IREN · NUAI
Why a Scenario Price Estimate Is Not the Same as Present Fair Value
The difference is conditionality: probability, time, financing, and the evidence required for a future state to exist.
Thesis
A precise explanation of why a full-build output can be valid without implying that the company is worth that amount today.
Key chart
| Output | What it means | What it does not mean |
|---|---|---|
| Full-build value | Conditional value after planned execution | Guaranteed present value |
| Probability-adjusted value | Weighted conditional outputs | Objective truth |
| Market price | Current clearing price | Proof of intrinsic value |
The argument
The proper statement is: “Under these conditions, the model produces this output.” The improper statement is: “The output proves the security is worth this today.”
Model AssumptionA scenario-implied value is conditional on the inputs that generate it. InferenceWhen financing, timing, and completion remain unresolved, a full-build output normally deserves less present credit than an operating and funded asset.Key findings
- Full-build value can be analytically useful while present credit remains partial.
- Discounting handles time; it does not automatically handle non-completion.
- Probability weighting handles uncertainty; it does not replace financing analysis.
- Per-share value must include the shares likely issued to reach the scenario.
Counterarguments
Markets sometimes capitalize future capacity early, particularly when assets are scarce. That is a market judgment about probability and strategic value, not evidence that all execution risk has disappeared.
Risks
A scenario estimate becomes misleading or promotional when assumptions are hidden, downside is asymmetric, or the valuation date and financing path are omitted.
Catalysts
Each completed execution gate can convert option value into a higher-confidence project value.
Scenario analysis
Valuation analysis
Present value should combine phase-specific probability, discounting, net debt, minority interests, and dilution. These adjustments answer different questions and should remain visible.
Assumptions
The probability assigned to a phase should be justified by evidence rather than selected solely to reach a desired output.
Methodology
See probability adjustment and project-stage risk adjustment.
Disconfirming evidence
A present-value conclusion changes if financing or contract evidence materially raises or lowers the likelihood of completion.
What would change the conclusion
Execution, not rhetoric: signed obligations, committed capital, construction progress, energization, and operating cash flow.
Audit this conclusion
The conclusion can be summarized elsewhere. The full Ephesus Research page remains the place to inspect the calculation, evidence, sensitivities, revisions, and contrary evidence behind it.
Change the valuation assumptions
Adjust the discount rate, stabilized multiple, utilization, unit economics, funding mix, share count, delays, and completion probabilities.
Open exact sectionInspect every material assumption
Review evidence type, source label, date, confidence rating, and the note attached to each model input.
Open exact sectionCompare execution paths
Move between bear, base, and bull conditions, then inspect the phase-by-phase buildout schedule.
Open exact sectionStress-test the valuation
Open the complete sensitivity matrices for discount rates, terminal values, unit economics, delays, dilution, and execution risk.
Open exact sectionReview what changed
Open the dated revision record rather than relying on an undated excerpt or an older model output.
Open exact sectionDownload the underlying model
Open the public spreadsheet or machine-readable JSON and CSV representations for independent review.
Open exact sectionTest the conclusion against contrary evidence
Read the facts, limitations, and developments that would weaken, invalidate, or materially change the stated conclusion.
Open exact sectionTrace the evidence to its sources
Follow the source map to filings, company disclosures, contracts, permits, and other cited records.
Open exact sectionEvidence guide
Evidence and judgment labels
Statements marked Fact are intended to be directly supported by cited evidence. Guidance, estimates, assumptions, inferences, and speculation remain separately named so they are not mistaken for verified facts.
2
mapped sources
Yes
primary support
Related spreadsheets
Audit the linked model
IREN · AI infrastructure and digital assets
IREN Five-Year DCF and Buildout Model
This model estimates the cash IREN could generate from operating and planned sites, subtracts construction and hardware-replacement costs, reduces the value of uncertain projects, subtracts net debt, and divides what remains among diluted shares.
Question this model answers
What could one IREN share be worth at different stages of its AI and Bitcoin-mining buildout?
Base estimate per share
US$38.96
Outcomes shown
3
NUAI · Data centers and behind-the-meter power
NUAI TCDC - Taxpayer-Specific Financing and Original-Holder Value
NUAI TCDC v2.7.1 separates direct-leasing strategy, taxpayer cash, priced financing and retained ownership. Ten captured comparisons distinguish frozen v2.6 references, matched tax cases, re-underwritten financing, timing and policy assumptions. All new financing remains conditional.
Question this model answers
Who funds TCDC, which taxpayer can use each deduction, and what remains for original shareholders?
Conditional financing comparisons
Compare captures
Captured cases
10
Evidence map
Mapped public sources
Version control
Article change log
Research status
Research status
Current
Conclusion
Neutral
Version
1.0.0
Last reviewed
Aug 2, 2026
Access
Public and free
Continue reading
Related public research
NUAI
NUAI: From Announced Megawatts to Bankable Cash Flow
TCDC's power agreements and local planning progress strengthen its development prospects. Turning them into shareholder cash depends on phase-specific permits, deliverable IT capacity, tenant acceptance, reliable infrastructure and a financeable lease.
NUAI
NUAI/TCDC: Technical Appendix
Supporting documents, engineering sensitivities and peer comparisons for the NUAI/TCDC eight-gate investigation, preserving dates, contractual boundaries, assumptions and unresolved project evidence.
NUAI
If CoreWeave Defaults, What Happens to NUAI?
A hypothetical CoreWeave default is not the same as a collapse in AI compute demand. This source-based fundamental analysis examines GPU liquidation, direct hyperscaler leases, competing distressed sites, and the financing risk to New Era Energy & Digital's TCDC development, using SEC disclosures and explicitly illustrative stress tests.
Challenge a fact, formula, or interpretation.
Submissions are reviewed before publication. Credited contributors are listed only with permission; private email addresses are never displayed publicly.