Get live statistics and analysis of Patrick Collison's profile on X / Twitter

@Stripe CEO, @ArcInstitute cofounder.

33 following716k followers

The Entrepreneur

A quietly brilliant builder who turned a simple idea about payments into a global platform and now backs ambitious science and software projects. Mostly measured, often insightful, and unafraid to celebrate others' wins. Tweets range from crisp industry takes to unexpectedly viral personal moments (yes, running photos).

Impressions
0
$0
Likes
0
0%
Retweets
0
0%
Replies
0
0%
Bookmarks
0
0%

You built a payments empire used by millions but follow 33 people, congratulations, you’ve mastered global infrastructure and curated the world’s tiniest VIP list. Also, you tweet 10k times and still make it look like minimalism.

Co‑founded Stripe and scaled it into a global payments platform that fundamentally changed online commerce, then parlayed that success into founding the Arc Institute to push scientific progress, an entrepreneur-to-philanthropist arc with enormous impact.

To build durable infrastructure and institutions that reduce friction for makers and accelerate progress, whether that's making commerce seamless, funding scientific work, or nudging the tech ecosystem toward long-term thinking.

Believes in pragmatic optimism, meritocratic opportunity (especially the opportunities America offers immigrants), data-informed decision making, the outsized impact of small dedicated teams, and that long-term, well-executed bets beat short-term noise.

Exceptional at product-led thinking and execution, credibility in tech and finance, disciplined long-term perspective, concise clarity in public commentary, and the ability to turn nuanced ideas into widely resonant posts.

Can come across as reserved or aloof on a platform built for chatter; low follower-to-following engagement suggests missed two-way opportunities; tendency toward brevity means fewer narrative threads that build deeper community.

Post 1, 2 substantive threads per week that unpack product lessons, strategy, or scientific ideas (start with a hook, use numbered points and visuals). Share more short authentic media (the running video proved you can go viral with simple moments). Host monthly Spaces or AMAs with founders and scientists to drive live engagement. Pick a high-value tweet and pin a flagship thread or newsletter to convert casual viewers into subscribers. Increase selective following and reply thoughtfully to high-impact conversations, trade a bit of aloofness for a lot more reciprocity. Finally, track what formats get lift (video, threads, replies) and double down.

Co‑founder and CEO of Stripe and co‑founder of the Arc Institute; 716,696 followers but follows only 33 accounts; ~10,108 tweets; one casual running post reached ~12.9M views, he can be quietly viral.

Top tweets of Patrick Collison

I recently drove a @Tesla for the first time (yes, late to the party), and it is truly an amazing car. So many details are *years* ahead of everyone else. Genuinely inspiring to see how much improvement can be conjured by a small group of dedicated outsiders.

0

Mario Draghi's new report on EU competitiveness doesn't mince words. "Across different metrics, a wide gap in GDP has opened up between the EU and the US, driven mainly by a more pronounced slowdown in productivity growth in Europe. Europe’s households have paid the price in foregone living standards. On a per capita basis, real disposable income has grown almost twice as much in the US as in the EU since 2000." "First – and most importantly – Europe must profoundly refocus its collective efforts on closing the innovation gap with the US and China, especially in advanced technologies. Europe is stuck in a static industrial structure with few new companies rising up to disrupt existing industries or develop new growth engines. In fact, there is no EU company with a market capitalisation over EUR 100 billion that has been set up from scratch in the last fifty years, while all six US companies with a valuation above EUR 1 trillion have been created in this period. This lack of dynamism is self-fulfilling." "There are not enough academic institutions achieving top levels of excellence and the pipeline from innovation into commercialisation is weak. [...] However, while the EU boasts a strong university system on average, not enough universities and research institutions are at the top. Using volume of publications in top academic science journals as an indicative metric, the EU has only three research institutions ranked among the top 50 globally, whereas the US has 21 and China 15." "Regulatory barriers to scaling up are particularly onerous in the tech sector, especially for young companies. Regulatory barriers constrain growth in several ways. First, complex and costly procedures across fragmented national systems discourage inventors from filing Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), hindering young companies from leveraging the Single Market. Second, the EU’s regulatory stance towards tech companies hampers innovation: the EU now has around 100 tech-focused laws and over 270 regulators active in digital networks across all Member States. Many EU laws take a precautionary approach, dictating specific business practices ex ante to avert potential risks ex post. For example, the AI Act imposes additional regulatory requirements on general purpose AI models that exceed a pre-defined threshold of computational power – a threshold which some state-of-the-art models already exceed. Third, digital companies are deterred from doing business across the EU via subsidiaries, as they face heterogeneous requirements, a proliferation of regulatory agencies and “gold plating” of EU legislation by national authorities. Fourth, limitations on data storing and processing create high compliance costs and hinder the creation of large, integrated data sets for training AI models. This fragmentation puts EU companies at a disadvantage relative to the US, which relies on the private sector to build vast data sets, and China, which can leverage its central institutions for data aggregation. This problem is compounded by EU competition enforcement possibly inhibiting intra-industry cooperation. Finally, multiple different national rules in public procurement generate high ongoing costs for cloud providers. The net effect of this burden of regulation is that only larger companies – which are often non-EU based – have the financial capacity and incentive to bear the costs of complying. Young innovative tech companies may choose not to operate in the EU at all." More: commission.europa.eu/document/downl….

13M

While @elonmusk is in the headlines for many reasons these days, this particular chart probably doesn’t get enough attention. 10 years after founding, SpaceX had ~0% market share. 16 years: >50%.

0

Most engaged tweets of Patrick Collison

Mario Draghi's new report on EU competitiveness doesn't mince words. "Across different metrics, a wide gap in GDP has opened up between the EU and the US, driven mainly by a more pronounced slowdown in productivity growth in Europe. Europe’s households have paid the price in foregone living standards. On a per capita basis, real disposable income has grown almost twice as much in the US as in the EU since 2000." "First – and most importantly – Europe must profoundly refocus its collective efforts on closing the innovation gap with the US and China, especially in advanced technologies. Europe is stuck in a static industrial structure with few new companies rising up to disrupt existing industries or develop new growth engines. In fact, there is no EU company with a market capitalisation over EUR 100 billion that has been set up from scratch in the last fifty years, while all six US companies with a valuation above EUR 1 trillion have been created in this period. This lack of dynamism is self-fulfilling." "There are not enough academic institutions achieving top levels of excellence and the pipeline from innovation into commercialisation is weak. [...] However, while the EU boasts a strong university system on average, not enough universities and research institutions are at the top. Using volume of publications in top academic science journals as an indicative metric, the EU has only three research institutions ranked among the top 50 globally, whereas the US has 21 and China 15." "Regulatory barriers to scaling up are particularly onerous in the tech sector, especially for young companies. Regulatory barriers constrain growth in several ways. First, complex and costly procedures across fragmented national systems discourage inventors from filing Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), hindering young companies from leveraging the Single Market. Second, the EU’s regulatory stance towards tech companies hampers innovation: the EU now has around 100 tech-focused laws and over 270 regulators active in digital networks across all Member States. Many EU laws take a precautionary approach, dictating specific business practices ex ante to avert potential risks ex post. For example, the AI Act imposes additional regulatory requirements on general purpose AI models that exceed a pre-defined threshold of computational power – a threshold which some state-of-the-art models already exceed. Third, digital companies are deterred from doing business across the EU via subsidiaries, as they face heterogeneous requirements, a proliferation of regulatory agencies and “gold plating” of EU legislation by national authorities. Fourth, limitations on data storing and processing create high compliance costs and hinder the creation of large, integrated data sets for training AI models. This fragmentation puts EU companies at a disadvantage relative to the US, which relies on the private sector to build vast data sets, and China, which can leverage its central institutions for data aggregation. This problem is compounded by EU competition enforcement possibly inhibiting intra-industry cooperation. Finally, multiple different national rules in public procurement generate high ongoing costs for cloud providers. The net effect of this burden of regulation is that only larger companies – which are often non-EU based – have the financial capacity and incentive to bear the costs of complying. Young innovative tech companies may choose not to operate in the EU at all." More: commission.europa.eu/document/downl….

13M

Having now spent about half my life in each (and loving both), herewith the pros and cons of Europe and the US in everyday life: Better in Europe • Bike lanes and bike infrastructure. London, Paris, and Amsterdam are all excellent these days. (As are many other European cities.) Made even better by easy-to-rent e-bikes—now almost always the fastest way to get around. • The urban walking experience generally. Partly for density reasons, and partly because of... • Late-night cafe, brasserie culture. Is there an economic reason for this or is it just climate and contingent zoning? • Architecture. Around 1920, we forgot how to make nice buildings. European cities tend to have more construction from before the Great Forgetting, and it makes the built environment much more pleasant. • Pedestrianized streets. Often with cobblestones. • In general, European cities are just more pleasant. Given how hard it is to build a good city (or indeed to retrofit one), this feels like a big deal. • Cured and pickled food. • Bread. Obviously varies by country, but it’s generally true. • Voltage. What are Americans doing waiting so long to boil kettles? • Beauty in the mundane. I find that you’re more likely to find tasteful touches in prosaic places in Europe. • Motorway design and signage. Standardized, clear, and easy-to-use. The US is a mess by comparison. • Bathroom doors. That is, in Europe, they’re proper doors. Why does America make us see others’ feet? • The clangor of church bells on Sunday. • Trains. Enough said. • Pharmacies. I'd love to understand why they're so much nicer in Europe. • Cheese. Again, lots of cross-country variation, but true in general. • I'm not sure why, but European regulation on many everyday items seems better. Sunscreens in Europe are better, as are bike helmets. • Wine. • Languor, joie de vivre, hygge, gemütlichkeit, craic. I think Europeans are better at unwinding. Drawing contrast with what he found in the US, De Tocqueville observed that in Europe "idleness is still held in honor". This difference remains apparent. • Road density. Europe generally has many more roads per square mile, which makes it easier to find nice places to run, walk, and cycle. Better in the US • Air conditioning. Consistently bad in Europe. (Partly for silly degrowth-related reasons?) • Coffee. Opinions will differ, naturally, but third wave coffee has seen much more enthusiastic adoption in the US. • Cookie banners. That is, the lack of them. (Well, there are some, but it’s not as bad as the fusillade one is subjected to in Europe.) • Internet speeds. European wifi often reminds me of my dialup youth. • Capital markets. If you need money (as a consumer, a small business, or a startup), it’s much easier to get it in the US. • Being able to buy groceries on Sunday. Inexplicably challenging on the continent. • Showers. Like the tepid air conditioning, daily ablutions in Europe are conducted beneath parsimonious trickles. • Urban air quality. Maybe surprisingly, it is, on average, better in the US. The unpleasant whiffs of diesel exhaust is part of the reminder that one is back in Europe. • Government efficiency. In general, things happen faster in the US. • Labor laws. As covered in Stripe's annual letter this year, people are more likely to work in high productivity sectors in the US (and thus to earn more). Rigid rules impede this reallocation in Europe. • Culture of general aviation with many thousands of small airports. There are around 700,000 pilots in the US—far more than there are in Europe. • Hospitals. A controversial claim, perhaps, but I find that those who have received care in Europe and the US prefer the US. • Beer. The microbrewery revolution of the US means that it’s clearly the better place for it.

1M

This morning, Nature published two papers on bridge editing, the new genome engineering technology from @ArcInstitute: nature.com/articles/s4158…, nature.com/articles/s4158…. I'm quite excited about its potential! Since the whole thing is pretty arcane, I fed the blog post (arcinstitute.org/news/blog/brid…) to Claude 3.5, and asked it to write an introduction. Below is the rather impressive (unedited) result. Genome Design: The Bridge to Our Biological Future I. Imagine you're trying to edit a document, but instead of a cursor, you have a pair of scissors. You can cut out words you don't like, maybe paste in a few new ones, but precise editing? Forget about it. Now imagine someone hands you a pen. Suddenly, you can write whatever you want, wherever you want. This is the kind of leap we're seeing in the world of genome editing. For the past few decades, we've been snipping away at genomes with tools like CRISPR, making impressive progress but always constrained by the fundamental nature of our tools: they cut DNA. But what if we could write directly into the genome, inserting whatever we want, wherever we want, without ever making a single cut? This isn't just a "wouldn't it be nice" daydream anymore. Researchers at the Arc Institute have discovered a new system that does exactly that. They're calling it "bridge recombination," and it might just be the biggest revolution in genetic engineering since CRISPR. II. To understand why this is such a big deal, we need to take a quick tour through the history of genetic manipulation. In the late 1990s, we discovered RNA interference (RNAi). This was our first real taste of programmable biology. We could use short RNA sequences to target and shut down specific genes. It was like having a universal remote control for gene expression. Cool, right? Then came CRISPR in the early 2010s. Suddenly, we could not just turn genes off, but edit them directly. It was like upgrading from a remote control to a basic text editor. We could cut out bad genes and paste in good ones. But there was always a catch: CRISPR works by cutting DNA, and cells don't always repair those cuts exactly the way we want them to. Both of these systems were revolutionary, but they shared a common limitation: they were destructive. They worked by breaking things – either the RNA transcripts of genes (in the case of RNAi) or the DNA itself (in the case of CRISPR). III. Enter the bridge recombination system. The researchers at Arc Institute, led by Dr. Patrick Hsu, were poking around in the genomes of bacteria, looking at transposable elements. These are sometimes called "jumping genes" because they can cut themselves out of one part of a genome and paste themselves into another. They were particularly interested in a group called IS110 elements. These are about as minimalist as you can get while still being functional – just a gene for the enzyme that does the cutting and pasting, plus some mysterious flanking DNA segments. What they found was surprising. When an IS110 element cuts itself out of a genome, those mysterious flanking segments join up to form an RNA molecule. This RNA folds into two loops, one that binds to the IS110 element itself, and another that binds to the target DNA where the element will insert itself. This RNA – which they've dubbed "bridge RNA" – is the key to the whole system. It's like a set of instructions, telling the enzyme exactly where to insert the DNA and what DNA to insert. IV. Now, you might be thinking, "Okay, that's neat, but how is this different from CRISPR?" The key is in how the insertion happens. CRISPR works by making a cut in the DNA and then relying on the cell's repair mechanisms to insert the new DNA. It's effective, but it's also a bit like performing surgery with a chainsaw. Sometimes you get exactly what you want, but often you end up with small errors or unwanted insertions or deletions. The bridge recombination system, on the other hand, doesn't cut the DNA at all. It unzips a small section, inserts the new DNA, and zips it back up again. No broken DNA strands, no relying on error-prone repair mechanisms. It's precise in a way that CRISPR can only dream of. But the real magic is in the programmability. Remember those two loops in the bridge RNA? They can be programmed to recognize any DNA sequence. This means you can tell the system to insert any piece of DNA into any location in the genome. It's like having a word processor for DNA. V. The implications of this are staggering. Here are just a few possibilities: • Gene Therapy 2.0: Current gene therapy approaches often rely on somewhat random insertion of therapeutic genes. With bridge recombination, we could insert corrective genes exactly where they need to go, without risking disruption of other important genes. • Synthetic Biology: Want to give an organism a completely new capability? Just design the gene and insert it precisely where you want it. • Evolutionary Biology: We could insert reporter genes at specific locations across the genome, allowing us to watch evolution happen in real time. • Agricultural Improvements: We could insert beneficial genes into crops with unprecedented precision, potentially revolutionizing our ability to create drought-resistant or nutrient-enhanced plants. • Bioengineering: Imagine being able to design and build entire genetic circuits, inserting each component exactly where it needs to be for optimal function. VI. In the grand scheme of things, the discovery of bridge recombination feels like a pivotal moment. It's as if we've been trying to write the book of life with a typewriter, and someone just handed us a word processor. The researchers at Arc Institute have opened a door to a new era of genome design. As with any breakthrough of this magnitude, it's hard to predict exactly where it will lead. But one thing is certain: the future of biology just got a lot more interesting. As we stand on the brink of this new frontier, I'm reminded of a quote from Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." With bridge recombination, we're not just editing the genome anymore. We're writing it. And that, my friends, is pretty close to magic.

2M

Reviewing @Stripe's roadmap for 2021 and, even compressed, it is *11 pages* of phenomenal material. (By a significant margin our most ambitious to date.) What are your top requests?

0

People with Entrepreneur archetype

The Entrepreneur
@sweatystartup

I buy real estate and start companies. Owner of Somewhere.com, Bolt Storage, R.E. Cost Seg and more.

4k following430k followers
The Entrepreneur
@startupideaspod

Get startup ideas and practical tutorials on AI tools will make you more money and build your business. Host: @gregisenberg Available on Spotify, Apple and YT

8 following33k followers
The Entrepreneur
@seraleev

Indie dev · Mobile & SaaS · Goal → $1,000,000 ARR seraleev.com | type.link

337 following15k followers
The Entrepreneur
@realestatedude0

I buy ugly houses , apartments & Commerical. Flipping houses virtually out of state. 130+houses flipped. I sell a house a week. Personal opinion. #sec8

1k following13k followers
The Entrepreneur
@ravikabir_

We Help B2B SaaS Companies Create High Ticket Offers and Run Ads Profitably. We manage $100k/m in ad spend across some of your favorite SaaS companies

516 following2k followers
The Entrepreneur
@pk_iv

founder of @browserbase

1k following19k followers
The Entrepreneur
@pjmcgeary

@umich alum 〽️ | Built a 7-figure residential cleaning biz from nothing | Chasing more golf time ⛳️

413 following6k followers
The Entrepreneur
@pasternak

I believe in you

180 following80k followers
The Entrepreneur
@noahkagan

Chief Sumo at @appsumo. #30 at Facebook. Helping entrepreneurs 👉 noahkagan.com

163 following173k followers
The Entrepreneur
@nicktheriot_

Growth Marketer | Founder Theriot Solutions, LLC | YouTuber | Passionate about human psychology | Boxing 🥊

370 following28k followers
The Entrepreneur
@moseskagan

Owns many apartment buildings w investors. Manages many more for other owners. Co-founder: @reconvenela & @reseedpartners. Join my mailing list here ⬇️

4k following180k followers

Explore Related Archetypes

If you enjoy the entrepreneur profiles, you might also like these personality types:

Supercharge your 𝕏 game,
Grow with SuperX!

Get Started for Free