If you're looking for a rough overview of how US business income taxation works -- and who isn't really -- this is an interesting article by Matt Levine. He has a knack for making this stuff a lot more interesting. The real purpose of the article, though, is as a lead up to talking about Biden's proposed "billionaire minimum tax". At the highest level, here's the idea:

His most recent budget would require taxpayers worth more than $100 million to pay a minimum of 25% on their capital gains each year, whether they sold assets for a profit or continue to hold them.

The way things work today is that unrealized capital gains are not taxed. Meaning you can own something like a stock for a really long time and not pay any capital gains on it, until of course you sell or realize the gains. So this is a philosophical kind of change. And in Matt's words, it is both "jarring" and "possibly unconstitutional".

But I guess it doesn't affect that many people. There are, according to CNBC, somewhere around 10,660 centi-millionaires in the US. I wonder why it's not called a centi-millionaire minimum tax, though. (I know why.)

Matt Levine's latest Money Stuff column does a good job explaining why a lot of smart people are trying to figure out a market-making model for homes (see companies such as Opendoor):

People want to apply the market-making model to homes. This makes sense. Buying or selling a home is a long slow uncertain annoying process. The value of immediacy is high, especially for a seller. If you decide to sell your house and go to a website and spend 10 minutes filling out a form and then someone wires you cash for the value of your house, that is much much much better than hiring a broker and listing the house and holding open houses and so forth. You’d be willing to pay a market maker a lot for that immediacy. (By selling your house to the market maker at a discount.) And if the market maker is good at acquiring houses, then it will have a lot of inventory, which will make it a good seller of houses. If you want to buy a house, you will naturally go to the market maker’s website, because it’s where the houses are.

Levine also explains why a market-making model is that much more difficult for homes compared to things like stocks. In a slowing/slumping housing market, it's pretty easy to lose money as a market maker. (That is, unless you can somehow accurately predict that a slump is coming.)

Last month, Opendoor lost money on 42% of its home transactions. This is a result of them buying homes from people when prices were X and then selling these homes many months later when prices were less than X.

However, I'm not so sure that this has to be an existential problem. Opendoor's primary value proposition is instant liquidity for homeowners. And this value proposition is at its strongest when the market is in fact slumping. Because the alternative -- selling with a broker -- is less attractive.

So the current environment may eventually turn out to be a boon for Opendoor. Of course, we won't know for a number of months.

Full disclosure: I am long $OPEN. And yes, it is painful right now.

If I had to pick only one social network to use, it would be Twitter. I, of course, also enjoy Instagram because I like taking photos. But if I had to pick one, it would be Twitter.

I just find that Instagram is more about passive consumption (like watching TV), whereas on Twitter I've found a way to actively engage in productive discussions around the topics that interest me -- everything from real estate and architecture to NFTs and photography.

The crypto community is also very centered around Twitter. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I would think that NFT activity has been, or at least should be, a boon for the company. That said, Twitter has never really been a great business and public company.

But maybe that changes now that Elon Musk has become its largest shareholder with a 9.2% stake in the company (currently valued at a few billion). The stock jumped over 27% today. Or maybe it doesn't change at all and this is just a fun side hustle for Elon.

Here is a typically funny explanation from Matt Levine introducing what just happened:

Look this all makes complete sense, obvious, intuitive, simple sense. If you are the richest person in the world, and annoying, and you constantly play a computer game, and you get a lot of enjoyment and a sense of identity from that game and are maybe a little addicted, then at some point you might have some suggestions for improvements in the game. So you might leave comments and email the company that makes the game saying “hey you should try my ideas.” And the company might ignore you (or respond politely but not move fast enough for your liking). It might occur to you: “Look, I am the richest person in the world; how much could this game company possibly cost? I should just buy it and change the game however I want.” Even if your complaints are quite minor, why shouldn’t you get to play exactly the game you want? Even if you have no complaints, why not own the game you love, just to make sure it continues to be exactly what you want? The game is Twitter, the richest person in the world is Elon Musk...