@MoatScorei
iAccount based inSwitzerland
About this account
- Account based in
- Switzerland
- Connected via
- Switzerland App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Ex sell-side research analyst | Investment management | This is the place to scrutinize moat trajectory | Not financial advice
Joined August 2026
- Tweets141
- Following51
- Followers24
- Likes131
Pinned Tweet
Excited to share this first paper.
"Scoring economic moats: a quantitative framework for competitive advantage." Most of us still talk about moats in qualitative terms — “wide,” “narrow,” or “none.”
I wanted something more precise: a consistent way to measure how strong a company’s competitive advantages actually are, which ones matter most, and how durable each of them is.
This is a research & portfolio-management tool — not a buy/sell signal and not investment advice. It’s meant to sharpen the questions we ask about a business, not replace judgment.
Moat Research · August 2026
MoatScore Research retweeted
The way that Anthropic and OpenAI are going to “pace” the frontier is by spending more time and more *compute* on alignment, monitoring and evals.
The frontier labs that choose to “pace” likely spend slightly more money on compute at the cost of lower margins.
That’s it.
at 100 followers the estimated direction of LVMH moat will be revealed.
Ran @LVMH through our MoatScore framework. Not revealing quite yet the direction of the moat, just the estimated level and composition. I might reveal the moat direction once i reach more followers.
Since there is no direction indicated here i guess it is "superflu" to add that this is not financial advice, just an additional research tool and not a trading signal. More information about the framework in the first research paper available @MoatScore.
MoatScore Research retweeted
Gavin Baker (@GavinSBaker): "Investing is the search for truth."
If you find truth first, and you're right about it being a truth, that's how you generate alpha
It has to be a truth that other people have not yet seen, you're searching for hidden truths.
Sarah Guo on being contrarian:
"Unlike my good friends at Founders Fund, I don't have an instinct to be contrarian.
But it is so fundamental to decide what you think and not worry too much about what other people think.
And 'other people' is like the dominant narratives of the period, or even what different players in the ecosystem that are really important, declare one way or another.
I think you just need to find the truth.
If you find the truth and it's wrongly priced and you hold onto that, you're in a good position.
You want asymmetric information, and then the confidence to hold the opinion when other people haven't come around to it yet.
I think a lot about how to make sure we have the information that is better than other people's, and then protect ourselves from noise."
During the recent quarterly earnings call, @nvidia's CFO outlined exactly three "unique capabilities" acting as engines for the company's growth:
1. Architecture that runs every model — NVIDIA's platform serves both closed models (OpenAI, Anthropic, Grok, Meta, Gemini) and open-source alternatives (Qwen, DeepSeek, Mistral, Nemotron, etc.) across training, inference, and agentic workloads, "in the cloud or at the edge." Management framed this around performance, fungibility, and durability—making NVIDIA productive and financeable infrastructure that remains durable throughout the entire life cycle of AI.
2. Full-stack AI factory platform — Vertical codesign across the GPU, CPU, NVLink, networking systems, and software has scaled NVIDIA's revenue opportunity per gigawatt from roughly $18B (Hopper) to $40B (Vera Rubin). Management credited this "extreme codesign" for outsized generational performance leaps, such as Vera Rubin delivering 30x higher throughput per megawatt and 35x lower token costs.
3. CUDA ecosystem reach beyond hyperscalers — The software and developer layer allows NVIDIA to extend its footprint into sovereigns, neoclouds, and enterprises that do not wish to build custom silicon, effectively connecting them to offtake demand from its vast developer ecosystem.
These three advantages align neatly with our recent @MoatScore analysis. It is rare for a member of management to speak so articulately about competitive advantages at the outset of an earnings call, offering investors the possibility to validate their moat assessment. $NVDA
NVIDIA’s moat is no longer just “the best GPUs.”
MoatScore Research’s estimated breakdown: the mix is designed to be tracked over time and to provide an estimate of where the durability comes from. Not investment advice.
@nvidia.
Ran @Nike through our MoatScore framework, which indicates that Nike’s moat score may have declined from roughly 36% in FY2020 to 30% in FY2026, following a peak of around 40% in FY2021.
The score experienced contractions in four out of the last five years before plateauing around FY2025—pointing to initial signs of stabilization after a prolonged multi-year erosion. This erosion seems to have been primarily driven by self-inflicted execution missteps (such as the FY2022–FY2023 inventory gluts and an overly aggressive DTC-first push) that compounded a structural softening in brand pricing power and market share.
The leadership transition under Elliott Hill in October 2024 registers in the data as a stabilization floor rather than an immediate reversal: metrics for Process Power & Culture and Distribution have halted their decline, and Regulatory Capture ticked upward as tariff exposure entered the frame. However, neither Switching Costs nor Intangible Assets has yet turned back upward.
Not financial advice: an additional research tool, not a
buy/sell $NKE SIGNAL. Framework internals stay proprietary. Nearly every input into the materiality scores is backward-looking. Overall materiality assessment, while anchored to observable metrics, still involves analyst judgement.
MoatScore Research retweeted
The last time @GavinSBaker and I sat down to record a podcast, it was almost exactly a year ago and we started with the immediate question: is AI a bubble? Gavin's answer focused on utilization and returns (and perhaps unsurprisingly, his answer was: No). Unlike the dark fiber of 2000, there were, and still are, no idle GPUs. The largest buyers of compute were funding the buildout from some of the strongest balance sheets in the world, and their AI investment was already producing real returns.
I sat down with Gavin again last week, and to chart just exactly where we are in the cycle. He has spent the summer asking operators for one quantitative measure in their business that is getting worse and has yet to find one. At the same time, public AI stocks have gone through meaningful drawdowns.
Still, if you look at the way people are using AI today, there’s a good chance that demand diffusion has barely begun. AI revenue rests on fewer than 10m heavy users, against roughly 1.5b knowledge workers. At the most AI-native startups, token spend is approaching or exceeding 10% of human compensation, which suggests that there’s a long way to go before even the earliest adopters fully integrate agentic capabilities. Within Atreides, Gavin said token consumption rose 100x from March through August, and even further once the team started using products like GrokBot. As Gavin put it, once people begin approving automations, token consumption starts to feel “sort of endless.”
This dynamic would be reason enough alone to believe that we’re massively undersupplied at the moment. But there are other reasons on the supply side too, namely that there are a near-unbounded number of potential winners in the space:
- Frontier labs can keep winning because on the highest-value tasks, marginal improvements in intelligence are worth far more than marginal differences in price.
- Open models illustrate that most work doesn’t require frontier performance, creating a much larger market for intelligence that is cheaper and customizable.
- Nvidia, hyperscalers, neoclouds, and inference providers can simultaneously win because every additional token still requires physical compute, even if models become more efficient.
- Enterprises can win as proprietary data, workflows, and institutional knowledge become more valuable.
- Application companies can win by capturing services budgets and owning the customer relationship.
This doesn’t suggest everyone will be successful, but it does mean the market itself is positive-sum and we will look back on zero-sum thinking as far too limiting. Better models create better products, better products create more users, more users create more token demand, and more demand supports continued investment in models and infrastructure.
Check out the whole conversation below:
@a16z
Gavin Baker and a16z's David George on the state of the AI boom:
The future doesn't have to be winner-take-all. Labs, open-source, applications, and the clouds can all capture value.
Demand for intelligence is still dramatically underestimated. Today's power users number in the millions and will grow to hundreds of millions. Gavin and David argue a compute shortage is a more real risk than an AI bubble, and building through it is an opportunity to reindustrialize America.
In this episode, they get into why compute investments pay back so fast, what the data center backlash gets wrong, the case for putting compute in orbit, why enterprises will run several models at once, and how Nvidia ended up at the center of the entire supply chain.
00:00 Intro
01:06 The bear case Gavin couldn't find
05:50 Why a lab would cut its own revenue 75%
08:05 What LPs get wrong about a crash
10:50 Microsoft slowed its capex and regrets it
14:33 The engineers spending 100x the median
17:35 Why 23-year-olds use AI better than Gavin
21:45 How much copper 500M AI users need
23:00 Stop promising to cure cancer
26:00 America's richest county is full of data centers
30:48 Who gets priced out of compute
33:05 The age of Elon and Jensen
34:25 Orbital data centers
44:40 Asteroid mining
48:12 Why Microsoft doesn't need a frontier model
54:02 Who becomes the abstraction layer
55:40 Everyone wanted a deity, Cursor wanted a product
1:00:25 Never take shots at Jensen
1:07:40 What happens when the chip doesn't work
1:12:10 What chip deals reveal about customer demand
YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=FGC4ofTc…
@GavinSBaker @DavidGeorge83
So far, the companies analyzed using the MoatScore framework have shown expanding moats by our estimation. I’ve been asked to identify a company with a declining moat, so I’ll share a finding in the coming days.
NVIDIA’s moat is no longer just “the best GPUs.”
MoatScore Research’s estimated breakdown: the mix is designed to be tracked over time and to provide an estimate of where the durability comes from. Not investment advice.
@nvidia.
We ran the MoatScore Framework on @nvidia.
The framework sees its advantage as having moved well beyond the old gaming-GPU business. CUDA lock-in and control of scarce advanced packaging and HBM capacity are treated as the main drivers of economic profit. The developer flywheel matters, but it is not scored as the primary source. Execution cadence and full-stack co-design also sit at the top of the scale.
A Hugging Face acquisition would most likely raise Network Effects and Distribution by putting the main open-model hub inside the same company that already supplies the hardware-and-CUDA layer most large-scale training still runs on. That would tighten the path from silicon to model discovery and deployment. The open questions are whether it weakens the “neutral merchant silicon” posture currently credited in the score, and how regulators and the open-source community react.
Not financial advice: an additional research tool, not an $NVDA buy/sell signal. Framework internals stay proprietary. Nearly every input into the materiality scores is backward-looking. Overall materiality assessment, while anchored to observable metrics, still involves analyst judgement.
Current running the MoatScore framework on $NVDA. As the work progresses, several areas for improvement and potential re-evaluation have emerged. That said, Nvidia's management is world class.
Did not run the MoatScore framework on $INTC yet but its moat is probably expanding as we speak. NFA.
Ben on Intel and TSMC:
"A lot of tech companies didn't fully appreciate the extent to which TSMC offloaded risk onto the big tech companies.
The risk TSMC is worried about is overcapacity. If we build a fab, we expect that fab to run for 30 years.
So they are very biased toward being much more conservative.
Risk doesn't disappear. It just moves.
Today, when we say there's not enough compute, it's not like all the money that companies are putting in today manifests in compute tomorrow. It manifests in compute in 2028 and 2029.
But this is where TSMC in some respects made the same mistake as the memory makers.
Because they didn't invest, the shortages are going to be so acute, big tech companies that were foregoing so much revenue and so many profits will go through the pain of getting Intel up to speed, of getting Samsung up to speed.
It never made rational sense for anyone to go work with Intel. In an unchanging world, TSMC would just win forever.
The scarcity is what ultimately saved Intel. It was ultimately TSMC brought it on themselves."
We just ran our MoatScore Research framework on $SPCX.
Result: a sky-high MoatScore estimated at approximately 80% by Q2 2026, forged through relentless execution. The score is driven by an unmatched cost advantage in orbital launch, high regulatory barriers, strong switching costs, Starlink’s rapid scale to 12 million subscribers, and the vertical integration of large-scale AI compute into the same stack.
@SpaceX has moved well beyond being a launch provider — it’s now a multi-segment infrastructure platform with one of the most defensible moats that we have ever seen.
Not financial advice: an additional research tool, not a buy/sell signal. Framework internals stay proprietary. Nearly every input into the materiality scores is backward-looking. Overall materiality assessment, while anchored to observable metrics, still involves analyst judgement.
Yet nobody deploys compute better than @elonmusk
Yeah
SpaceX’s next chapter is going to look almost magical
Falcon already revolutionized the space industry and now SpaceX launches more than 80% of the world’s mass to orbit
Starship is about to take this to a completely different level
SpaceX is aiming for roughly 2.25 MILLION tonnes of mass to orbit per year by 2032
For perspective, SpaceX put about 2,213 tonnes into orbit in all of 2025
That’s roughly a 1,000X increase in annual mass to orbit
At that scale, the entire way we think about space changes
• Massive Starlink and AI satellite deployments
• Orbital AI data centers
• Huge space stations
• Industrial infrastructure in orbit
• Permanent bases on the Moon
• Enormous amounts of cargo heading toward Mars
For most of spaceflight history, every kilogram sent to orbit was precious
Starship is being built for a future where humanity starts moving millions of tonnes beyond Earth