Original Title: AI & Robotics Stealing Crypto's Thunder? | EP 73
Original Source: Good Game Podcast
Original Translation: Wu Says Blockchain
In this episode of "GoodGame," AllianceDAO co-founders Imran and Qiao delve into how the tech industry's focus has rapidly shifted to AI and robotics, overshadowing the current innovation cycle in cryptocurrency. They assess the stagnation narrative surrounding stablecoins and tokenization in cryptocurrency while highlighting the competitive landscape dominated by trading platforms and meme-driven token launches.
Robinhood, as a strong competitor, is bridging fintech and tokenized assets. The discussion covers the dynamics of emerging startups, the impact of AI on coding and education, and the potential extinction of entry-level jobs in law, medicine, and finance, ultimately painting a future where AI-native, founder-led micro-startups reshape industry norms. This article is edited by Wu Says Blockchain.
AI and Robotics Hype Overshadowing the State of Cryptocurrency
Imran: Welcome to "GoodGame," where we provide no-nonsense insights for cryptocurrency founders. We’ve seen ups and downs. I think there are many exciting new releases in the AI and robotics space that are overshadowing the dynamics of cryptocurrency.
Qiao: Indeed.
Imran: There will be some innovation periods that attract a lot of attention and mindshare. I think we are currently in a phase like AI and robotics, while cryptocurrency is undergoing a rebuilding process. If you’re looking for the next startup idea in cryptocurrency, you can check out our startup request list and get inspired at align.xyz/ideas.
Qiao: Right now in the cryptocurrency space, whether it’s builders or investors—even on crypto Twitter—there’s almost only one narrative.
Imran: Stablecoins and tokenization are those two narratives.
Qiao: But it’s still the same story. It’s just putting traditional assets on-chain.
Imran: It seems that consensus has been reached on this. Yes. We see many institutions launching their own stablecoins. I think Fidelity just announced its own stablecoin recently. Who else? I mean, there’s a bunch of companies trying to do exactly the same thing. From an innovation perspective, it doesn’t seem like there’s anything truly new; they’re just reinventing the wheel.
I’m planning to send this meme. I tried to get ChatGPT to generate a Ghibli-style meme. But essentially, what I want to express is that the competitive environment is actually very small. Everyone is vying for each other’s profits. If you look at Binance, they’ve made two very significant indirect statements. The first is, I don’t know if you’ve seen the Hyperliquid event, but the high-level summary is that there’s a token called Jelly on Hyperliquid.
Intense Competition Among Trading Platforms Highlights Hyperliquid's Challenges
Imran: The trading volume and liquidity on Hyperliquid have reached a level that can be manipulated. Someone opened a short position to extract value from HLP. OKX and Binance publicly participated in this—posting about it on Twitter—many interpreted it as them wanting Hyperliquid to fail because it’s seen as a competitive threat to their derivatives business.
Another example: Binance is listing tokens from FourMeme, which is a PumpFun clone running on the BNB chain. Tokens like Mubarak and Broccoli are being listed, sparking criticism of Binance’s direction. But the logic is clear—they see platforms like PumpFun as competitors. Now, Binance is actively competing with Hyperliquid, PumpFun, Jupiter, etc.—this is a war between on-chain and off-chain.
Qiao: Everyone is targeting the same verticals—trading and stablecoins. In trading: crypto-native platforms and Robinhood. In stablecoins: Circle, Tether, and traditional fintech companies.
Robinhood's Strategic Push Towards Tokenization
Imran: Robinhood recently held an Apple-like launch event, emphasizing their commitment to "everything tokenized." With their vast distribution network, they are well-positioned in the market. They also want to tokenize real estate—similar to a tradable OpenSea-style MLS—allowing users to trade risk exposure to real estate assets.
Qiao: But not physical real estate—they might offer derivatives linked to real estate, which aligns with their strengths.
Imran: Exactly—they have a deep understanding of their user base. Additionally, they launched a cash delivery service—you can request physical cash instead of going to an ATM. At first, I wondered who else uses cash, but many people do—contractors, barbers, etc.—mainly for privacy reasons.
Qiao: I understand the appeal. Banks ask some intrusive questions when you try to withdraw large amounts of cash. It’s frustrating. I just don’t quite understand why Robinhood wants to enter this space.
Robinhood's Cash Delivery and Banking Services
Imran: You know, this could be another angle—this might be because the ATM business is still very profitable. If you can capture that…
Qiao: Do they want to become a bank? They want people to deposit money. Yes, they want people to deposit so they can lend it out and earn the spread, essentially like a bank.
Imran: That could be a potential reason—basically, "Take your money out of the bank and give it to us." Then add this cash delivery service. But they also offer other incentives. Recently, they announced a promotion—I’m actually considering this. If you transfer your brokerage account to them, they’ll give you an extra 2% bonus. So I’m really thinking about moving it over. It’s not a bad deal. So, they are pushing forward comprehensively—traditional business, banking services, traditional brokerage accounts, and now even competing with crypto trading platforms. Their reach extends into three areas.
Qiao: I think Robinhood is the biggest threat to Coinbase.
Robinhood vs. Coinbase: The Battle for Platform Distribution
Imran: I think Robinhood is the biggest threat to crypto startups. Because all the services they offer now—whether it’s tokenizing X or Y—are exactly what we want our founders to build. If Robinhood becomes the primary distribution point, it essentially cuts out the middleman—in this case, the startups. So if we look to the future and consider the current competitive environment, it actually feels very small. And when you factor in Robinhood and other major players, it becomes even smaller.
Qiao: When you say "small," do you mean there are only a few players vying for the same opportunities?
Imran: Yes. Hyperliquid.
Qiao: Binance, Coinbase…
Qiao: Pump. Right now, the launch trading volume handled by Pump is about 30%, right? That’s quite substantial—pretty large.
Imran: Yes, it’s large. I’m not sure of the latest numbers, but the 24-hour trading volume is about $294 million. Annually, that’s around $30 billion in revenue. In comparison, Raydium’s AMM trading volume is $332 million. However, the trading volume has slightly decreased—it’s now close to $200 million. Essentially, Pump has surpassed Raydium in trading volume. That’s the point I want to make.
Liquidity Fragmentation Between Trading Platforms and Aggregators
Qiao: What data are you looking at? DeFi Llama?
Imran: Yes. Raydium’s trading volume has remained relatively stable, mainly due to previously issued tokens.
Qiao: The major ones.
Imran: Right, but that could change. Pump is gaining attention. Jupiter launched Meteora (an AMM), and there’s also Moonshot. They are all part of the same founder network. Jupiter acts as an aggregator. This market is becoming crowded, and everyone is chasing the same marginal users. Now the real challenge is expanding the market—how do we bring new users into cryptocurrency? That’s the next frontier. Before that, it’s a waiting game for the next wave of meaningful innovation. An interesting experiment is Noise on MegaETH. They use Kaido as a trend oracle—kind of like fantasy sports but for trend trading. This is part of the "monetizing attention" theory we’ve discussed for years.
Qiao: Yes, it’s not new; it’s just a repackaging of the same idea. There hasn’t been anything transformative yet.
Imran: Pretty much.
Circle's Strategic Dilemma: Reliance on Coinbase, Global Competition, and On-Chain Transformation
Qiao: Circle’s IPO valuation is between $3 billion and $5 billion—slightly lower than I expected, but maybe that’s just my bias.
Imran: Fair. What’s striking in the application is that Circle pays 50% of its reserve income—from income from treasury bonds and other yield-bearing assets—to Coinbase. Last year, Circle’s revenue was about $1.8 billion, of which $800 million went to Coinbase. That’s huge. This shows a clear power dynamic: Coinbase has the user relationships and is the primary distribution channel for USDC. Just like Pump has its end users and uses them for AMM.
Qiao: Indeed. If treasury yields decline, it poses a survival risk for Circle. Perhaps that’s part of the reason they are pushing for an IPO now. It’s also worth noting that Coinbase returns most of the USDC earnings (about 4%) to users. Thus, Circle pays Coinbase for distribution, while Coinbase uses it as a user acquisition tool, ultimately profiting through higher-margin trading and other businesses.
Imran: Circle seems to be fighting a losing battle. While they currently have a regulatory moat, traditional financial competitors are emerging.
Qiao: USDC dominates in the U.S., but globally, USDT remains king.
Imran: Yes, a founder from Colombia told me that USDC is basically irrelevant in Latin America. Despite offering a better product, it hasn’t gained attention.
Qiao: That’s the network effect of currency. USDT has been around for ten years, and people trust the brand—especially on Tron, where USDT holds a significant share.
Imran: So what is Circle’s ultimate goal? They are caught between regulators and Coinbase; although USDC has been adopted in DeFi and among some founders, is that enough?
Qiao: From the outside, Circle seems to be in a tough business. I’m not sure what their next step is.
Imran: They seem to be leaning more towards on-chain infrastructure.
Qiao: The best thing they’ve built is CCTP—a cross-chain USDC bridge. It’s fast, with settlement times of under a minute, and is essentially free. Since it’s centralized, they just move database entries internally. Honestly, I trust CCTP more than some decentralized bridges.
Imran: I’m also using Debridge and Wormhole—they’re both good. But Circle’s solution might be the best in terms of speed and reliability. There are also two significant acquisitions—Kraken acquired NinjaTrader, a major traditional derivatives platform, and there are rumors that Coinbase has made an offer for Deribit. To me, this reflects a broader trend: existing companies are expanding beyond pure crypto trading, which is no longer sufficient to meet growth expectations. Innovation seems to be stagnating, so trading platforms are doubling down on adjacent areas. Interestingly, some are turning to traditional finance, while others—like Robinhood—are returning to crypto with a refocused attitude.
Qiao: Yes, I feel the same way. The line is clearly starting to blur.
Market Sentiment Check: Saylor, GameStop, and the Liquidity Cycle
Imran: Quick market sentiment check—Michael Saylor just raised $2 billion again, and GameStop followed up with a $1.6 billion issuance.
Qiao: Saylor’s moves are almost no longer news. But yes, I checked his risk—his liquidation risk is minimal unless Bitcoin drops below $20,000 in a few months.
Imran: Right, he holds about 3% of the total BTC supply. He’s aggressive but also safe.
Qiao: So where are we in the cycle now? A lot may depend on what Trump says today—policies can change rapidly. As for stocks, I think only a few U.S. stocks are reasonably valued. Google is one of them—it’s reviving in AI, and its valuation still seems reasonable. I’m also optimistic about Tesla. I bought my Cybertruck at the end of last year, and in just a few months, FSD has almost become capable of hands-free driving. That made me decide to double down. Musk also plans to launch the Optimus humanoid robot in 2026 to 2027. For me, Tesla is the most liquid venture investment in AI, autonomous driving, and robotics.
Imran: Agreed. If you want broader fintech and tokenization exposure, Robinhood is also interesting. I might lean towards it over Coinbase right now, although that could change based on acquisitions.
AI Competition Intensifies: Google, Tesla, and China's Involvement
Imran: I’ve seen videos of humanoid robots in public places in China—while they’re not general-purpose, they’re still impressive.
Qiao: Yes, they might be task-specific robots. But I agree—China is clearly involved.
Imran: If investors want to tap into Chinese innovation, there are now more options.
Qiao: And Chinese tech stocks are priced much lower than U.S. stocks. I hold some—Tencent and Pinduoduo (PDD) are my top picks. Tencent is doing serious AI work at scale. PDD is founder-led, growing rapidly, and still feels like a startup.
Imran: Makes sense. So, the tech competition between the U.S. and China is unfolding in real-time.
Qiao: In the field of AI models—have you tried Mistral? We’re using it internally at Alliance. It’s clearly ahead of ChatGPT for deep research tasks. Perplexity is also quite good—it’s quickly become one of my go-to tools.
AI Assistants Showdown: Gemini, Mistral, and Perplexity
Imran: A few days ago, someone compared Mistral to Google’s Gemini on Twitter. They said if it takes five minutes to do deep work with Mistral, it only takes two and a half minutes with Gemini. So I’ve started using Gemini more.
Qiao: Gemini is indeed good. Its performance is surprisingly robust.
Imran: Yes, I’m starting to switch. Every few weeks, I feel the need to change my workflow based on the latest tools.
Qiao: Me too.
Imran: There’s currently no moat. So I’ve been using Gemini more frequently. Last night, I tried their new feature—real-time conversation. It’s part of the latest update. You can actually brainstorm with the AI in real-time. For example, I wanted to throw a birthday party—it helped me brainstorm, find venues, estimate costs, and I even had it help me make calls.
Qiao: Did it do it?
Imran: Not yet. But it got me to a point where all I needed to do was make that call myself. It automated everything to that point. Super useful.
Qiao: Can ChatGPT do that? Or is it not quite there?
Imran: From what I understand, Gemini feels faster and more interactive. Have you tried Sesame AI? It’s the most advanced voice model I’ve seen—it feels like talking to a real person.
Qiao: Who’s behind Sesame?
Imran: Not sure—no big company has claimed it. But I’ve tried both of their models, and they left a strong impression. I had my wife try it, and she was really creeped out. She said it felt like talking to a real person. It even simulates breathing—it’s amazing.
Qiao: Turing test passed. That’s crazy.
Imran: Yes, very convincing.
Qiao: The fact that you mentioned Google is the only U.S. stock I currently hold—Google. Its forward PE is about 17—not cheap, but still reasonable compared to the other "seven giants." For the first time in over a decade, Google is back at the forefront. They lost to Facebook in social media and couldn’t keep up with Apple in mobile. But in AI? This is Google’s home turf. This is deep software technology, and Google excels in this area. I wouldn’t be surprised if by the end of this year, Google has the best AI model.
Imran: It’s said that Google co-founder Sergey Brin has returned to Google and is working overtime to ensure they win in AI—at least that’s what I saw on Twitter. The reason I like Google is that when I do deep research, it pulls information from sources like YouTube and podcasts—real-time content. That gives it a unique advantage. Sometimes I think, "This research would actually be better on Google than on ChatGPT or Mistral."
Qiao: That’s a good point. I still use a combination of all the top AIs—ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, etc. I just switch based on context. And while I can’t always articulate why, I instinctively know which tool to use in each case. It’s like I’ve built my own mental neural network for choosing the right AI assistant. By the way, OpenAI just raised another round of funding—$300 million, with a valuation of $30 billion.
Imran: Right, that’s massive. Clearly high-profile.
Qiao: The AI competition is fierce—both at the foundational model level and the application level. All the big players—the "seven giants"—are deeply investing in AI, except for Apple. Apple may also be investing heavily, but they haven’t released any products yet. Meanwhile, Amazon just launched its own AI assistant product for their browser.
Imran: Exactly. They’re officially entering the space, competing with ChatGPT, Anthropic, and others.
Qiao: I also saw a recent interview with Jeff Bezos—he’s clearly all in on AI.
Imran: Yes, he didn’t explicitly say he’s back at Amazon, but when asked about Amazon’s biggest focus, he immediately replied, "AI."
Qiao: That says it all.
Imran: I switch based on the best tools every few weeks. Recently, I tried Gemini’s new real-time conversation feature—it helped me plan a birthday party, from venue to pricing. It’s very interactive.
Qiao: Can ChatGPT do the same thing?
Imran: It might be able to, but Gemini feels faster and more flexible. Have you tried Sesame? It’s a voice model that feels very human-like—even simulating breathing.
Qiao: That’s crazy.
Imran: It’s impressive. In AI, Google is back in the game. Their forward PE is reasonable, and they’re finally playing a role in the forefront of competition.
Qiao: I agree. They have lost in social and mobile, but AI is their home turf—deep software. I wouldn’t be surprised if Google leads in AI by the end of the year.
Imran: Sergey Brin is reportedly back at Google, pushing hard. Additionally, Google’s advantage in extracting real-time data (like YouTube, podcasts, etc.) gives it an edge in research applications.
Qiao: Yes, I rotate tools for tasks—ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, DeepSeek, etc. It has become instinctive. Moreover, OpenAI just raised $300 million, with a valuation of $30 billion. All the major players are deeply investing in AI, except for Apple. Amazon recently launched a browser-based assistant, and even Bezos is clearly re-engaging.
Imran: With Sergey and Bezos back, it feels like we’re in the most competitive and exciting tech race we’ve seen in years.
Will AI Make Coding Obsolete? The Clash of Productivity and Expertise
Qiao: The CEO of Replit recently said, "I no longer think you should learn to code." This sparked a lot of controversy. But I think what he means is that you no longer need to learn coding—it’s no longer a barrier. Within Alliance, I asked tech founders about the effectiveness of AI tools like ChatGPT, Cursor, and Windsurf in boosting productivity. Most reported a 2 to 4 times increase—huge gains. Additionally, more non-technical founders are now using Cursor to quickly develop their front ends. Previously, they had to explain their vision to technical partners, and a lot was lost in translation. Now, they can prototype their ideas directly and hand them off to tech personnel for refinement. This is a massive shift—it allows visionaries to go directly from idea to product.
Imran: I’m the same. I’m not a tech person, but I recently built a Telegram bot using Mistral and deployed it on AWS. It opened my eyes. If I can do this, imagine what today’s builders can accomplish.
Qiao: Exactly. At this rate, you don’t need a large team or huge funding. A few people and AI tools might be enough to build a unicorn.
Imran: I spoke with a founder from Proof—they are building rapid development tools for crypto projects. Their target users are founders building MVPs, which makes sense. These tools significantly shorten feedback cycles, making it easier to test ideas and iterate quickly. This could significantly accelerate the pace of innovation.
Qiao: Another big opportunity is consumer-facing micro-apps. With tools like Cursor, anyone can build a highly personalized app. One of our founders spent two hours building a language learning app for himself—and it works better than Duolingo because it was built entirely around his needs.
Imran: That’s a great example. Independent developers like @levelsio are doing this too—he posted about rebuilding Skype features and is now making $10,000 a month. This shows you can solve a niche problem and become profitable immediately—especially with a global user base.
Qiao: Indeed. These small opportunities were often overlooked in the past. But as AI tools lower the barrier, even non-technical people can build applications that can genuinely be profitable—$10,000 a month, $50,000 a month—without needing large teams or funding. This is the next wave.
Tokenizing Micro Startups for Liquidity
Imran: I think we’re entering the "micro-unicorn" season—we will see hundreds, if not thousands, of small-scale startups emerge. These companies will solve significant problems for small user groups. But they may remain small. They will never become billion-dollar companies. Eventually, there may be some consolidation, but for now, this is the shape of the future.
Qiao: And the question is, these small startups will never go public. So what if they—or their investors—want liquidity?
Imran: That’s exactly why they should tokenize. It’s a perfect use case. Tokenization could become the liquidity engine for micro startups. In fact, I see another trend. I want to hear your thoughts. There’s a guy—I forgot his name—but he launched an app called Cal AI. I downloaded it. Basically, you take a photo of your food, and it automatically calculates calories, fat content, etc. Then, it gives you a weekly health plan based on your calorie intake. He’s only 18 years old. Rejected by all universities. He shared his story online—posted his Oura Ring data, etc.
Qiao: Yes, I saw that.
Next-Generation Builders Choosing to Skip School
Imran: A teenager recently launched a product and reportedly reached $10 million in annual recurring revenue—despite being rejected by all universities. And now, more young people are choosing to skip college and dive straight into building.
Qiao: For this generation, traditional education is starting to feel optional.
Imran: Indeed. It’s not that education isn’t important—but building what people want might be more important. I saw a tweet that Nik mentioned that perfectly summarizes this:
"Working at Google or going to Harvard doesn’t signify status—because those decisions come from small, biased committees."
"True status comes from something that can’t be faked: building products used by millions, taking a company public, or saving lives."
"You don’t need that Google job—true status is when Google has to acquire your company."
Qiao: I completely agree. We’re seeing younger and younger founders. In our next batch, there are kids who dropped out of Princeton University in their sophomore year—they are incredibly smart.
Imran: They may not even know what they’re building yet, but that energy is undeniable. I think this trend will continue.
Qiao: And education itself is evolving. We’re working with a team to build AI tools to help kids learn to read earlier. There’s also a new startup school called Alpha School. Have you heard of it?
Disrupting Traditional Education with AI Tutors
Qiao: Have you heard of Alpha School in Texas? Kids there learn through AI tutors, spending only two hours a day on academics—but they outperform students in traditional schools.
Imran: I saw that. Their students rank in the top 2% on national tests.
Qiao: That doesn’t surprise me. AI as a tutor is very effective. I believe that in 5 to 10 years, AI will completely disrupt K-12 education. Kids no longer need to endure eight-hour lectures; they can learn the same content in a shorter time—AI tutors will personalize teaching based on their pace and interests. This will be far more efficient than regular classroom teachers.
Imran: I can’t stand the current school model—eight hours of inefficient learning. Students are passive and unproductive most of the time.
Qiao: Exactly. And Alpha School takes it a step further: 8-year-olds are launching startups, 10-year-olds are giving TED-style talks, and 12-year-olds are studying Harvard Business School cases. This is real applied learning—not just busywork.
Imran: This is the most exciting case of educational innovation I’ve seen. The whole system needs to change; it feels like the future.
AI Health Assistants and the End of Primary Care Physicians
Qiao: I see Apple is exploring an AI doctor product—that makes a lot of sense. The Apple Watch collects heart, sleep, and other health data, putting it in a good position. Besides Apple, there’s a huge opportunity for startups to build AI health assistants. One of our team members regularly uses ChatGPT for health advice—about heart health, diet, sleep, etc. Imagine an AI extracting data from your wearables, medications, and test results to provide tailored health advice. That’s incredibly powerful. A recent personal example: I took my son to see an allergist. The doctor was rushed and didn’t answer all my questions. So I asked ChatGPT at home—it gave the same diagnosis and better advice. It was like having a second, more patient doctor.
Imran: Indeed. This is already happening. My uncle in India got sick, and no one at home could understand the medical documents. I uploaded them to ChatGPT and got a clear summary and action plan, which I then relayed to them. That clarity is something actual doctors have never provided.
Qiao: That’s why I think some types of doctors—especially primary care physicians—may ultimately be replaced by AI.
Imran: Telemedicine is also part of this. It’s a step in that direction, but AI will go further—providing scalable personalized care. At the very least, AI can provide second opinions and reduce misdiagnoses.
Qiao: I wonder which startups are leading in this space now. There may be many, but no standout leaders yet. Perhaps Apple will be the first to achieve it.
Lawyers, Analysts, and Junior Roles Face Threats
Imran: I mean, lawyers in general—especially junior lawyers—most of their work can already be handled by AI.
Qiao: Exactly, it’s the junior roles that are the most vulnerable.
Imran: Yes, I can definitely see this industry taking a significant hit. Even we—junior analysts or researchers—we don’t really need them anymore. So I think entering these types of industries will become more difficult for those looking to build a career.
Qiao: They’ll have to find new ways to build their reputations.
Imran: One way might be to showcase your thinking on Twitter. I’ve seen people find jobs this way—just by consistently tweeting and sharing sharp insights. I’ll read a discussion and think, "This person should definitely be working somewhere," and sure enough, a few weeks later, they announce they’ve been hired.
Qiao: It will be interesting to see how this evolves. The broader trend I see is that AI is replacing many junior positions across multiple industries—not just doctors and lawyers, but also in our field. Remember when we used to talk about hiring venture capital analysts? We no longer need them. A lot of the work they would do—market research, startup analysis—we can accomplish just by conversing with AI.
The Generalist vs. the Specialist in the Age of AI
Qiao: Interestingly, I think Kyle tweeted something like "AI enhances generalists more than specialists." I understand his point, but conversely: in any specific industry, the most experienced people—true domain experts—still cannot be replaced by AI. They possess unique insights, edge cases, and experience-based intuition that AI lacks. And those people are the experts.
Imran: Yes, it’s a diversified shift. Generalists can focus deeply in one area, while specialists can expand across fields. So I think AI empowers both. It’s not one side against the other. For me, it ultimately comes down to agency. If you are willing to learn, adapt, and develop deeply or broadly based on the situation, you will succeed. If you lack that drive, you will fall behind—especially as others more actively leverage AI.
Qiao: Right. Naval recommended a book about parenting that touched on this point—I can’t recall the title at the moment.
Imran: Yes, I remember. He shared two main points. I actually have that book now—it’s really interesting.
Teaching Kids Agency Through AI and Books
Qiao: The core idea in the book recommended by Naval is to teach kids agency early on. Let them make their own decisions—even if it’s not ideal in the short term—so they can learn from experience and understand the reasons behind their choices. This is much more effective than just saying, "Do this, don’t do that."
Imran: Naval shared an example: he let his kids eat whatever they wanted—as long as they read and did math for an hour each day. Eventually, one of his daughters stopped eating ice cream on her own, realizing it wasn’t healthy. That impressed me. I’ve adopted part of this model. I bought my kids Kindles and told them, "If you read, you can watch a little TV." We usually don’t allow them to spend too much time on screens, but now they read almost two hours a day without needing to be prompted. They love it.
Qiao: That’s great. My approach is similar—two hours of math and language each day, and then they can freely explore things they’re interested in.
Imran: Me too. My daughter loves reading and independently uses Khan Academy. My son is a builder—we recently got a robot kit powered by NVIDIA’s new GPU, and we’re assembling it together. It’s an opportunity for teaching and learning to go hand in hand.
Qiao: That’s exactly the kind of learning I want to encourage.
Imran: Exactly, that’s how I think about the future—practical, curiosity-driven learning.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
