Jake Paul and Geoffrey Woo on Attention, Investing and Boxing

Jake Paul and Geoffrey Woo join Harry Stebbings to discuss their venture partnership, attention, boxing, politics and personal life. They have commercial interests in the fund and companies they describe; investment returns, business figures and personal stories are their accounts, not independently verified outcomes.

Paul describes a portfolio of activities spanning entertainment, boxing, a ranch, sports gaming and venture investing. Stebbings notes that Paul co-founded Betr with its founder rather than merely investing. Woo says their aim is to combine capital and attention to support companies and ideas they believe in.

Asked whether aspiring to be an influencer is healthy, Paul says people should be themselves and honestly assess their creativity, storytelling and willingness to work. He says the visible video is only a small part of the production, with the team debating edits and details behind the scenes.

Paul distinguishes the creative act of filming from the more analytical work of editing. He says a strong story can draw on conflict, struggle and love, and that he deliberately tries to evoke emotion. He recalls acting distressed in a video as an entertainment choice, which led some viewers to ask if he was all right.

Woo says Paul’s public persona can polarize potential institutional investors, but argues that they should lean into their distinctive approach. Woo’s claim about their investment track record is self-interested and not accompanied by audited fund returns in the interview.

Asked if all publicity is good publicity, Paul says no. He also defends his own past conduct and public persona, characterizing criticism as unfair. These are his personal views and self-description; the interview does not independently investigate his conduct or the concerns others may have raised.

Stebbings asks why venture matters when boxing can generate substantial income. Paul says a roughly $30 million fund is a starting point and describes an ambition to manage far more capital over time. The fight-income figures raised in the question and future fund size are not independently verified.

Woo rejects a simple division in which Paul only supplies distribution while Woo finds and selects investments. He argues that Paul’s years on social platforms give him a view of consumer behavior and culture that can inform selection. This is Woo’s assessment of his business partner, with whom he shares an interest in the fund.

Woo argues that as some technical and financial work becomes easier to access, taste, culture and attention may become more valuable. He criticizes a venture investor’s marketing stance using an example from Uber. His claims about that investor and company are opinions and are not supported by transaction or financial records in the conversation.

Asked what the fund offers founders, Paul says they do not promise distribution for every company. He says value can also come from marketing advice, introductions and cultural knowledge. Woo similarly emphasizes access and introductions; these are their descriptions of the service they sell, not measured results for all portfolio companies.

Stebbings proposes concentrating on established late-stage companies and leveraging the partners’ brands. Woo agrees that access and media expertise could be useful at the growth stage. His estimates of enterprise value and the advantage their introductions provide are promotional opinions, not verified performance data.

The partners also describe incubating companies, including Betr and W. Paul says he saw room for a better sports-gaming product and believed his content and distribution could help. He has a direct commercial interest in those businesses, and the interview does not independently compare their products or returns.

Woo mentions European defense and voice AI as areas of interest, while emphasizing a strategy of seeking leading companies in large categories. Paul says he spends time on calls, visits and advising companies. These are their investment interests and account of involvement, not a recommendation to invest in any named company.

Stebbings asks whether staying culturally relevant feels like a treadmill. Paul says he and his brother have built a durable ecosystem across sports and media, while he thinks it is harder for many other creators. His assessment of his own position and the wider creator market is opinion, not a measured industry trend.

Paul says creators considering investing need to understand the work and build relationships, not assume an audience automatically makes them investors. He describes his own ability to anticipate culture as partly instinctive. The guests do not provide a controlled comparison of creator-led funds and traditional funds.

Paul claims that he and a content colleague predict video views with about 85% accuracy. He gives examples of expected view counts but does not define the error tolerance, sample or measurement method. The figure is his self-report, not a verified forecasting record.

Paul says he saw an opportunity in boxing’s entertainment and economics and wanted to move beyond influencer bouts toward a world title. He believes his promotion and willingness to face established opponents increased attention. His claims about his contribution to boxing’s revival and possible future performance are personal interpretations.

Paul says he regarded a fight with Anthony Joshua as valuable even if he lost, because audiences could see his persistence. He describes considering both competition and attention when evaluating a matchup. His account of audience reaction is anecdotal, not an independent measure of his public standing.

Stebbings asks whether live sport is protected from AI-generated entertainment. Paul says it is an open question: highly personalized games or films might compete for time and attention. He is speculating about future behavior, not claiming that AI has already displaced sports audiences.

Stebbings expresses anxiety about potential job losses and social disruption. Paul is more optimistic that people will adapt to new technology, while Woo urges active participation in change. These are differing predictions, and the interview does not establish the scale of future unemployment.

Woo offers a critical view of Europe’s ability to seize technological opportunities. That is his broad political and economic opinion, not an evidence-based assessment of every European country or company. Paul says he sometimes wonders about a path in technology but does not identify a specific regret.

Paul says money can buy freedom but also bring management and stress. He recalls his parents’ divorce and his father selling possessions as a formative experience that motivated him to pursue financial security. The story is his personal recollection rather than a general account of his family’s circumstances.

Woo describes Paul as generous and says his public persona does not show every side of him. As Paul’s business partner, Woo is not an independent character witness; the examples he gives are personal anecdotes. Paul agrees that people who meet him sometimes have a different impression from what they expected.

Woo says he admires Paul’s ability to switch among training, public appearances and business conversations. He also recounts time spent with President Trump and draws a comparison in energy and context switching. These are subjective observations from a partner and supporter, not objective measures.

Asked about a political career, Paul says he does not actively want the workload but might consider office under certain circumstances. He recounts encouragement from Trump and expresses opposition to Kamala Harris. His statements about what a future candidate might do are political opinions, not established facts.

Paul says he supports Trump and believes he is doing a good job, while disagreeing with some statements. Woo praises what he sees as bold leadership. Their evaluations are partisan opinions; the conversation does not independently assess the administration’s actions or their consequences.

Stebbings raises the ethics of supplying defense technology and cites an Anduril executive’s position. Woo argues that elected leaders should make government decisions, and Paul supports the development of defense technology. Their fund has an investment interest in Anduril; their views do not resolve the moral or legal questions.

Paul suggests autonomous systems could make operations safer and potentially reduce deaths. This is his prediction and does not establish the effect of any weapon or technology on civilian or military harm. Outcomes depend on how systems are designed, deployed and used.

Asked how an AI executive should respond to criticism over a government deal, Paul says leaders must make decisions and accept that people will disagree. Woo suggests showing more of the human reasoning behind decisions. Their communications advice does not establish the merits of the underlying agreement.

Paul describes his approach to relationships as communication and both partners trying to contribute generously. He says he and his fiancée support one another and exchange gestures of affection. This is a personal view, not a prescription for every relationship.

Paul describes periods of mental-health difficulty and says managing his mind is an ongoing practice. He mentions meditation, breathwork and personal experiences with psychoactive substances. The interview offers no clinical evidence for those practices or substances, and his account is not treatment guidance.

Stebbings describes himself as highly driven and asks about the costs of being continually focused on work. Paul says the drive is part of who he is but can be a double-edged sword. Their use of “addiction” and other labels is conversational, not a clinical diagnosis.

Paul describes intense training, especially track sprints, and says the repetition and solitude of preparation can be demanding. In the ring, he says he looks for patterns in an opponent’s movements and opportunities to counter. These are his descriptions of his own experience and technique.

Asked about a possible Conor McGregor fight, Paul discusses a hypothetical fee. He says he keeps nearly all of his boxing proceeds because of how his promotion is structured. The amount and retained percentage are self-reported, and the interview does not provide contracts or a complete accounting of costs.

Paul says his boxing goal is to become a world champion and inspire people who have been doubted. He also recalls a period of uncertainty when he stopped making YouTube videos before finding boxing. His stated ambition is a future goal, not an achievement established by the interview.

When asked to choose being number one in boxing, content or investing, Paul chooses investing because he enjoys learning about technology and wants an activity he can continue long term. Woo says the activities reinforce one another. Both have a commercial interest in presenting their fund’s model.

Woo cites fund investments and a personal early investment in Ramp, reporting very large multiples. The interview does not establish whether the figures are realized cash returns or paper marks, nor does it provide fund-level net performance, fees or timing. They should not be interpreted as representative investor returns.

Woo recalls an earlier angel investment and an introduction to an accelerator, while Stebbings recounts declining a chance to invest in a subsequent company. Their stories illustrate personal relationships and missed opportunities, not a verified accounting of deal ownership.

Paul mentions a rarely used expensive car and says he is building a track to use it. Woo then says the partners are interested in a possible public-markets product and reports assets under management in the nine figures. Those are personal and business claims, not independently confirmed financial disclosures.

Paul names Michael Phelps when asked about high performance. Stebbings adds his own view about rest; their remarks do not establish that athletes do not need recovery. The pair then define success for their fund as supporting influential companies and producing returns for limited partners and themselves.

Woo says he hopes to work closely with people who will build significant companies over the next decade. Paul similarly hopes to make money for investors while participating in important businesses. These are aspirations for Anti Fund, not a guarantee of returns or a record of realized performance.