YURI MILNER

I have this ratio that if you divide age of entrepreneur by market cap of company. For Facebook it's one. Every year of his life Zuckerberg has been making $1 billion for investors.

Russia is one of the places where significant presence of social networks are driven by domestic players right now.

I have invested in four social networks. More than any other.

When you have a few billion people connected with screens, not voice... screens are important. You can transmit a thousand times more information.

Facebook now is mostly about people you know. In the future it could be about people you know less but are more important.

I have invested in four social networks. More than any other. But that's in Russia and Poland.

It's not how much something's worth today, it's what it's worth in five or 10 years.

Kai-Fu's Innovation Works is the top very-early-stage fund in China. We are proud to be an investor, and hope that IW will help to produce in China companies on the scale of Facebook, Zynga, or Groupon.

There is huge demand for artificial intelligence technologies.

One of the companies that we've invested in is called Facebook. In only two years, between 2009 and 2011, the information exchanged between people increased 28 times. And that cannot be explained by new people joining Facebook.

We've only made three investments: Facebook, Groupon, and Zynga.

I'm just focused on exploring new opportunities.

Facebook is at the forefront. It's the company that can fundamentally change the way information is being exchanged and processed. It can be the basis for artificial intelligence to develop over time.

There is a significant momentum behind the social Internet. A wide range of public investors were very enthusiastic about that.

Big Internet companies on average are capable of generating revenue of $1 million per employee, and that compares to 10 to 20 percent of that which is normally generated by traditional offline businesses of comparable size.

Fundamental physics is like an art more or less. It's completely non-practical, and you can't use it for anything. But it's about the universe and how the world came into being. It's very remote from your daily life and mine, and yet it defines us as human beings.

Google never knew how successful key words would be.

You have to travel globally today to know what's going on and maintain an edge.

I think top scientists need to be compensated at a different scale in society. Somebody with experience will tell you that true scientists are not motivated by money - they are motivated by the quest itself. That is true. But I think an additional recognition will not hurt.

The problem is that modern fundamental physics is so far from you and me. The mathematics has become so much more complicated that you need at least 10 years to understand it. Fundamental physics has advanced so far from the understanding of most people that there is really a big disconnect.

It is hard to think of practical applications of the black hole. Because practical applications are so remote, many people assume we should not be interested. But this quest to understand the world is what defines us as human beings.

It's not about revenues: The fundamental economics in digital business is scale and margins. The top line has become the bottom line.

The largest newspaper in the United States is only reaching 1 percent of population. We are kind of assuming that 'Wall Street Journal,' 'USA Today,' and other newspapers are very important. Yes, they're extremely important, but only to 1 percent of the population on a daily basis.

You know among people who kind of travel a lot and have exposure to the United States and some other countries, they do have accounts, but you know, Russia is not exactly the place with multiple language skills so local networks kind of have an edge.

Google never knew how successful key words would be. Facebook didn't know how successful Zynga would be.