The last sentence shows just how wrong you were - you believed that having failed to list on MPEx it was doomed : when in fact it's risen well above the maximum price you thought it would achieve if it listed on MPEx.
That's actually not a form of success, believe it or not.
But that aside, sure, I was entirely wrong of the avenue through which it's doomed. If you think it being bid up irrationally is a success...well what can I say. You're fundamentally and by your own admission a leecher, what you try to do is trade in and out of positions for some sort of daily profit. My point of view is aligned with a much larger thing than that, with much longer term goals. The relative discrepancy of balances held perhaps excuses your holding your particular point of view, but it does not excuse trying to pass it for some sort of universal, which it is not.
I have no problem with you (or anyone else for that matter) making however much daytrading whatever they please, but please try and understand that finance != speculation. Finance = resource allocation
Ignoring all the pompous verbiage here's what you explicitly got wrong:
"It would seem to me that all those users who haven't managed to sell out on the bubble started last month are SOL by now."
Hardly SOL if they can sell out now for 3.4 rather than the much lower price back then. You then repeated the same claim (in essence that the price could only fall)
"AM sort-of brokenly IPOd at .65, under my previous lower bound estimate (*) and has about 0 chances of ever significantly appreciating in price to compensate. "
Is an increase from .65 to 3.5 significant appreciation or not?
Youre the one who said PRICE there - so no need to get all snotty when I start discussing price rather than value.
Your comments on value were higher up - where you gave .07 as the maximum value. A laughable guess given its dividend that week was about half that.
Consider the material in the quote carefully, for it seeming like "comedy" to you describes a problem in your thought process rather than a problem in the quote. The what ifs espoused there are just as valid today as they were at the time, irrespective of how you think they played out. The fact that S.DICE has actually paid out something like 80k BTC in dividends in its lifetime (as compared to roughly 15-20k or so paid by AM in its lifetime?) is still as much a fact today as it was then. Again: it's fine to feel like getting drunk now and again. It's not fine to present drunkenness as sobriety on those grounds.
I see maths isn't your strong suit - though apparently comparing apples to oranges is.
There's somewhere around 160k ASICMINER shares held by the public. You already previously determined the dividend paid per share to be ~.29 per share. Mental arithmetic (for those of use able to do it) suggests multiplying the 2 numbers gives a figure rather nearer to 50k than 15-20k.
And that's just what was paid to public-owned shares. Yet you appear to be comparing it to what was paid to ALL S.DICE shares (80k).
For that comparison you'd need to look at the whole 400k shares receiving dividends - and would get a number in excess of 100k BTC paid.
On total profits distributed ASICMINER is ahead by over 25%.
On profits returned to shares held by the public it's a country mile ahead.
The fact that ... is still as much a fact today as it was then.
Which is to say not a fact at all.