BOT is a poor way to own private companies because buyers pay 5-6x net asset value. Investing directly at current funding rounds through a platform like MicroVentures is a better option. The only reason to buy is a bet that retail keeps pumping it, which may well happen, but it remains a bad investment. x.com 

BOT, the robotics investment vehicle, looks built to capture dumb money riding robotics hype rather than to reward investors. It came to market at 5x NAV, still trades around 3.5x, charges a heavy ~3.6% annual fee and recruits crypto Twitter influencers, much like a Chamath-style SPAC. Toxic vehicles chasing robotics hype are likely to leave retail badly hurt, though such schemes can run hard until the music stops. x.com  x.com 

BOT's private share issuance at 3.38x NAV is accretive rather than dilutive, because the cash stays in the fund to invest in new companies or new rounds at higher valuations. By estimate it lifted NAV from about $10.51 to $10.97 a share, and the stock has tended to bottom near each new, higher 3x NAV level. The main bet is portfolio companies raising new rounds; if Apptronik or Figure AI raised at 2x their last round, holders get all that upside. A 1x NAV price, Nvidia's entry level, won't come. … Show more

RoboStrategy is a red flag because buyers pay about five times its net asset value, effectively valuing its Figure stake at over $200 billion versus Figure's $39 billion valuation. Shares trade at $37.92 against a NAV of $7.34, and about $2 billion of ongoing dilution exploits that gap. Most retail buyers don't read filings or understand closed-end funds, so the price reflects float dynamics, not fundamentals, leaving them as exit liquidity. Unitree, the top humanoid maker, lists at $6 billion. … Show more

BOT risks trapping retail buyers at large gaps to its NAV, since its shares trade daily on hype and social media noise, amplified by insiders with big reach on X, while its private robotics holdings sit at rarely updated funding-round valuations with no continuous market check. Its 2.5% management fee and 3.22% total expense ratio also set an exceptionally high bar for returns. x.com 

RoboStrategy's portfolio is gaining real-world validation: its fourth- and fifth-largest holdings, Apptronik at 15% of NAV and Dexmate at 10%, are being used at Google. x.com 

RoboStrategy's model breaks if it trades below 1x mNAV, so buying at 3.5x mNAV makes little sense. Below NAV it would have to sell holdings to buy back stock. A post the author replies to compares it to Berkshire and SoftBank, which traded at discounts for decades, but Berkshire grew capital through insurance float and SoftBank through its Vision Funds; neither relied on issuing shares above NAV. RoboStrategy can't grow capital unless retail pays more than $1 for $1 of illiquid assets. x.com  … Show more

The Fundrise Innovation Fund looks wildly overpriced, trading at a premium to NAV never seen before. The listed fund offers access to private companies investors want but cannot otherwise own, and its price went parabolic in just four days. x.com  x.com 

Fundrise Innovation Fund's roughly 30x premium to net asset value makes the long-term math hard to justify. Per @JoshKale, it trades near $565 against about $19 a share in holdings such as Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX, Databricks and Anduril, valuing a $650 million portfolio near $10 billion. That is retail demand decoupling from reality among people who feel locked out of private names, and buyers start with a 97% handicap on their capital. x.com 

Strategy runs a Ponzi-like loop: new capital buys bitcoin, which lifts the stock and attracts more capital, while the business makes almost no organic cash flow and collapses without constant raising. It trades at a big premium to NAV, effectively selling $1 of bitcoin for $1.50, lost $12.5B in Q1 2026, and has now sold bitcoin for the first time since 2022 despite Michael Saylor's vow never to sell. Owning bitcoin itself makes more sense than owning Strategy. x.com  x.com