Last month, a few of us started talking about the SpaceX IPO. It's been a long-running thread in our chat — the kind of conversation that surfaces every few quarters as the rumor mill spins up. With confidential filings now in and a June 2026 listing window, the conversation got real.
My short take: yes, the SpaceX IPO is a once-in-a-decade opportunity. No, it isn't the whole trade.
Here's where I landed: the conviction that should drive an allocation isn't "SpaceX is going public." It's "Space and AI are the next industrial revolution, and SpaceX and Anthropic are positioned at the intersection." That framing changes everything — sizing, hold horizon, what you do at -10%, when you trim, what you do once the position has 3x'd.
So I asked MogamboAI — my local AI research partner — to draft the framework that would back that intuition. The result is now a research piece on the Lab, with a companion sizing calculator:
📖 Investing in Space + AI: A Four-Stage Conviction Framework — the full thesis, moat analysis, and the rules for Pure Asymmetric Deployment.
📊 IPO Framework calculator — the framework expressed as concrete tranches, drawdown triggers, and trim rules sized to your portfolio.
What I want you to break
Two specific asks from the friend group.
1. The research itself. I asked MogamboAI to do the heavy lift on the moat analysis, the valuation scenarios, and the rules for Pure Asymmetric Deployment. I reviewed and edited, added the contrarian stress test and the liquidity stress test, and verified the numbers. But the framework leans hard on what I'd call next-level questions — Starship cadence, regulatory erosion, orbital compute commercialization, the open-source convergence rate against Claude. A thoughtful reader is going to find places where I (or MogamboAI) missed nuance, conflated probability with desirability, or anchored on a single scenario when the honest answer was a wide distribution. That's the kind of feedback I most want.
2. The artifact MogamboAI produced. This is the first real research piece on the Lab written largely by my AI partner with minimal direct supervision from me. I want your honest read on the quality. Where does it sound like real analysis? Where does it sound like a confident-but-shallow LLM? What would you delete? What would you push harder on? Calibration here matters more for the Lab going forward than the specific investment thesis.
The honest caveat
The piece's view is deliberately narrow. It assumes the thesis is correct — that Space + AI is a generational shift on the order of the Industrial Revolution — and then asks "given that, how would a disciplined investor take exposure?" It does not steel-man the alternative: that this is just another expensive IPO cycle and the 2030s look like the 2000s after the dot-com boom. The Contrarian Stress Test inside the framework is a gesture in that direction but not a full rebuttal.
If you want to push the framework hard, push that direction first. A 109x revenue multiple compressing 50% with no fundamental change is the scenario that breaks the cleanest version of the thesis. Everything else is downstream.
The piece also assumes our peer group's net-worth band ($1M–$10M+) and a discretionary-bet sizing framing (1.5–3% of net worth). If you're in a different band or have different liquidity constraints, the sizing math doesn't translate cleanly — though the structural conviction architecture (compound moat over intangible, physical scarcity over commodity) generalizes fine.
How to send feedback
Email hello@mogambo.info with the framework's section number you want to push back on, or just reply on our chat. I'll update the piece in public — old version stays available, the new version carries an "updated" date and a brief note on what changed.
The investing isn't the point. The reasoning is.