Eric Jackson

I don't spend my time looking for the next 10% trade. I'm looking for the next Carvana, like when I got into it at $15 in May 2023. The next stock the market has written off that could become worth 10, 20, even 100 times more. But finding one means doing the work most people skip. Reading the filings. Understanding the debt. Studying the management and board. Figuring out what the market is missing — and what would prove the thesis wrong. I share my broader thinking publicly. My X subscribers get the deeper research, ongoing thesis updates, the evidence I'm tracking, and a private AMA Space with me every week. Not every idea works. Not every stock deserves to be bought. And sometimes the right answer is to do nothing. If you want to understand the work behind the conviction, that's what my subscriber community is for. Subscribe through my X profile.

BIGGIE'S $12.5 MILLION RULING A Delaware judge ruled that $12,518,336 in distributions are due to Biggie's mother's trust. The defendants argued it was owed just $48,612. Same company. Two radically different interpretations of what the trust is owed. I read the court records. Here's what surprised me: Biggie's legacy company has two 50% owners. Distributions are allocated four ways. And management control is a separate legal right. Separately, trademark records show the company assigned an undivided 50% interest in seven of its marks to a Primary Wave affiliate. Owning the company ≠ controlling the company ≠ receiving its cash. The documents reveal how a music legacy is actually structured.

Watching Terminator 2 (from 1991)…. Gulp…

BINANCE: $6.3 BILLION. NO EVIDENCE OF STOLEN PRIVATE KEYS. That's what makes this story extraordinary. My team independently verified 50 Ethereum authorizations pointing to an attacker-deployed contract. Minutes later, assets moved. The exact execution path isn't fully decoded. But the evidence raises a much bigger question: What if the next financial catastrophe doesn't require stealing the keys? Just compromising the authority to use them. My investigation:

The most interesting question in the Binance incident isn’t whether the transactions had valid cryptographic signatures. It’s WHO—or WHAT—had the authority to generate them. A valid signature doesn’t necessarily mean a private key was stolen. A compromised signing environment can potentially authorize transactions without exposing the underlying key. That’s a very different kind of security failure. And it raises a bigger question for every major crypto exchange: Who controls the infrastructure that controls the keys? That’s where I’d focus the investigation.

🚨 BINANCE vs. MT. GOX: THE NUMBERS 2014 — Mt. Gox: • ~$450M in missing Bitcoin • BTC fell 27.3% over 14 days on other exchanges • Exchange ultimately went bankrupt 2026 — Binance: • $6.3 BILLION in estimated breach losses • BTC down ~4.1% so far • Investigation ongoing That's roughly 14 TIMES the dollar value of the Mt. Gox losses. Yet Bitcoin's initial market reaction has been dramatically smaller. The comparison shows just how much the market has changed in 12 years.

🚨 BITCOIN: $77,500. Here's something interesting about today's selloff. Our retained price records show BTC was still around $80,800–$80,900 at 3:51 PM ET. By 4:06 PM, the decline was already underway. The suspicious Binance wallet activity now under investigation has been reported around 4:20–4:30 PM ET. BTC is now down roughly 4.1% from that pre-drop level. The timing raises a question: what triggered the selling BEFORE the reported wallet activity?

Markets are efficient. At 4:27pm ET, BTC was $80,319. The Binance hack occurred at 4:20:59 ET. At 4:45pm ET, BTC was at $78,438. It's now at $76,694.

BTC below $78k #binancehacked

Initially I thought BTC was down because of AWS but now I see… Binance

Really enjoyed this discussion with @McnallieM and @cazenove_uk !

Paul Pierce: $165K a month to zero, per TMZ. Then I checked what he owns.

Business must be good if your business manager is giving you this

Everyone's asking why Bitcoin rallied while Treasury yields rose after the Fed. But here's what the intraday data actually shows: The 10-year yield's rise happened BEFORE the Fed announcement. AFTER 2pm: • The 2-year yield fell ~6bp • Real yields fell ~2bp • Inflation breakevens rose ~2bp In other words, the inflation-adjusted cost of money actually EASED after the Fed. That's a very different story from “higher yields are hurting risk assets.” Timing isn't proof of causation. But it changes the question investors should be asking. More from our RATE DNA research at @EventHorizonIQ.

The Fed held rates today. Two members wanted to HIKE. But here's the question I think investors should be asking: Which companies NEED lower rates to survive... And which are transforming their economics so dramatically that they can thrive WITHOUT them? The market often prices both groups the same way. That's where opportunity hides. Just shared my deeper thinking with subscribers.

I found something interesting digging through $OPEN's September property records in Maricopa County, Arizona. Of 47 confirmed resale deeds, 8 — or 17% — lacked usable matching purchase prices. That means we can't reliably calculate the purchase-to-resale spread for nearly 1 in 5 transactions. Here's why that matters: Investors are trying to figure out whether Opendoor's unit economics are improving BEFORE earnings. But even the public property records have blind spots. Missing data doesn't mean hidden losses. It means we need to be very careful about what the numbers actually prove. That's why I'm digging into the deeds, not just the stock price.