Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:11 am**

frugal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 12:04 am Ahahah

Why it was so difficult to have like 5% of capital in bitcoin?

Why we are so afraid?

PP followers may be averse to risk … ?

Risk averse, for sure, frugal.

I don’t want to be boring, but think of it this way:

Pascal’s Wager, if I have it right, is the premise that you should believe in God because if you don’t, you’re going to Hell forever. If you do, you have a chance at heaven, if God exists. If he doesn’t exist and you don’t believe, you’ve lost nothing.

Putting aside the truthism that you cannot choose to believe, the usual retort to Pascal’s Wager is that it ignores the possibility that the Judeo-Christian God who made Hell is not *The* God. What if The God is a plate of purple spaghetti who *hates* believers in the God of the Bible and sends them to a Hell of purple spaghetti?

In the rearview mirror, many of us ask why we didn’t just buy some bitcoin when it was young. But you have to think about the greater context: there are a lot of winners out there, like Palantir and this and that. Why didn’t you invest in them? There are even more losers out there. Why didn’t you blow 5% on them? Or one of them? Because you are beautifully loss averse. That’s why.

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:42 am**

dualstow wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:11 am
frugal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 12:04 am Ahahah

Why it was so difficult to have like 5% of capital in bitcoin?

Why we are so afraid?

PP followers may be averse to risk … ?
Risk averse, for sure, frugal.

I don’t want to be boring, but think of it this way:

Pascal’s Wager, if I have it right, is the premise that you should believe in God because if you don’t, you’re going to Hell forever. If you do, you have a chance at heaven, if God exists. If he doesn’t exist and you don’t believe, you’ve lost nothing.

Putting aside the truthism that you cannot choose to believe, the usual retort to Pascal’s Wager is that it ignores the possibility that the Judeo-Christian God who made Hell is not *The* God. What if The God is a plate of purple spaghetti who *hates* believers in the God of the Bible and sends them to a Hell of purple spaghetti?

In the rearview mirror, many of us ask why we didn’t just buy some bitcoin when it was young. But you have to think about the greater context: there are a lot of winners out there, like Palantir and this and that. Why didn’t you invest in them? There are even more losers out there. Why didn’t you blow 5% on them? Or one of them? Because you are beautifully loss averse. That’s why.

Excellent last paragraph.

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2025 5:36 pm**

dualstow wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 10:11 am
frugal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 12:04 am Ahahah

Why it was so difficult to have like 5% of capital in bitcoin?

Why we are so afraid?

PP followers may be averse to risk … ?
Risk averse, for sure, frugal.

I don’t want to be boring, but think of it this way:

Pascal’s Wager, if I have it right, is the premise that you should believe in God because if you don’t, you’re going to Hell forever. If you do, you have a chance at heaven, if God exists. If he doesn’t exist and you don’t believe, you’ve lost nothing.

Putting aside the truthism that you cannot choose to believe, the usual retort to Pascal’s Wager is that it ignores the possibility that the Judeo-Christian God who made Hell is not *The* God. What if The God is a plate of purple spaghetti who *hates* believers in the God of the Bible and sends them to a Hell of purple spaghetti?

In the rearview mirror, many of us ask why we didn’t just buy some bitcoin when it was young. But you have to think about the greater context: there are a lot of winners out there, like Palantir and this and that. Why didn’t you invest in them? There are even more losers out there. Why didn’t you blow 5% on them? Or one of them? Because you are beautifully loss averse. That’s why.

$:-\$

Hi ,

Just reflecting on that conversation, and I’d say maybe it wasn’t just loss aversion that held us back — maybe it was the lack of smarter risk management.

Allocating 5% to something as volatile as Bitcoin might have seemed speculative at the time, but with a diversified portfolio and a clear framework, it could have been a calculated risk worth taking. Just like gold or high-growth stocks.

The real question isn’t “Why didn’t we go all in?”, but “Why didn’t we allocate a small percentage to something with asymmetric upside — where even a loss wouldn’t ruin the game?”

In hindsight, we didn’t miss out because we were too cautious… maybe we just didn’t have the right structure to manage uncertainty.

Best,
$:-\$

Gyroscopic Investing

Marc De Messel Portfolio

Re: Marc De Messel Portfolio

Re: Marc De Messel Portfolio

Re: Marc De Messel Portfolio