Iary Dell'Elce

Name is pronounced YAH-ree. Writing on Substack about investing, incentives, and decision-making under uncertainty.

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@joedevon @pvncher Sure but what if you still use a mix of Astra, Sol, Terra and Luna? This article assumes everyone will just use Astra for everything going forward which is not sustainable.

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@thsottiaux FUCK ASTRA GIVE US MORE RESETS 😂

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@araseb_ lol

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@MatthewBerman @SpaceXAI Can I have one?

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@MatthewBerman @bot I'd love to try it!

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@rezoundous With the 5-hour limit back? Nah

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@thsottiaux What the fuck

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@CoinCrafty @thsottiaux It's cool! Is it available to try?

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@CoinCrafty @thsottiaux What's this widget?

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@sattyyouneed Codex

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@MaxBZHAI @thsottiaux for the next three months, not in three months

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

Bad entry price hurts once. Bad attention allocation hurts every day.

Most investors obsess over timing their entry but never audit where their focus actually goes. Hours spent watching positions that don't need watching is a real cost - it just never shows up on a statement.

Energy is finite. A portfolio that demands constant monitoring is charging you a fee you never agreed to.

Thoughts?

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

AI capex is no longer a bet. It's infrastructure.

The debate has moved. Not "does this work?" but "who funds it, and over what timeline?"

That shift matters more than most people realize. When something becomes structural, the financial logic changes completely - it gets priced into balance sheets, not expensed as experimentation.

The companies thinking in decades win. The ones still running ROI pilots are already behind.

Thoughts?

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

Compounding is celebrated as the eighth wonder of the world. Nobody talks about how it works in reverse.

A 1% fee difference seems trivial in year one. Over 30 years it can consume a third of your portfolio. Tax drag from frequent trading bleeds you out slowly. Inflation quietly erodes purchasing power every single day.

The math that builds wealth is the exact same math that destroys it - it's just less visible on the way down.

Most people obsess over picking the right investments. Fewer people obsess over plugging the leaks. But the leaks compound too.

Every basis point of unnecessary cost, every taxable event you didn't need to trigger, every year you let cash sit idle - these aren't rounding errors. They're compounding losses hiding in plain sight.

Offense gets the attention. Defense builds the fortune.

What's the biggest silent wealth drain most people overlook?

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

Diversification doesn't eliminate risk. It trades one kind for another.

You reduce concentration risk. But you also dilute the sharpest edges of your conviction. Every position you add is a small admission that you're less sure about the others.

That's not necessarily wrong. It's just a trade-off most people pretend they've solved rather than managed.

The investors who diversify broadly sleep better. The ones who concentrate win bigger - or lose bigger. Neither has escaped the trade-off. They've just chosen which version of uncertainty they can live with.

Knowing which side you're on matters more than pretending the tension isn't there.

What's your approach?

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

@fordsmith 💯

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

The gap between fund returns and investor returns is one of the most important numbers in finance - and almost nobody talks about it.

Funds consistently outperform their own holders. The product works. The usage pattern doesn't.

People buy after the run-up. They sell after the drawdown. The average investor systematically buys high and sells low, not because they're stupid, but because they're human.

Most financial problems don't live in the spreadsheet. They live in that gap between what the investment returned and what the investor actually captured.

Better products won't fix it. Better behavior might.

Thoughts?

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

A company trading at 30x earnings isn't expensive or cheap in isolation. It's a claim about the next decade of cash flows.

The real question isn't whether the multiple looks high relative to history. It's whether you're comfortable underwriting that specific future.

Most people anchor to the number and skip the actual work of mapping out what has to go right for the price to make sense. That's where the edge is - not in having an opinion on multiples, but in pressure-testing the implied assumptions behind them.

A 30x multiple on a business with durable pricing power, a long reinvestment runway, and expanding margins might be a steal. The same multiple on a business riding a cyclical peak with no clear path to sustained growth is a trap.

The multiple is the output. The thesis is the input.

Do you actually build out the implied expectations before buying, or do you just gut-check the P/E?

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

The difference between a ten-year hold and a ten-year accident is a thesis written down before entry.

Without a falsifiable reason for owning something, every drawdown becomes a referendum. You're not deciding whether the thesis still holds - you're deciding whether you still have the stomach for it. Those are very different questions.

The thesis isn't there to be right. It's there to tell you when you're wrong.

Most people skip this step because writing it down feels unnecessary when conviction is high. But conviction without a framework for disconfirmation is just enthusiasm. And enthusiasm doesn't survive a 40% drawdown.

Write it down. Make it specific. Include what would have to be true for you to sell. Then when the moment comes - and it will - you're answering a clear question instead of negotiating with your emotions.

[Iary Dell'Elce @iarydellelce]

Most people don't fail at personal finance because they lack knowledge. They fail because the system they're operating in is poorly designed.

Every decision looks rational in isolation. But optimising for the choice in front of you, inside a broken system, just compounds the original problem.

Fix the system first. The decisions get easier on their own.

Thoughts?