ValueArb

I see what you are saying, being able to know that a set of specific data for a problem is unchanged can be a very useful thing. I'm not saying it doesn't have uses outside of CryptoCurrencies, but I'm still struggling to see a wide or valuable set of use cases. And I'd really like to. Because then I'd build one.

So it's a trustworthy blockchain full of data you can't trust?

Putting payloads into space quite an accomplishment. But to actually make money doing it, is a far far more difficult accomplishment. With their current platform they can't beat SpaceX ride-share on price, but they can offer delivery to custom orbits that SpaceX ride-share can't reach. So I can see a small business for them. But Neutron is going up against Falcon 9 directly. SpaceX may still charge $50M+ per launch, but their costs for a reusable launch of roughly 15 tons are certainly in the $20M range now. If Starship is developed successfully their costs of putting 100 tons into orbit likely drop to $10M or so. How is Neutron going to compete with either? This isn't an X Prize. Its a business, getting to orbit is just table stakes for the game.

RIDE got murdered by an incredibly persuasive Hindenburg report on Friday, and so of course it's up 7% today.

So my one man startup has a 1 in 10,000 chance of being as big as Facebook, so it's worth $20M+? Yet somehow I can't interest any investors at 1/100th that price. I understand the model, but I think it's a terribly one given that humans lack ability to accurately estimate the likelihood of these long tailed events. Also lets understand that SpaceX isn't worth $100B or $200B, even though that may be what some less sophisticated investors are paying. It's revenues are likely under $2B a year, growing under 50% a year, and it's almost certainly losing money. Eventually the launch market may be a hundred times larger but that time isn't anywhere near close. The substantial lowering of launch costs hasn't lead to a boom in launches yet, SpaceX is on a record pace at the moment but thats almost exclusively due to Starlink, commercial launches haven't grown in any substantial manner. And this is extremely frustrating to me. Cheap launch hasn't changed the preference of customers to spend years building ultra expensive satellites that cost many times what the launch does, despite my many years prediction the availability of cheap high payload mass launches would lead to a switch to making far cheaper satellites using far heavier components. But somehow we still spend 20 years building a $20B space telescope instead of launch dozens of $100M telescopes every year. So the problem for Rocket Labs is that it has no path to profitability any time in the next decade without a massive change in the size of the market or developing superior technology they haven't shown they can do yet. They still have to build a whole new launch system with entirely new engines (can't use battery start) to even have a seat at the table. Stock prices today are driven by one of the most clearly defined bubbles in market history, in a couple years both Rocket Lab shares and SpaceX's are likely to be available for purchase at a fraction of todays prices, with a lot more information about their future profitiblity being known.

I love Rocket Labs as the second most successful launch startup in history, but don't see where their path to success is. They are years away from having something that competes with Falcon 9, and in the mean-time SpaceX's huge volume of launches and ride-sharing arrangements has to be killing them. If the Neutron can successfully implement full re-use (both second and first stages) that might be enough to give them an edge over Falcon 9 but the Neutron's small size makes me skeptical that canb be done. When you only have 8 tons of payload mass, reserving a couple tons of fuel for landing comes directly out of that payload mass. The future is in the direction of Starship, massive launch vehicles and second stage so the extra fuel costs of re-use don't limit payload mass significantly. Rocket Labs needs Starship to fail in it's simplest configuration, as a heavy lift cargo launch system, and they need to pull off some re-use magic that can keep their pricing competitive with Falcon 9 ride-share. I don't know how many engines they plan to use for first stage, but also if they aren't using at least nine+ they won't reach the mass manufacturing edge that SpaceX has in engines. I'd be very interested if they were going to use like 30 Rutherford engines in the first stage, then I can see how they could cut engine costs down to ridiculous levels making hundreds at at time. And lastly, no one will ever fly on Neutron unless it' substantially upgraded. It only has the mass capacity for a tiny capsule and we don't use tiny capsules any more (unless they buy one from the Russians).

If all weather reporting data were encoded into the blockchain, it would NOT be verifiable. The block chain cannot give you any more confidence that a weather station in Minsk submitted it's data accurately or not, only the confidence that whatever data they submitted (accurate or not) hadn't been modified. And if the data is submitted to an SQL database, it would be available faster. How much faster obviously dependent upon cryptographic hashing times. I get that in the case of the SQL database you have to have an organization to host the database and trust they won't modify the data between submission and retrieval. But how often is decentralization that useful? How often have we found fraudulent changes to weather data?

One example - some of the decentralized exchanges have tokens which receive trading fees as dividends, programmatically guaranteed via smart contracts. Recently traded for 20-30x earnings and growing ~100% a month. Absolutely can be valued using using DCF but doesn't fit your narrative - so don't look further! So I get tokens in a "currency" without any backing in tangible assets or intrinsic value? It's obviously great when cryptocurrencies go up in price, but if their prices were to decline say, 90%, after the stimulus money is all spent, thats not a return at all. And I'm not saying crypto is dumb, I'm trying to figure out how it's not naked speculation. Of course I'm fascinated and looking for reasons I may be wrong. But no one has yet given me any reasons that I am wrong that I can actually understand. And the only narrative here is the "cryptocurrencies are the future and block-chains can do everything". It's an appeal to motive dodge that when you are unable to answer questions to just say "oh you will never believe it within your narrative".

Again this doesn't make much sense to me. Fast trees are basically what databases are. While reading from a blockchain may be almost as fast as a regular database (certainly it can never be as fast as reading from same size of database), writing to a block-chain is immensely slower. Again, for the tiny universe of applications that need a public database cryptographically secure from manipulation, block chains are great. For the rest of the world, they are a waste of computer resources.

I have over 30 years in software development from desktop to mobile to back end servers and I can't understand what you are sayin about data here. Adding a massive amount of processing requirements to data storage requirements doesn't seem useful in very many applications, excepting digital currency. And to quote Benedict Evans, "The blockchain can’t lie, but you can lie to the blockchain"

What FCF ratio are investors paying for crypto now?

In this case, since the NFT buyer was also a NFT promoter it rings true.

I’m paying ridiculous rent to keep my kids in a good school district, but am seriously considering moving to Cancun and letting ex-wife carry the burden for once. My day job has been remote before COVID, and no reason I can’t do it and invest remotely from somewhere with a beach and jet skis.

Reviewing the entire list of mining equipment they have on order or already purchased, including 70,000 Bitmain S19s and 10,500 Bitmain S19 Pros, at current BTC prices I come up with a little over $1B in annual net revenue (after energy costs) when they are all up and running at year end. This of course includes their claim that Beowulf will be providing power at $0.006 per KWH which seems insanely cheap. I can't decide if this thing is a total fraud due to it's history of constantly switching businesses, employment count, executive turnover, massive share count increase, etc, or a potential huge value play. I mean if my math is right even at $10,000 BTC they probably justify their current market cap. I'm confused. Then why did you buy puts? May have jumped the gun. When I bought the puts it was trading at roughly 8x book and 1,000 times sales, and had a long list of red flags (long promotional history, few employees, exec turnover, massive increase in share count (8M to 100M) in single year. I thought the massive increase in tradable shares alone was going to depress the stock back towards book value. But I didn't do the math on how fast they could grow their revenues, and now I'm not sure what to do. A lot depends on BTC if it has any significant sell-off their potential is equally diminished. Though my puts are already profitable, so if I decide to nope out I can probably do it without losing. Or keep them as a BTC hedge.

Reviewing the entire list of mining equipment they have on order or already purchased, including 70,000 Bitmain S19s and 10,500 Bitmain S19 Pros, at current BTC prices I come up with a little over $1B in annual net revenue (after energy costs) when they are all up and running at year end. This of course includes their claim that Beowulf will be providing power at $0.006 per KWH which seems insanely cheap. I can't decide if this thing is a total fraud due to it's history of constantly switching businesses, employment count, executive turnover, massive share count increase, etc, or a potential huge value play. I mean if my math is right even at $10,000 BTC they probably justify their current market cap.

Mmm, baloney.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-can-earn-6-8-even-12-percent-on-a-bitcoin-savings-account-yeah-right-11614959768?mod=djintinvestor_t "You Can Earn 6%, 8%, Even 12% on a Bitcoin ‘Savings Account’—Yeah, Right New trading platforms want to borrow your cryptocurrency, and are willing to pay a pretty crypto-penny for the privilege. Just don’t let anyone convince you it’s like putting your money in a bank."

A once-in-a-century pandemic might distort 2020 numbers? Ulta is selling at 83x. BKNG at 70x. DIS at 44x. The Pandemic Paradox companies are clearly bargains on LTM earnings. My argument is that they are also relative bargains after reopening. In many cases, they are absolute bargains after reopening. Using trailing numbers makes FB look even cheaper: https://app.koyfin.com/share/a76ce09d71 But this isn't about FB. It is about a basket of stocks that grew earnings last year and are in double digit drawdowns. Koyfin's trailing numbers are the exact same that I quoted. If they aren't, Koyfin is wrong since I took mine directly from their SEC filing. I would never trust 2022 estimates from Yahoo or anyone else. Do you own homework and read their reports and come up with a trustworthy estimate of their future earnings. While remembering COVID effects aren't over, and won't be over this year, if ever. Post pandemic, people are going to work remotely, shop from home, and watch new movies at home much more than before the Pandemic. Westerners are going to wear masks more often and every new disease scare will be much more likely to provoke short term lockdowns. So think about how likely hangover effects will impact each individual business. My Facebook example is you really need to comfortably model the effects of restrictions on user tracking that are likely to be put in place by Apple on iOS and in Safari, and by other browser makers in the next few years. So it doesn't matter what FB was trading for in 2019, or in 2020. It only matters what it's worth in that new environment. Maybe they'll be able to minimize the effects, and its a buy. Maybe its a disaster, and that 20 forward PE is actually a 50 forward PE. And lastly it doesn't matter what any stock traded for before the Pandemic, or during the Pandemic. You can't decipher the whims of the market mob. What matters is their intrinsic value and catalysts for unlocking that value. That can only be found by reading their financial reports.

I don't believe that forward P/Es exist. FB is trading at a 26 PE, which I believe is reasonable if not speculative given how hard Apple is going to karate chop the core of their business model, and how poorly Facebook is dealing with that, like it does all external issues.

MARA

Any love for MARA? They believe they will be one of, if not the largest BTC miner in the world by end of year when their 70,000 next generation Antminer S-19 ASIC Miners finish installation. Plus $230M in BTC on balance sheet and another $200Mish in cash. BTC mining revenues hit $845,000 in Q3, 2020. All to support a $3B market cap. And doing it all with 3 employees. Disclosure: I own MARA....puts.

tried looking for loss making companies trading at over 400x sales, with a market cap $1B or higher. Sigh, list is long one to go through.

When looking at the following, what comes to mind? -People are stupid? -We should be scared? Maybe part of the above answers are right but i would submit that people somehow are trying to get through this, sometimes through trial and error and sometimes the result is not elegant. A nice thing about such a place is that people can share independent thoughts (sometimes with deep convictions). It doesn't mean though that someone who thinks differently is an enemy. ----- Have you seen the latest results for the influenza season (in the US as an example of a global phenomenon)? The point of this is not that we have learnt how to deal effectively with the flu but that there may something to learn if 'we' communicate and collaborate more effectively and in a more constructive way. Congrats, you discovered all influenza deaths are counted as "Corona" deaths. Most heart attacks are even counted as Corono deaths. How else could they inflate the numbers to such a ridiculous degree with a common cold infection? How do people get influenza if working in the house all day and rarely venture out without a mask? If someone who is very ill with COVID has a heart-attack and dies, how would you determine cause? Are you saying the heart-attack was inevitable and would have happened on same day and been fatal without the person being ill? If a 95 year old gets sick with COVID and dies, should we tell their kids and grandkids we don't count the COVID because their remaining life expectancy was so short? Let me invert that for you: 1) How do people get Corona when working in the house all day? (yes Influenza is the same) 2) Well the official numbers if heart attacks is certainly too low a number. Heart attacks didnt suddenly drop 98% and neither did Influenza. They do blood tests on dead people of any cause and if their "test" (which doesnt even test for Corona) cokes back positive they count it as Corona death even if he had zero symptons. Come on people. Certainly you aren't all this retarded? :( 1) Yes, I'm saying that the measures taken to prevent the spread of COVID (a much more dangerous illness) have also prevented the spread of Influenza. 2) Do you have a source for heart attacks declining 98%? I'm reading that deaths from heart disease are up during COVID, presumably because fewer people are seeking medical attention for its symptoms. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-heart-disease-deaths-rose-during-covid-19-surge As for your asssertion about testing dead bodies for COVID to attribute it as a cause of death, do you have a source for that? The topic is covered here: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/19/858390822/with-postmortem-testing-last-responders-shed-light-on-pandemic-s-spread "If family or friends say the person had symptoms consistent with COVID-19, the coroner's office will typically do a nasal swab to test for the virus, he says. If the test is positive and the office can determine the cause of death without an autopsy, one will generally not be performed." ... If a body at the morgue is positive for COVID-19, "you want to avoid doing an autopsy unless it's absolutely necessary," Melinek says, because of the risk of becoming exposed to the virus through aerosolized particles or blood. Plus, she noted, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recommends against performing autopsies in COVID-19 deaths. Thanks, Eric. But I'm not sure how to parse it. Part of the article seemed to imply COVID deaths were under reported last May (when the article was written) because of a lack of tests for morgues to use? I'm assuming the access to far more testing facilities since has changed that. But if a dead body tests positive for COVID, and so they eschew an autopsy to report COVID as the cause, what percentage of the time is that wrong? If you had terminal cancer, and get COVID, is it wrong to think you would have lived a few months longer without it and your death should be reported as COVID? I've googled looking for explanations but so far come up empty. All I can think is if i get COVID, my ex-wife has a free pass to come over to my house and poison me risk free now. It's more dangerous than I thought!

When looking at the following, what comes to mind? -People are stupid? -We should be scared? Maybe part of the above answers are right but i would submit that people somehow are trying to get through this, sometimes through trial and error and sometimes the result is not elegant. A nice thing about such a place is that people can share independent thoughts (sometimes with deep convictions). It doesn't mean though that someone who thinks differently is an enemy. ----- Have you seen the latest results for the influenza season (in the US as an example of a global phenomenon)? The point of this is not that we have learnt how to deal effectively with the flu but that there may something to learn if 'we' communicate and collaborate more effectively and in a more constructive way. Congrats, you discovered all influenza deaths are counted as "Corona" deaths. Most heart attacks are even counted as Corono deaths. How else could they inflate the numbers to such a ridiculous degree with a common cold infection? How do people get influenza if working in the house all day and rarely venture out without a mask? If someone who is very ill with COVID has a heart-attack and dies, how would you determine cause? Are you saying the heart-attack was inevitable and would have happened on same day and been fatal without the person being ill? If a 95 year old gets sick with COVID and dies, should we tell their kids and grandkids we don't count the COVID because their remaining life expectancy was so short? Let me invert that for you: 1) How do people get Corona when working in the house all day? (yes Influenza is the same) 2) Well the official numbers if heart attacks is certainly too low a number. Heart attacks didnt suddenly drop 98% and neither did Influenza. They do blood tests on dead people of any cause and if their "test" (which doesnt even test for Corona) cokes back positive they count it as Corona death even if he had zero symptons. Come on people. Certainly you aren't all this retarded? :( 1) Yes, I'm saying that the measures taken to prevent the spread of COVID (a much more dangerous illness) have also prevented the spread of Influenza. 2) Do you have a source for heart attacks declining 98%? I'm reading that deaths from heart disease are up during COVID, presumably because fewer people are seeking medical attention for its symptoms. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-heart-disease-deaths-rose-during-covid-19-surge As for your asssertion about testing dead bodies for COVID to attribute it as a cause of death, do you have a source for that?

Buffett has a lifetime of experience. The more you do the same process, the faster and easier it gets. Munger has said he's never seen Buffett do a DCF calculation, but likely WEB did enough in college and for Graham, to internalize the patterns, that 2x the growth rate is worth a lot more than 2x the value, etc. When you or I look at a new company, we have to digest it and at first it might not be easy to know what the most important questions are. When WEB sees a new company, he might instantly say, oh, this is just like X & Y, and with the same type of moat as Z, so what I need to focus most on in their annual report is inventory turnover, or capital costs, etc, etc. Investing is a lot easier if it's the only thing you do all day long, if you also have a job you need to squeeze in as much reading as possible in the few hours you have. Which is why I quit masturbation. It's tough to leave behind an activity where your lifetime efforts have made you world-class, but sometimes it takes big sacrifices to make money.