Quantum computing

Claim

All three names analysed individually plus a cross-company synthesis — deliberately framed on company quality and product potential rather than moat, since moat analysis is not meaningful for pre-commercial technology.

Verdict: IONQ and RGTI did not meet the bar for watchlist inclusion at all. QBTS was the only one considered, at conviction [5], entry $12–15 — a 40–45% pullback from the then-current price — and explicitly as a small speculative position.

The differentiator was a demonstrable near-term business, not qubit counts or roadmap milestones. Direct application of [[principle-story-vs-revenue]] in the field where that principle bites hardest.

Why decay: slow

Prices are void, but the structural judgment — that this field is pre-commercial and the only distinguishing question is who has real revenue — changes on a multi-year timescale, not a quarterly one. Re-check when a name reports material commercial revenue, not when the stocks move.

What would falsify this

Any of the three reporting revenue that is commercial rather than research-grant/government-pilot in nature. That single observation reopens the field.

History

• 2026-04-28 — three full analyses plus synthesis.