Naval Ravikant: Key Ideas, Methods and How to Apply Them
A clear-eyed guide to Naval Ravikant: what specific knowledge and permissionless leverage actually mean, what the Naval Almanack is, a seven-day practice, the documented criticism, and how he differs from Tim Ferriss and Paul Graham.
Who is Naval Ravikant, and what has he actually built?
Naval Ravikant is an entrepreneur and angel investor, best known as a co-founder of AngelList and as the source material for a widely read body of writing about wealth and happiness. Ravikant was born in India and moved to New York City as a child, where he was raised largely by his mother in Queens. He attended Stuyvesant High School and then Dartmouth College, where he studied computer science and economics. In 1999 he co-founded Epinions, a consumer product review site; Epinions was merged with DealTime in 2003 to form Shopping.com, which went public and was later acquired by eBay. He then co-founded Vast.com, a search engine for classified listings. With Babak Nivi he started the Venture Hacks blog, which became AngelList in 2010, a platform where startups raise money and recruit. Ravikant moved out of the chief executive seat at AngelList around 2020 and stayed on as chairman. His reported angel investments include Twitter, Uber, Notion, Postmates and Stack Overflow. He has no academic post and no formal training in psychology or philosophy. His standing rests on an operating record, not on credentials.
The shape of Naval Ravikant's public output matters as much as the resume. He has never published a company manifesto, sold a coaching program, or run a paid mastermind. The material people quote arrived as numbered social posts, as a short-episode podcast he recorded himself, and as long interviews with hosts including Tim Ferriss, Shane Parrish and Joe Rogan. That absence of a funnel is part of why the ideas travel: there is nothing obvious being sold at the end of them. It also means the ideas were never stress-tested by an editor, a peer reviewer or a hostile interviewer at length. Ravikant's wider profile is more recent than most people assume. He was known inside the startup world through the 2000s as an operator and an unusually blunt commentator on venture capital practice, but the audience outside that world dates mostly from a single 2018 thread. He has also been an early and vocal advocate of cryptocurrency, and CoinList was spun out of AngelList in that period. In 2024 he launched Airchat, a voice-based social application, with Brian Norgard, which received attention on release and has not become a mass product.
What is AngelList, and what was Naval Ravikant's role in it?
AngelList is an online platform where startups raise capital from angel investors and syndicates, and where they list jobs. Naval Ravikant co-founded it with Babak Nivi in 2010, growing it out of their Venture Hacks blog, and he ran it as chief executive for most of the following decade before moving to a chairman role around 2020. AngelList is the practical basis for Ravikant's authority on startup economics.
Where did Naval Ravikant go to school?
Naval Ravikant attended Stuyvesant High School, a selective public school in New York City, and then Dartmouth College, where he studied computer science and economics. He has spoken about spending large amounts of time in public libraries as a child after emigrating from India, and he credits self-directed reading rather than either institution with most of what he considers his useful education.
What is the Naval Almanack, and did Naval Ravikant write it?
The Naval Almanack, properly The Almanack of Naval Ravikant: A Guide to Wealth and Happiness, is a 2020 book compiled and edited by Eric Jorgenson, not written by Naval Ravikant. Jorgenson assembled it from Ravikant's tweets, podcast episodes, interview transcripts and essays, then arranged them into an argument. Tim Ferriss wrote the foreword and Jack Butcher supplied the illustrations. The full text is free to read online at navalmanack.com, with paid print, ebook and audio editions for people who want to own it. The book has two halves. The first is about wealth: specific knowledge, accountability, leverage, judgment, and the mechanics of owning equity rather than renting out hours. The second is about happiness, desire and the mind, and it is looser, more fragmentary and less confident than the first. What the Naval Almanack is not is a research book. There are no studies, no citations to evidence, and no chapter that walks you through a method step by step. Its unit is the compressed line. That compression is why people reread it, and it is also the reason a skeptical reader can find very little to push against.
Eric Jorgenson was not a journalist or a biographer when he made the Naval Almanack. He was a startup employee who had been collecting and organizing Naval Ravikant's scattered public material for his own use, and the book grew out of that collecting with Ravikant's cooperation. Jorgenson has said publicly that Ravikant takes no proceeds from it, which is consistent with the decision to publish the complete text free. Jorgenson later applied the same method to the investor Balaji Srinivasan in a second compilation. Reading the Naval Almanack is best done the way it was assembled: out of order, in short sittings, with a pen. Long stretches of it are single sentences with white space around them, which flatters the ideas. A useful discipline is to stop at any line you agree with immediately and ask what it would look like if it were false, because easy agreement is the failure mode this format produces.
Is the Naval Almanack worth reading?
The Naval Almanack is worth reading if you want a dense, rereadable set of frames for thinking about work, ownership and desire, and you already know it is one person's compressed opinion rather than evidence. It is a poor choice if you want procedures, studies or a plan. Since the complete text is free at navalmanack.com, the cost of finding out which reader you are is an hour.
What is the difference between the Naval Almanack and Poor Richard's Almanack?
The title of the Naval Almanack nods to Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanack and, more directly, to Poor Charlie's Almanack, the collected talks of Charlie Munger. All three are aphorism collections rather than arguments. The Naval Almanack differs in that its subject did not write or arrange it, and that its material was originally published in public a fragment at a time on social media.
What does Naval Ravikant mean by specific knowledge?
Specific knowledge is Naval Ravikant's term for knowledge that cannot be trained into someone. His reasoning is economic. If a school, a bootcamp or a corporate program can reliably produce your skill in a new person, then the market can produce your replacement, and your compensation drifts down toward the cost of that training. Specific knowledge resists that because it is built out of genuine obsession rather than a curriculum, it is often tacit and hard to articulate, and it tends to sit at the edge of a field rather than in its textbook. Ravikant's rough diagnostic is that specific knowledge feels like play to the person doing it and looks like work to everyone watching. He points at three rough territories where it shows up: highly technical or creative work, work that runs on personality such as persuasion and storytelling, and deep familiarity with a narrow domain that nobody else finds interesting enough to learn. The important caveat is that specific knowledge on its own pays like a hobby. In Ravikant's framework it only produces wealth when it is combined with accountability and leverage, and he is consistent that the combination, not the ingredient, is the point.
The idea is not original to Naval Ravikant, and he does not claim it is. Economists have long distinguished general human capital from firm-specific and idiosyncratic human capital, and Michael Polanyi's work on tacit knowledge covers the same territory with more care. What Ravikant added was a personal test that a reader can run in an afternoon and a name that spreads. That is a real contribution and also the source of the concept's main weakness: specific knowledge is far easier to identify backward than forward. Someone who has already succeeded can point to the strange interest that turned out to be valuable. Someone in the middle of an unusual obsession cannot tell whether it is specific knowledge or an expensive hobby, and Ravikant offers no way to distinguish the two in advance. The honest version of the advice is closer to a bet than a plan: pursuing real curiosity raises your chance of ending up somewhere the market cannot easily staff, while offering no guarantee that the market will want what you find there.
How do you find your specific knowledge?
Naval Ravikant suggests looking at what you did as a child without being told to, and at what people already come to you for. The signal he trusts is the gap between how hard something feels to you and how hard it looks to others. A more practical version: write down every question colleagues ask you that you answer without preparation, then look for what those questions have in common.
Is specific knowledge the same as ikigai or finding your passion?
No. Ikigai diagrams ask what you love, what you are good at, what pays and what the world needs, and land on purpose. Naval Ravikant's specific knowledge is a narrower claim about labor markets: it is the part of your capability that cannot be reproduced by training someone else. Work can be deeply meaningful and still be entirely trainable, in which case it is not specific knowledge in his sense.
What is naval leverage, and which kinds actually compound?
Naval leverage refers to Naval Ravikant's division of leverage into three kinds: labor, capital, and products with no marginal cost of replication. Labor means other people working on your behalf. It is the oldest form, it requires that people agree to be led, and it converts your time into management rather than freeing it. Capital means money working on your behalf. It scales cleanly, but access is gatekept by track record, so most people cannot start there. The third kind is code and media, which Ravikant calls permissionless leverage: software you write and content you publish keep working while you sleep, and nobody has to approve your attempt. His claim is that the third category is what changed in the last few decades, because a single person can now reach millions without hiring anyone or raising anything. Leverage sits in a formula alongside specific knowledge and accountability, where accountability means putting your own name and real downside behind decisions in exchange for equity-like upside. Ravikant is careful about the direction of the multiplier. Leverage amplifies bad judgment exactly as efficiently as good judgment, which is why he treats clear thinking rather than effort as the binding constraint once leverage is in place.
The practical instruction underneath naval leverage is that renting out your time does not scale, no matter how high the rate, because the hours are capped and the arrangement transfers no ownership. Ravikant's alternative is to productize yourself: take the specific knowledge, wrap it in something that replicates for free, and attach your name to it so the upside can find you. That is why he treats writing code and publishing work as the same move in different materials. The framework is cleanest at the extremes and blurriest in the middle. A software product with no marginal cost is obviously the third kind of leverage; a consultancy that hires three people is obviously the first. But a course business, a fund, or a media operation with a staff is all three at once, and Ravikant's categories do not tell you how to weight them. Nor does the framework address the cost side of permissionless leverage, which is that a market where anyone may publish is a market where attention, not permission, becomes the scarce resource. Zero cost to enter is not zero cost to be noticed.
What is permissionless leverage?
Permissionless leverage is Naval Ravikant's name for code and media, the forms of leverage that do not require anyone's approval to use. Hiring requires people to accept the job; investing requires someone to allocate capital to you. Writing software or publishing work requires neither, so the constraint moves from access to judgment and quality. It is the form he tells people without money or reputation to start with.
What does accountability mean in Naval Ravikant's framework?
Accountability means taking business risk under your own name, with visible consequences if you are wrong. Naval Ravikant argues that people who accept accountability get equity-like upside because the market can price them individually, while anonymous contributors are priced as replaceable inputs. The uncomfortable half is that accountability includes public failure, and he is direct that the upside does not exist without that exposure.
Why does Naval Ravikant say happiness is a skill?
Naval happiness rests on the claim that happiness is a learnable skill rather than a fixed trait or a reward for achievement. Ravikant describes happiness as something closer to a default condition that appears when the mind stops adding commentary to the present moment, so the work is subtractive: removing the internal conflict rather than acquiring more good experiences. His most quoted formulation is that a desire is a contract you make with yourself to be unhappy until you get what you want. The instruction that follows is not to abolish desire, which he treats as unrealistic, but to pick your desires consciously and hold very few at a time. The practices he points at are unglamorous. He has described sitting still and doing nothing for a long stretch each morning, without technique or app, until the mind exhausts its own agenda; he has also spoken about silent Vipassana retreats. He recommends cutting inputs that manufacture wants, particularly news and social comparison. Ravikant offers all of this as personal report rather than clinical advice, and he does not claim it treats depression or anxiety. Read as a therapy substitute it would be irresponsible; read as one person's account of attention, it is coherent.
The lineage here is explicit. Naval happiness draws heavily on Jiddu Krishnamurti, whose position was that a mind free of internal contradiction does not need to be made peaceful, and on Buddhist observation stripped of its religious frame. Ravikant has also pointed readers toward the physician and writer Kapil Gupta, whose work is far harsher and less consoling than the excerpts that circulate. What Ravikant does not take from those sources is the ethical and communal apparatus. Krishnamurti and the Buddhist traditions both attach the inner work to obligations toward other people; Ravikant's version is almost entirely first-person, concerned with the state of one mind. That is a genuine difference, not a small one, and it is the point where his happiness material diverges most from the traditions it borrows from. Worth noting too that Ravikant is describing a practice he took up as an already-wealthy man. He says as much, and he argues the sequence should be reversed, but the reader should be clear that the account comes from someone whose material problems were solved before the desire work began.
What does Naval Ravikant mean by desire being a contract?
Naval Ravikant's formulation is that every desire is an agreement to be dissatisfied until a specific condition is met. The point is not that wanting things is wrong, but that each desire is a standing cost paid in present-moment discontent. His practical response is to reduce the number of live desires to one at a time and to choose that one deliberately, so the cost is being paid for something you actually selected.
What meditation does Naval Ravikant recommend?
Naval Ravikant has described sitting comfortably with eyes closed and doing nothing at all for a long stretch each morning, deliberately without a technique, a mantra or an app, and letting the mind run until it runs out. He has also spoken about attending silent Vipassana retreats. He is skeptical of meditation as another achievement to optimize, which is why his version has no metric.
What did Naval Ravikant's How to Get Rich thread actually argue?
The How to Get Rich thread was a numbered set of posts Naval Ravikant published in 2018, which he later expanded into a series of short podcast episodes and which became the spine of the wealth half of the Naval Almanack. Its opening move is a distinction: seek wealth, not money or status. Wealth means assets that earn while you sleep; money is how we transfer wealth; status is a zero-sum ranking, and Ravikant argues that people playing status games have a structural incentive to attack wealth creation because their game only works if someone loses. From there the argument runs through ownership rather than hours, specific knowledge, accountability, leverage, and judgment. Two ideas from the thread have traveled independently. One is playing long-term games with long-term people, on the reasoning that compound interest applies to reputation and relationships as much as to capital, and that the compounding only starts when the counterparty expects to see you again. The other is the four kinds of luck, which Ravikant credits to the physician James Austin: blind chance, luck generated by motion and hustle, luck that only a prepared mind notices, and luck that comes to you because of a character other people bring opportunities to.
Very little in the How to Get Rich thread is new, and Naval Ravikant does not present it as new. Ownership over wages is an old argument, compounding relationships is older, and the luck taxonomy is borrowed with attribution. What the thread did was compress the argument into a form that could be read in five minutes and quoted forever, which is itself an instance of the media leverage it describes. There is an internal tension worth naming. The thread is subtitled as getting rich without getting lucky, and it then devotes a substantial section to cultivating luck. Ravikant's resolution is that the fourth kind of luck is not really chance, since a distinctive character reliably attracts opportunity, and that the first kind is the only one outside your influence. That is a reasonable reading, but the title claims more certainty than the contents deliver, and readers who take the promise literally will conclude that people who did not get rich simply failed to follow the instructions.
What does playing long-term games with long-term people mean?
Naval Ravikant's claim is that almost all returns in life, financial and otherwise, come from compounding, and that compounding requires repeated interactions with the same counterparties over years. Choosing collaborators you expect to still be working with in a decade changes their behavior and yours, because neither side gains from extracting a one-time advantage. It is an argument for stable relationships on efficiency grounds rather than sentiment.
What are the four kinds of luck?
The four kinds of luck, which Naval Ravikant credits to the physician James Austin, are blind chance, luck produced by persistent motion and energy, luck that only a prepared and knowledgeable mind is able to spot, and luck that arrives because you have built a distinctive reputation that makes other people bring opportunities to you. Only the first is entirely outside your influence, which is the point of the taxonomy.
What is a Naval Ravikant practice you can run this week?
The most useful Naval Ravikant practice is a seven-day audit that turns his four abstractions into written answers about your own working life. It takes twenty to forty minutes a day and produces a page you can act on. Day one, specific knowledge: list every question colleagues ask you that you answer without preparation, plus anything you did at twelve years old that nobody assigned you. Look for the overlap. Day two, leverage inventory: write out last week's work in hours and mark each block labor, capital, code or media. Most people find nearly everything falls into the first column. Day three, one replication: take a single recurring output from that list and build the version that works without you, whether that is a script, a template or a published piece. Day four, accountability: publish one specific, falsifiable claim under your real name, small enough to ship and precise enough to be wrong. Day five, desire audit: write every current want on one page, choose the single one you are willing to be unhappy about, and formally drop or defer the rest for the week. Day six, sit still for thirty minutes with no technique and no timer in view. Day seven, reread the page and change one commitment.
Two parts of this practice do the real work, and both are easy to skip. The first is day two, because writing down where your hours actually went is uncomfortable in a way that reading about leverage is not. Most people discover their week contained one hour of anything that survives them and forty hours of rented time, which is the entire point of Naval Ravikant's framework arriving as evidence instead of assertion. The second is day five. Naming every live want on a single page usually reveals a dozen contradictory ones running at once, and the exercise of formally suspending eleven of them for seven days makes the cost of each desire visible in a way that thinking about it does not. Set a realistic bar for the outcome. This audit will not make you money in a week, and Ravikant would not claim it does. What it produces is a written baseline: what you know that others do not, where your hours go, what you actually want. Repeating it quarterly is worth more than doing it once thoroughly, because the answers move.
How long does it take to see results from Naval Ravikant's ideas?
The desire and attention practices can change how a week feels almost immediately, because they are subtractive and you notice what you removed. The wealth practices operate on a scale of years, since ownership, reputation and compounding all require time to accumulate. Naval Ravikant is explicit that his framework has no fast path, which is the honest part of the pitch and also the part most summaries drop.
What if you have no specific knowledge yet?
Then the useful move is the accountability and publishing step rather than the audit. Naval Ravikant's view is that specific knowledge is discovered by following curiosity far enough to end up somewhere unmapped, so the entry point for a beginner is picking one genuine interest and working in public on it long enough to find out whether the interest survives contact with difficulty.
What is the strongest criticism of Naval Ravikant's approach?
The strongest criticism of Naval Ravikant is that his framework is unfalsifiable in the direction that matters and derived from a sample of one. The advice is drawn backward from a path that included a selective New York high school, an Ivy League degree, and arrival in Silicon Valley during an extraordinary expansion. A thread titled as getting rich without getting lucky, written by someone whose own account includes an early startup that reached an eBay acquisition, invites readers to attribute outcomes to method that may belong to timing and access. Because the aphorisms are compressed, almost any outcome can be explained after the fact as correct application or failure to apply, which is the classic shape of unfalsifiable advice. A second line of criticism concerns whose life the wealth material fits. Taking equity over salary, absorbing income volatility, and spending years publishing without pay all require a financial cushion, no dependents relying on this month's income, and the legal right to work on your own terms. For a reader without those conditions, the framework quietly reclassifies a structural constraint as a failure of judgment. Ravikant does not make that accusation himself, but the compressed form of the material makes it easy for readers to draw.
There is also a documented dispute in Naval Ravikant's own record. In 2005 a group of Epinions founders and early employees, Ravikant among them, brought suit against the venture firms Benchmark Capital and August Capital, alleging that investors had withheld material information about the company's improving position and a pending merger while insiders sold their shares cheaply. The case was reported to have been resolved without a public finding against the defendants, and the details that circulate come largely from contemporaneous press coverage and from Ravikant's own subsequent writing about venture capital practice. That writing, and the Venture Hacks blog that followed, made him unpopular with parts of the investment community for a period. The episode is worth stating plainly for two reasons. It is the concrete origin of ideas he later generalized about accountability and about choosing long-term counterparties, and it complicates the picture of an industry that runs on the repeated-game trust his own framework recommends. A third criticism is narrower: the happiness material borrows a renunciation frame from contemplative traditions while remaining attached to accumulation, and critics read that combination as having it both ways.
Is Naval Ravikant's advice survivorship bias?
Partly, and unavoidably. Naval Ravikant's conclusions are drawn from one career that worked, without any comparison to the people who followed similar reasoning and did not succeed. That does not make the individual claims wrong, since several of them have independent support in economics and in older writing. It does mean the framework cannot tell you how often it fails, and no one has assembled the data that would.
What did the Epinions lawsuit involve?
In 2005 a group including Naval Ravikant sued the venture firms Benchmark Capital and August Capital, alleging that investors concealed material information about Epinions and a pending merger while founders and employees sold shares at low valuations. The matter was reported to have been resolved without a public finding of wrongdoing. It is relevant because it shaped Ravikant's later public writing about venture capital and investor behavior.
How does Naval Ravikant differ from Tim Ferriss, Paul Graham and Charlie Munger?
The nearest adjacent figure to Naval Ravikant is Tim Ferriss, and the difference between them is method. Ferriss works by self-experimentation and tactics: he runs a protocol, reports what happened, and gives you the steps, which makes his material immediately actionable and quickly dated. Ravikant works at the level of principle and offers almost no procedure, which makes his material durable and much harder to act on. Ferriss wrote the foreword to the Naval Almanack, so the two are not opposed, but a reader who wants a checklist should start with Ferriss and one who wants a frame should start with Ravikant. Paul Graham covers overlapping ground in his essays on wealth creation and startups, with two differences: Graham argues at length with worked reasoning rather than in aphorisms, and his orientation is institutional, since Y Combinator exists to manufacture founders. Charlie Munger is the older source for the judgment material, but Munger's leverage was capital deployed patiently inside a corporation over decades, not code and media deployed by an individual. Munger also had no interest in the inner-state question at all, treating equanimity as a byproduct of rationality rather than as a skill to be trained.
On the happiness side, the closest comparison is Sam Harris. Both draw on contemplative practice stripped of religion, and both treat the sense of a fixed self as something meditation can loosen. Harris grounds his account in philosophy of mind and neuroscience, argues against his own position explicitly, and built a structured course in the Waking Up app. Naval Ravikant offers no structure, no sequence and no argument against himself; his material is a report from one practitioner who declines to systematize. Ryan Holiday is a further comparison worth naming, because modern Stoicism overlaps heavily with the desire material, but Holiday works from a textual tradition and quotes Seneca and Marcus Aurelius directly, while Ravikant's inner-life sources run through Krishnamurti and Buddhist observation. The practical way to choose: if you want protocols, read Ferriss; if you want reasoning shown in full, read Graham; if you want the investing mind, read Munger; if you want a structured meditation path, use Harris. Ravikant is most valuable as a set of questions to hold against your own working life, and least valuable as a manual.
Who influenced Naval Ravikant?
Naval Ravikant most often credits Jiddu Krishnamurti for the material on desire and the mind, Kapil Gupta for a harsher version of the same, Nassim Taleb for risk and optionality, Charlie Munger for judgment and mental models, and David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity for how to think about knowledge and progress. He also draws on Buddhist practice and on Stoic writers, generally without treating either as a system to join.
Is Naval Ravikant a philosopher?
No, not in any formal sense. Naval Ravikant has no academic training in philosophy, publishes no arguments in the philosophical literature, and does not defend positions against objections in the way the discipline requires. He is an investor and entrepreneur who reads widely and writes compressed opinions about how to live and work, and the philosopher label comes from his audience rather than from him.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Naval Ravikant write a book?
No. Naval Ravikant has not written a book of his own. The Almanack of Naval Ravikant was compiled and edited by Eric Jorgenson in 2020 from Ravikant's tweets, podcast transcripts, essays and interviews, with Ravikant's cooperation. Ravikant's own output is scattered across social posts, his podcast, and long interviews with hosts including Tim Ferriss and Shane Parrish.
Is the Naval Almanack free to read?
Yes. The full text of the Naval Almanack is published free at navalmanack.com, alongside paid print, ebook and audio editions. Reading the free version first is a sensible way to decide whether the paid edition is worth owning, since the book is designed to be reread in fragments rather than consumed once.
What does Naval Ravikant mean by specific knowledge?
Specific knowledge, in Naval Ravikant's framing, is knowledge you cannot be trained for. If a school or a company could put you through a program and produce your skill on demand, then it can produce a cheaper replacement, and your pay drifts toward the cost of that training. Specific knowledge is built from genuine curiosity and obsession rather than from a curriculum. Ravikant's rough test is that it feels like play to you and looks like work to everyone watching.
What are the three types of leverage in Naval Ravikant's framework?
Naval Ravikant divides leverage into labor, capital, and products with no marginal cost of replication. Labor means people working on your behalf, which is permissioned and management-heavy. Capital scales well but is gatekept by track record. The third category, which Ravikant calls permissionless leverage, is code and media: software and content that keep working after you stop, and that nobody has to authorize you to create.
Does Naval Ravikant say money does not make you happy?
Naval Ravikant's position is narrower than that. He argues that money solves money problems and very little else, and that people routinely misprice what wealth will do for their inner state. He does not tell people to avoid making money; half his material is instructions for building it. What he disputes is the assumption that happiness arrives automatically once the money does.
Is Naval Ravikant's advice useful if you are not in tech?
Partly. The ideas about desire, reputation and long-term relationships transfer to almost any life. The wealth material assumes conditions common in software and rare elsewhere: taking equity instead of salary, absorbing income volatility, publishing work that replicates at zero cost. A nurse or a machinist can apply the accountability and specific knowledge ideas, but the leverage half of Naval Ravikant's framework needs heavy translation.
What should you read after the Naval Almanack?
The sources Naval Ravikant points to are the better next step, since the Almanack compresses them. For the wealth material, Nassim Taleb on risk and Charlie Munger's collected talks in Poor Charlie's Almanack cover the ground with more argument. For the happiness material, Jiddu Krishnamurti is the most direct influence. David Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity is the book Ravikant recommends most often.
Try Our Free Tools
Related topics: naval ravikant, naval almanack, specific knowledge, naval leverage, naval happiness, naval ravikant quotes, naval ravikant how to get rich
