{{ Separation = Mispriced Risk & Upside }}
Randomly combining technologies is hot right now, but not every lego combination of deep tech creates the right kind a compounding, mutually catalyzing effect.
Blockchain, decentralization across industries, AI agents, chips and data centers, robotics, nuclear (both fission and fusion) and quantum computing are often cited at great parallel bets, and I agree. They are often treated as separate; which makes sense for convenience of tracking each technology’s individual evolution. The Evolve-Converge-Compound-Exponentiate track for these technologies must start with that single-technology evolution. Each of them must find utility and a certain commercial maturity on their own.
Convergence of these technologies is the next natural step and has been discussed. For example, how raw materials feed chip production, and that feeds data centers, and running AI creates abundance of compute and abundance of available intelligence. Miracle occurs here, and we all live happily ever after.
Now consider the binding constraints.
Talent, intelligence, coding ability, and distribution used to be binding constraints. They are not anymore. So what is? The binding constraints in the next 10 years are power (megawatts of energy), materials and manufacturing, physical training data, interconnection queues (communications, data and financial), and the legal ability for a machine to hold and move value. These constraints exist within a time-risk where cryptography standards and hacking abilities have put all technologies, companies and governments on a doomsday clock and time is up.
The constraints themselves sit in a compounding stack, not in isolation. Remove them, and the compounding effect moves from constraints to abilities; a state of auto-catalytic mutual acceleration… The Third Derivative.
Any perspective that treats these technologies, or their constraints as separate will significantly misprice both the risk and the upside.
Across this thesis, I present a set of four specific theses, a timeline, underwrite/avoid criteria, and the diligence method I actually use myself.
Nothing here is financial advice. Any company names appear only as evidence, not as recommended investment. Dates are working estimates, not promises.
None of us truly knows the future, but we must attempt to make a good guess in the face of significant uncertainty. That’s what makes it fun.