This sounds a lot like the tired "If we could capture 1% of the TAM..." argument used by startups that haven't really fleshed out their value proposition.
I'm guessing they assumed the reader was familiar with Bitcoin and the narrative of "digital gold".
Sure, but Bitcoin isn't even a particularly good way to hedge against inflation, given the wild volatility and speculative nature of the investment.
There are any number of other ways to hedge against inflation.
This is why "If we could capture 1% of the TAM..." arguments are flawed: They're worthless without an explanation for why this particular product is more likely to attract 1% of the TAM than comparable products.
For now, its an asymmetrical bet with more upside than downside. For the right company (Apple? Tesla?), buying in basically guarantees instantaneous capital appreciation as it signals an endorsement to the market.
I don't think a large co. buying is necessary for Bitcoin to keeping growing, but if it does, game theory suggests other treasuries will look at that action and say, "well, why not us?"
I am disappointed to see ideas that have failed to deliver for a decade like drone delivery (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-unveils-futuristic-plan-...) and 3D printing (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2011/02/10/the-printed-wo...) have a very long buzzword shelf-life, presumably because they are enduringly futuristic. First principles should tell us that most manufactured goods will never be 3D printed. There are entire fields of engineering dedicated to manufacturing processes, because the final material properties and cost of an item are affected by things like cooling rate, grain orientation, surface finish, tensile strength, and tolerances. 3D printing is another tool in the toolbox, not a replacement for the toolbox. I personally find them useful for ideation, but useless for creating finished products. It is worth considering that the entire market for 3D printers consists of rapid prototyping and Etsy knicknacks, and that it has been saturated.
I entered 3D printing 7 years ago professionally, but I've been surprised by how this has continually improved even in the last 5 years. Quality for entry level machines has improved dramatically and ease of use, etc. Which doesn't change your fundamental point that it'll remain niche. But there are some patents from Stratasys and others that will expire soon (it was a bunch of FDM patents expiring that led to the first wave of 3D printer hype starting ~10 years ago), and that should help expand the market significantly. But you're right we won't be manufacturing everything with 3D printing.
A lot of these things are over-hyped, but can still produce long-term value. Just not like trillions of dollars a year type of value.
Last-mile delivery to medical clinics at 80mph night and day, rain or shine, straight line ignoring traffic or geography is a pretty massive advantage for just-in-time logistics... it makes the concern about deep cold chain for Pfizer much less pressing.
There are heaps of other niche applications, from remote location manufacturing to automating customer configured products that couldn't be done with traditional approaches, to parts for small fabricators in a range of industries such as aviation and motorsports. Inconel printing is enabling some truly incredible parts for motorsport.
I do agree it will unlikely replace mass manufacturing of cheap products, but I think it's role in manufacturing has far from peaked. You are right about Etsy knicknacks, but I think even prototyping hasn't reached saturation yet.
Small launch market is a tough one, especially given SpaceX's cost advantage, but Relativity keeps racking up investment. It's been rumored that their 3D expertise make them future-proof in case plan A, launching rocket, doesn't pan out.
 - https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-worlds-...
2 crypto mentions in the TOC but EVs get only one slot in the toc and a bunch of truly innovative stuff happening in biotech stuff gets zero mention.
I don’t get it.
The strongest suit of ARK Invest in my opinion is their marketing, which is clearly demonstrated by the high inflows into their ETF.
Curious to see how they will perform on the long term, given that their portfolio is pretty heavily weighted into medium and small caps stocks.
See the inelastic market hypothesis (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3686935).
Also, the rise of deep learning is based upon the rise of big labeled data.
I agree GPT-3 is * just * a language model, but then again, so are you.
Stepping back it is just a translation problem e.g. English idea -> Python code, which an ideal language model would be able to do.
I think what I’m picking a gripe over is that “language model” is a very general term. Calling GPT3 just a language model is like calling a human just a bunch of atoms. It’s not actually limiting.
What I’d love to talk about is how useful of a language model is GPT3? And how useful do you think GPT4, 5, etc. are going to be?
>Beyond financial services, digital wallets
could become lead generation platforms
for offline and online commerce,
potentially adding another $9,000-$10,000
to the net present value of their revenues.
That's a privacy nightmare.
Does anyone has other white papers in similar directions?
Would be interesting to compare that stuff.
Where are the ideas that are seemingly impossible?