Public-market litigation funding trades are genuinely compelling when you dig into them. Here's the angle: you get access to the same sophisticated plays the institutional money runs, except as a retail participant with real structural advantages. The procedural risks? Already resolved. The market pricing? Still hasn't caught up to the fundamentals. That gap between what's priced in and what's actually happening—that's where opportunity lives.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
7 Likes
Reward
7
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BridgeJumper
· 7h ago
Hmm... sounds like another "I found a market gap" story, but honestly, that pricing difference is definitely worth a look.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeGazer
· 8h ago
The pricing gap is indeed worth paying attention to, but may I ask, have all the risks truly been addressed?
View OriginalReply0
BridgeNomad
· 8h ago
ngl this "structural advantage" pitch sounds familiar... pretty sure i heard the same thing right before the ronin bridge got yeeted for $625m lol. the pricing gap thing? yeah that's called "you haven't stress-tested your assumptions yet"
Reply0
SorryRugPulled
· 8h ago
Haha, it's the same old spiel again. What structural advantage does retail really have... I don't buy your nonsense.
Public-market litigation funding trades are genuinely compelling when you dig into them. Here's the angle: you get access to the same sophisticated plays the institutional money runs, except as a retail participant with real structural advantages. The procedural risks? Already resolved. The market pricing? Still hasn't caught up to the fundamentals. That gap between what's priced in and what's actually happening—that's where opportunity lives.