people use it? Yes.

So the market risk is close to zero. That leaves a big technical risk, I’m not underestimating that. But then you ask — What changes in science and technology would actually make this breakthrough possible?

Before investing, we ask ourselves three questions. The first is “why now,” which is critical for deep tech investing. It’s a combination of either platform changes or a new sequence of discoveries — a big change that opens up a bunch of new experiments that weren’t possible before.

The other thing we spend a lot of time thinking about is whether this is feasible in the time frame that is conducive to venture capital. If a founder says they’ll spend 15 years developing something, it doesn’t work for the model.

And the third question you ask is, “Given your timeline of development, how does a business stack on top of that?” It’s really fun to invest in these types of companies because you have people who know the science deeply and they’re missionaries. They’re more purpose-driven than opportunistic.

What’s an example of a company that fits that criteria?

QUINTINI: The founders of Planet [a developer of small, Earth-imaging satellites] were all working together at NASA. They began thinking about how big satellites require a lot of money and effort, and they were only imaging little pieces of the Earth without a whole lot of accessible data. What if you could have this constellation of imaging sensors that can go around the Earth? That’s what drove them to leave NASA and try. All the elements were there that made it feasible for them to take the leap.

You’ve talked about the humanization of technology. How do you see humans’ relationships with robots and machines evolving in the next decade?

QUINTINI: We’re at a point that technology can do a lot of things for us, which is really incredible. The right balance will be figuring out what we actually want them to do for us and how much we trust them. That’s the interesting dialogue going on right now.

Because tech is so powerful and so pervasive, the questions of “What is it that I understand?” and “What is it that I trust?” will become more and more important. People are starting to wake up to the fact that there are so many things happening on the back-end of tech that are not transparent. Take the fake news debate and the conversations about the biases in algorithms — those are serious and those are happening at scale.

It makes us as consumers wonder what is really going on, what we trust, and what the checks and balances are. On the consumer side, it’s never been as powerful but it’s also never been as scary. Like, you do so much for me, but what is it that you’re doing that I don’t know?

Now, the big opportunity for tech is to build the right checks and balances so people can continue to trust and embrace innovation. If you think about AI, there’s no way humans can process and infer from such a large volume of data, and that’s so helpful. Computers can do the menial, repetitive tasks at a speed that humans can’t, and it allows us to have the emotion and judgement. It’s a very powerful relationship.

What kind of skills will human workers need to thrive in this AI revolution?

QUINTINI: EQ will be so important. For the longest time, it was all about pushing the technological boundaries to enable us to do more and to do it faster. Now, the questions will change from “Can I do it?” to “Should I do it, and how should I do it?” I think the unintended consequences are a reality, and I love that people are now talking about ethics.

You’ve written about the importance of empathy and ethics within an organization. What should founders be thinking about when helping shape a company’s culture?

QUINTINI: Everyone talks about mission statements and vision statements. But actually thinking about what it is that our company will stand for, what our company will not stand for, and where we draw the line should be very clear from Day 1.

What are the values that we have? It’s more than just thinking: KPI No. 1 is growth, KPI No. 2 is profit. Of course it’s important to have a good business, but the change in tech now is that you not only have to have a good business, but you also must have a do-good company.

Founders have to constantly ask themselves how they can build transparency and trust across their organization. And it’s important to figure out how to measure and incentivize the right behaviors.