I am comfortable with my assumptions. I am comfortable with the knowledge that the scientific basis for IPQA is something that has been developed through research over the past few decades. I look at the companies that are investing in the current development of IPQA and believe that they are aware of the engineering and science that make this likely to succeed. Of course it can all change. Of course the reality in two years can be vastly different than what appears to be possible right now. Of course, at the same time, these changes are not going to pop up full blown overnight and I expect that folks like Mark and Vivek will be making adjustments on the fly. I choose to believe that the scientific basis upon which IPQA is based is not going to change radically in the next two years. It might. Some new understanding, method of observing and controlling may be developed in a flash of insight. Could be, but I doubt it. If it all starts to go south for Sigma and the current partners appear to be abandoning it, then I too will get out. For now, by proxy and by having a background in science and research, I am going to stick with my assumptions.
Given that there is an element of risk involved in any investment, how is it that you distinguish gambling from investing? Even something like government bonds are a gamble because there is the risk of default or changed economics such as rampant inflation or sky rocketing interest rates during the time period of the bond. Are they an investment or a gamble? Where do you draw the line that indicates something has changed from an acceptably low level of risk to allow for the label "investment" to where it is no longer acceptably low and it will be called a "gamble"? Does that line move because of other assets someone might have, or not have? Does the line move because of any other factor?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
