Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

A 25-YEAR-OLD BUILT THE FASTEST-GROWING SOFTWARE COMPANY IN HISTORY... WITH ZERO MARKETING SPEND... AND SPACEX REPORTEDLY OFFERED $60 BILLION TO BUY IT. HIS NAME IS MICHAEL TRUELL. HE STARTED CODING AT 11... INTERNED AT GOOGLE AT 18... AND DROPPED OUT OF MIT TO BUILD AN AI COMPANY. HIS FIRST...

Vivek4real_'s profile picture

Vivek Sen

269,768 subscribers

16,159 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Elon Musk's biggest competitor is secretly paying him $1.25 BILLION per month. SpaceX just revealed its financials for the first time in 23 years of existence. And buried deep in the S-1 is a detail that changes how you should think about the entire AI race. Anthropic, the company building Claude, the company that positions itself as OpenAI's biggest threat, the company valued at over $100 billion, is paying SpaceX $1.25 billion EVERY SINGLE MONTH for compute capacity through May 2029. That is $15 billion a year flowing directly from Elon's top AI competitor into Elon's bank account. Think about what that means: Every time Anthropic trains a new model, improves Claude, or lands an enterprise customer, a massive chunk of that revenue goes straight to the guy who owns the competing AI product. Anthropic is literally funding the war against itself. And that's just the beginning of what this filing reveals... The entire SpaceX IPO is structured around a bet most people haven't figured out yet. In 2025, SpaceX spent $20 billion in capex. 60% of that, roughly $12 billion, went to AI infrastructure. Rockets and satellites got the leftovers. In Q1 2026 alone, $7.7 billion out of $10 billion in total capex went to AI. The "rocket company" is spending like an AI company. Meanwhile, xAI, the division that houses Grok, generated $3.2 billion in revenue for the full year of 2025. But its R&D costs TRIPLED to $5 billion. It's burning cash at a pace that would have destroyed it as a standalone company. Which is exactly why Elon merged it into SpaceX two months before filing the IPO. And Starlink is the engine that makes the whole thing work: $11.4 billion in revenue, $4.4 billion in operating profit, and 10.3 million subscribers across 164 countries. It's one of the most profitable subscription businesses on the planet right now. But the average revenue per user DROPPED from $99 per month in 2023 to $66 per month in March 2026. Subscribers quadrupled but each one is paying a third less. Starlink is growing by getting cheaper. SpaceX has lost $37 BILLION since it was founded. Net loss in 2025 was $4.9 billion. This is a company that has never turned an annual profit in 23 years of operation, and it is about to IPO at a $1.75 trillion valuation. And the total addressable market SpaceX claims in the filing is $28.5 trillion. That is a QUARTER of global GDP. So here is what investors are actually buying when this IPO prices: They are buying the most profitable satellite internet business in history, stapled to an AI lab that is burning cash, wrapped inside a Mars colonization pitch that requires building a permanent city on another planet, funded by monthly billion-dollar payments from a direct competitor who has no other option for compute at that scale. This is the kind of thing only Elon could pull off.
2:03

Elon Musk's biggest competitor is secretly paying him $1.25 BILLION per month. SpaceX just revealed its financials for the first time in 23 years of existence. And buried deep in the S-1 is a detail that changes how you should think about the entire AI race. Anthropic, the company building Claude, the company that positions itself as OpenAI's biggest threat, the company valued at over $100 billion, is paying SpaceX $1.25 billion EVERY SINGLE MONTH for compute capacity through May 2029. That is $15 billion a year flowing directly from Elon's top AI competitor into Elon's bank account. Think about what that means: Every time Anthropic trains a new model, improves Claude, or lands an enterprise customer, a massive chunk of that revenue goes straight to the guy who owns the competing AI product. Anthropic is literally funding the war against itself. And that's just the beginning of what this filing reveals... The entire SpaceX IPO is structured around a bet most people haven't figured out yet. In 2025, SpaceX spent $20 billion in capex. 60% of that, roughly $12 billion, went to AI infrastructure. Rockets and satellites got the leftovers. In Q1 2026 alone, $7.7 billion out of $10 billion in total capex went to AI. The "rocket company" is spending like an AI company. Meanwhile, xAI, the division that houses Grok, generated $3.2 billion in revenue for the full year of 2025. But its R&D costs TRIPLED to $5 billion. It's burning cash at a pace that would have destroyed it as a standalone company. Which is exactly why Elon merged it into SpaceX two months before filing the IPO. And Starlink is the engine that makes the whole thing work: $11.4 billion in revenue, $4.4 billion in operating profit, and 10.3 million subscribers across 164 countries. It's one of the most profitable subscription businesses on the planet right now. But the average revenue per user DROPPED from $99 per month in 2023 to $66 per month in March 2026. Subscribers quadrupled but each one is paying a third less. Starlink is growing by getting cheaper. SpaceX has lost $37 BILLION since it was founded. Net loss in 2025 was $4.9 billion. This is a company that has never turned an annual profit in 23 years of operation, and it is about to IPO at a $1.75 trillion valuation. And the total addressable market SpaceX claims in the filing is $28.5 trillion. That is a QUARTER of global GDP. So here is what investors are actually buying when this IPO prices: They are buying the most profitable satellite internet business in history, stapled to an AI lab that is burning cash, wrapped inside a Mars colonization pitch that requires building a permanent city on another planet, funded by monthly billion-dollar payments from a direct competitor who has no other option for compute at that scale. This is the kind of thing only Elon could pull off.

Ricardo

208,495 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Greg Brockman, President of OpenAI, said there is not enough compute in the world to satisfy AI demand, and OpenAI itself cannot launch products it has already built because it cannot find the infrastructure to run them (Save this). OpenAI is spending $50 billion on compute in 2026 alone and it still is not enough. That is the setup but here is the trade. Nebius is one of the most asymmetric infrastructure plays in public markets right now, and most people have never heard of it. Q1 2026 revenue came in at $399 million, up 684% year over year, with AI cloud revenue specifically growing 841% in a single quarter. The company entered 2026 with an exit ARR of $1.25 billion and is targeting $7 to $9 billion by year end, a number that would make it one of the fastest revenue ramps in the history of public infrastructure companies. The contracted backlog sits at $50 billion anchored by a $17.4 billion agreement with Microsoft through 2031 and a $27 billion five-year deal with Meta. They are decade-scale infrastructure commitments from the two largest enterprise AI spenders on earth, signed before the demand curve has even reached its steepest point. Nvidia took a direct equity stake in Nebius, one of only two neoclouds it has invested in alongside CoreWeave. That relationship is not just financial but rather means Nebius gets preferential access to GPU allocation at a moment when every lab and every hyperscaler is competing for the same constrained supply. Contracted power capacity now exceeds 3.5 gigawatts, with expansion plans targeting 5 to 6 GW by mid-2029. And power is the other binding constraint in AI infrastructure, you cannot build a data center without it and Nebius has already secured the capacity that competitors are still fighting to acquire. At full ramp, analysts project revenue in the $15 to $25 billion range by 2029, against a current market cap the contracted backlog alone already dwarfs. Come join Milk Road Pro and get our full Nebius deep-dive, the exact price levels we are watching, how we are sizing the position against the backlog and power capacity timeline, and our full AI thesis. link below!
1:00

Greg Brockman, President of OpenAI, said there is not enough compute in the world to satisfy AI demand, and OpenAI itself cannot launch products it has already built because it cannot find the infrastructure to run them (Save this). OpenAI is spending $50 billion on compute in 2026 alone and it still is not enough. That is the setup but here is the trade. Nebius is one of the most asymmetric infrastructure plays in public markets right now, and most people have never heard of it. Q1 2026 revenue came in at $399 million, up 684% year over year, with AI cloud revenue specifically growing 841% in a single quarter. The company entered 2026 with an exit ARR of $1.25 billion and is targeting $7 to $9 billion by year end, a number that would make it one of the fastest revenue ramps in the history of public infrastructure companies. The contracted backlog sits at $50 billion anchored by a $17.4 billion agreement with Microsoft through 2031 and a $27 billion five-year deal with Meta. They are decade-scale infrastructure commitments from the two largest enterprise AI spenders on earth, signed before the demand curve has even reached its steepest point. Nvidia took a direct equity stake in Nebius, one of only two neoclouds it has invested in alongside CoreWeave. That relationship is not just financial but rather means Nebius gets preferential access to GPU allocation at a moment when every lab and every hyperscaler is competing for the same constrained supply. Contracted power capacity now exceeds 3.5 gigawatts, with expansion plans targeting 5 to 6 GW by mid-2029. And power is the other binding constraint in AI infrastructure, you cannot build a data center without it and Nebius has already secured the capacity that competitors are still fighting to acquire. At full ramp, analysts project revenue in the $15 to $25 billion range by 2029, against a current market cap the contracted backlog alone already dwarfs. Come join Milk Road Pro and get our full Nebius deep-dive, the exact price levels we are watching, how we are sizing the position against the backlog and power capacity timeline, and our full AI thesis. link below!

Milk Road AI

14,578 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Elon Musk just made one if the biggest moves in taking over the programming industry “SpaceX just bought Cursor for $60 billion. Do you realize how big this is? SpaceX went public — the biggest IPO in history. $75 billion raised, almost a $2 trillion valuation and the first thing to do with that money? Buy the most popular AI coding tool on the planet. Here's why that changes everything. Elon now owns 3 layers: the compute, Colossus data centers, the models, Grok through xAI, and now the tool that developers actually use every day. It's the full stack. And here's what makes Cursor different from Claude Code or Codex. Cursor is model agnostic. You can run Claude in it, GPT, Gemini, whatever model you want. It's not locked to any one company, and now it has SpaceX's resources behind it. Cursor said they were bottlenecked by compute. Well, that bottleneck has just been removed. $4 billion in annual revenue, over half the Fortune 500 already uses it, and now it's backed by a $2 trillion company. OpenAI has Codex, Anthropic has Claude Code, and now Elon has Cursor.” Let me break this down in simple terms Elon Musk now controls more of the full AI picture: - Massive computers, power (data centers like Colossus) - Smart AI models (Grok from xAI) - The actual tool millions of developers use every day (Cursor) For every day users this means Faster and smarter apps and websites in the future. More developers using powerful AI tools means new apps, games, websites, and features get built quicker and cheaper. This means better video games, smoother streaming, smarter phone apps and better programs For Developers they can describe what they want in plain English (“make a feature that does X”) and the AI handles more of the heavy lifting
2:13

Elon Musk just made one if the biggest moves in taking over the programming industry “SpaceX just bought Cursor for $60 billion. Do you realize how big this is? SpaceX went public — the biggest IPO in history. $75 billion raised, almost a $2 trillion valuation and the first thing to do with that money? Buy the most popular AI coding tool on the planet. Here's why that changes everything. Elon now owns 3 layers: the compute, Colossus data centers, the models, Grok through xAI, and now the tool that developers actually use every day. It's the full stack. And here's what makes Cursor different from Claude Code or Codex. Cursor is model agnostic. You can run Claude in it, GPT, Gemini, whatever model you want. It's not locked to any one company, and now it has SpaceX's resources behind it. Cursor said they were bottlenecked by compute. Well, that bottleneck has just been removed. $4 billion in annual revenue, over half the Fortune 500 already uses it, and now it's backed by a $2 trillion company. OpenAI has Codex, Anthropic has Claude Code, and now Elon has Cursor.” Let me break this down in simple terms Elon Musk now controls more of the full AI picture: - Massive computers, power (data centers like Colossus) - Smart AI models (Grok from xAI) - The actual tool millions of developers use every day (Cursor) For every day users this means Faster and smarter apps and websites in the future. More developers using powerful AI tools means new apps, games, websites, and features get built quicker and cheaper. This means better video games, smoother streaming, smarter phone apps and better programs For Developers they can describe what they want in plain English (“make a feature that does X”) and the AI handles more of the heavy lifting

Wall Street Apes

213,267 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

ELON MUSK: "Step number one is for the government to spend a lot less money. I know there are a lot of super wasteful things. Look at the $42 billion that was allocated for rural broadband. SpaceX won a quarter of it, but they rescinded it for political reasons. A bunch of those terminals would have been in the affected hurricane areas in North Carolina. So that could have cost lives. That kind of political lawfare is unconscionable. Do you know how many people have been connected by that $42 billion? Literally, ZERO. So, I would say that program should be zero because the value for money is zero." 🇺🇸🇺🇸 P.S. Kamala Harris led the $42 billion program as the designated "broadband czar."
1:13

ELON MUSK: "Step number one is for the government to spend a lot less money. I know there are a lot of super wasteful things. Look at the $42 billion that was allocated for rural broadband. SpaceX won a quarter of it, but they rescinded it for political reasons. A bunch of those terminals would have been in the affected hurricane areas in North Carolina. So that could have cost lives. That kind of political lawfare is unconscionable. Do you know how many people have been connected by that $42 billion? Literally, ZERO. So, I would say that program should be zero because the value for money is zero." 🇺🇸🇺🇸 P.S. Kamala Harris led the $42 billion program as the designated "broadband czar."

KanekoaTheGreat

7,729,104 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Elon Musk just took Anthropic's biggest customer hostage three days before their IPO. He paid $60 billion for it without spending a dollar of cash. But the company he bought is actively losing the race he claims to be winning: The company is Cursor, the AI coding tool used by most of Silicon Valley and a huge chunk of Fortune 500 engineering teams. Its best feature is called Composer, and Composer became the most-loved AI coding product on earth for one specific reason: It runs on Anthropic's Claude. The phrase "vibe coding" was literally coined by a researcher playing with Cursor's Composer running on Claude Sonnet in early 2025. Anthropic's enterprise revenue exploded in 2025 partly because every engineer using Cursor was effectively a paying Anthropic customer underneath. Cursor became one of the largest external pipelines of Claude usage anywhere on the internet. And last week, Anthropic confidentially filed paperwork to go public. Three days after SpaceX completed its own IPO on Friday, Elon Musk exercised an option he had quietly signed in April and bought Cursor for $60 billion. The deal was announced Tuesday morning in an 8-K filing. By the time most people read the headline, the pipeline feeding Anthropic's biggest enterprise channel was already legally owned by its biggest RIVAL, days before that rival walks onto the public markets and has to explain its growth story to Wall Street. Now look at how he paid for it: Not one dollar of cash changed hands. The entire $60 billion was paid in SpaceX stock. Stock that was minted out of thin air on Friday when the company went public at $135 a share. By Tuesday, that same stock was trading at $211. So Musk used four days of public-market hype to mint $60 billion of fresh equity and immediately spent it on an acquisition that had been pre-arranged before anyone in the IPO even saw the prospectus. SpaceX investors who bought shares in the last four days got diluted by 3.4% before they understood what they owned. The IPO was literally the printing press for the acquisition. Now look at what he ACTUALLY bought: Cursor's market share among enterprise customers has been collapsing. According to spending data from Ramp, it fell from 41% in June 2025 to 26% in May 2026, bleeding ground every month to GitHub Copilot and Amazon Q. The smart money knew. Andreessen Horowitz, Thrive, and Nvidia were about to lead a round at a $50 billion valuation, which they already considered aggressive. Elon paid 20% more than that for a company actively LOSING the race. He paid premium for declining momentum. And he did this because his own AI division was in trouble. xAI has been struggling quite a bit so SpaceX needed an AI story that could survive a public-market quarterly earnings call. The fastest way to get one was to buy a brand engineers already trusted before that brand's market share slipped any further. So follow the whole chain: SpaceX went public to mint the currency. Elon used that currency to buy a fading market leader at a premium. And the seller of choice happened to be Anthropic's biggest enterprise pipeline with the timing landing in the exact window between Anthropic filing its prospectus and pricing its IPO. This was literally a hit job on Anthropic's IPO. Anthropic's next move is the one to watch. If they cannot show Wall Street that Cursor's revenue can be replaced fast, the most hyped AI IPO of the year just walked onto the public markets with a huge problem.
0:46

Elon Musk just took Anthropic's biggest customer hostage three days before their IPO. He paid $60 billion for it without spending a dollar of cash. But the company he bought is actively losing the race he claims to be winning: The company is Cursor, the AI coding tool used by most of Silicon Valley and a huge chunk of Fortune 500 engineering teams. Its best feature is called Composer, and Composer became the most-loved AI coding product on earth for one specific reason: It runs on Anthropic's Claude. The phrase "vibe coding" was literally coined by a researcher playing with Cursor's Composer running on Claude Sonnet in early 2025. Anthropic's enterprise revenue exploded in 2025 partly because every engineer using Cursor was effectively a paying Anthropic customer underneath. Cursor became one of the largest external pipelines of Claude usage anywhere on the internet. And last week, Anthropic confidentially filed paperwork to go public. Three days after SpaceX completed its own IPO on Friday, Elon Musk exercised an option he had quietly signed in April and bought Cursor for $60 billion. The deal was announced Tuesday morning in an 8-K filing. By the time most people read the headline, the pipeline feeding Anthropic's biggest enterprise channel was already legally owned by its biggest RIVAL, days before that rival walks onto the public markets and has to explain its growth story to Wall Street. Now look at how he paid for it: Not one dollar of cash changed hands. The entire $60 billion was paid in SpaceX stock. Stock that was minted out of thin air on Friday when the company went public at $135 a share. By Tuesday, that same stock was trading at $211. So Musk used four days of public-market hype to mint $60 billion of fresh equity and immediately spent it on an acquisition that had been pre-arranged before anyone in the IPO even saw the prospectus. SpaceX investors who bought shares in the last four days got diluted by 3.4% before they understood what they owned. The IPO was literally the printing press for the acquisition. Now look at what he ACTUALLY bought: Cursor's market share among enterprise customers has been collapsing. According to spending data from Ramp, it fell from 41% in June 2025 to 26% in May 2026, bleeding ground every month to GitHub Copilot and Amazon Q. The smart money knew. Andreessen Horowitz, Thrive, and Nvidia were about to lead a round at a $50 billion valuation, which they already considered aggressive. Elon paid 20% more than that for a company actively LOSING the race. He paid premium for declining momentum. And he did this because his own AI division was in trouble. xAI has been struggling quite a bit so SpaceX needed an AI story that could survive a public-market quarterly earnings call. The fastest way to get one was to buy a brand engineers already trusted before that brand's market share slipped any further. So follow the whole chain: SpaceX went public to mint the currency. Elon used that currency to buy a fading market leader at a premium. And the seller of choice happened to be Anthropic's biggest enterprise pipeline with the timing landing in the exact window between Anthropic filing its prospectus and pricing its IPO. This was literally a hit job on Anthropic's IPO. Anthropic's next move is the one to watch. If they cannot show Wall Street that Cursor's revenue can be replaced fast, the most hyped AI IPO of the year just walked onto the public markets with a huge problem.

Ricardo

64,021 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Nvidia is pulling off the most sophisticated financial loop in tech history. They invested $40 BILLION in its own customers in just 5 months. Here's why this could blow up the entire AI economy: Nvidia generated $97 billion in free cash flow last year. Instead of sitting on it, Jensen started writing checks to every company in the AI supply chain. Not small checks. We're talking about billions at a time. And almost every single one of those companies turns around and spends that money on Nvidia chips. Follow the money: $30 billion into OpenAI. OpenAI is one of Nvidia's largest GPU customers and spends billions annually on Nvidia hardware through cloud providers. $2 billion into CoreWeave, a company that exists exclusively to rent out data centers full of Nvidia GPUs. $2 billion into Marvell for silicon photonics that connects Nvidia systems. $2 billion into Lumentum for optical tech that powers Nvidia data centers. $2 billion into Coherent for the same thing. $2 billion into Nebius, an AI cloud company deploying Nvidia infrastructure. $3.2 billion into Corning, the glassmaker building three new US factories specifically to make fiber optic cables for Nvidia's next-gen systems. $2.1 billion into IREN, a data center operator that just agreed to deploy 5 gigawatts of Nvidia-designed infrastructure. And the list goes on. Every single recipient either buys Nvidia chips directly, builds infrastructure that runs on Nvidia chips, or manufactures components that go inside Nvidia systems. Matthew Bryson, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said in a research note that Nvidia's dealmaking fits "squarely into the circular investment theme." Bloomberg even published an entire interactive feature this week titled "AI Circular Deals: How Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia Keep Paying Each Other." The piece maps how capital flows between the same handful of companies and gets counted as revenue multiple times along the way. But here's the part that makes this genuinely complicated: Nvidia's $5 billion investment in Intel from September is now worth over $25 billion. That's a 5x return in months. Their private company portfolio went from $3.4 billion to $22.3 billion on the balance sheet in a single year. They booked $8.9 billion in gains from equity investments alone. So when critics say "circular investing," Nvidia can point to Intel and say "we turned $5 billion into $25 billion, this is just smart capital deployment." And they're not wrong. Some of these bets ARE paying off like crazy. The real question is whether Nvidia is a chipmaker that happens to invest, or a venture fund that happens to sell chips. Because right now Jensen is doing both at a scale that has never existed in the semiconductor industry. No chipmaker in history has EVER invested $40 billion in its own ecosystem in five months. Last fiscal year Nvidia invested $17.5 billion in private companies. Their SEC filing literally says those investments include "AI model companies that purchase its products directly or through cloud service providers." They're saying it themselves: We invest in companies that buy our products. On Nvidia's last earnings call, Jensen told investors their investments are focused on "expanding and deepening our ecosystem reach." Translate that from CEO-speak and it means " we're funding the companies that fund us. The bull case says Nvidia is building an unbreakable moat by financing the entire AI supply chain and ensuring it all runs on Nvidia hardware. The bear case says this is the most elaborate circular revenue scheme since the subprime mortgage era and it all breaks apart the moment one domino falls. Both cases use the exact same evidence.
1:01

Nvidia is pulling off the most sophisticated financial loop in tech history. They invested $40 BILLION in its own customers in just 5 months. Here's why this could blow up the entire AI economy: Nvidia generated $97 billion in free cash flow last year. Instead of sitting on it, Jensen started writing checks to every company in the AI supply chain. Not small checks. We're talking about billions at a time. And almost every single one of those companies turns around and spends that money on Nvidia chips. Follow the money: $30 billion into OpenAI. OpenAI is one of Nvidia's largest GPU customers and spends billions annually on Nvidia hardware through cloud providers. $2 billion into CoreWeave, a company that exists exclusively to rent out data centers full of Nvidia GPUs. $2 billion into Marvell for silicon photonics that connects Nvidia systems. $2 billion into Lumentum for optical tech that powers Nvidia data centers. $2 billion into Coherent for the same thing. $2 billion into Nebius, an AI cloud company deploying Nvidia infrastructure. $3.2 billion into Corning, the glassmaker building three new US factories specifically to make fiber optic cables for Nvidia's next-gen systems. $2.1 billion into IREN, a data center operator that just agreed to deploy 5 gigawatts of Nvidia-designed infrastructure. And the list goes on. Every single recipient either buys Nvidia chips directly, builds infrastructure that runs on Nvidia chips, or manufactures components that go inside Nvidia systems. Matthew Bryson, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, said in a research note that Nvidia's dealmaking fits "squarely into the circular investment theme." Bloomberg even published an entire interactive feature this week titled "AI Circular Deals: How Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia Keep Paying Each Other." The piece maps how capital flows between the same handful of companies and gets counted as revenue multiple times along the way. But here's the part that makes this genuinely complicated: Nvidia's $5 billion investment in Intel from September is now worth over $25 billion. That's a 5x return in months. Their private company portfolio went from $3.4 billion to $22.3 billion on the balance sheet in a single year. They booked $8.9 billion in gains from equity investments alone. So when critics say "circular investing," Nvidia can point to Intel and say "we turned $5 billion into $25 billion, this is just smart capital deployment." And they're not wrong. Some of these bets ARE paying off like crazy. The real question is whether Nvidia is a chipmaker that happens to invest, or a venture fund that happens to sell chips. Because right now Jensen is doing both at a scale that has never existed in the semiconductor industry. No chipmaker in history has EVER invested $40 billion in its own ecosystem in five months. Last fiscal year Nvidia invested $17.5 billion in private companies. Their SEC filing literally says those investments include "AI model companies that purchase its products directly or through cloud service providers." They're saying it themselves: We invest in companies that buy our products. On Nvidia's last earnings call, Jensen told investors their investments are focused on "expanding and deepening our ecosystem reach." Translate that from CEO-speak and it means " we're funding the companies that fund us. The bull case says Nvidia is building an unbreakable moat by financing the entire AI supply chain and ensuring it all runs on Nvidia hardware. The bear case says this is the most elaborate circular revenue scheme since the subprime mortgage era and it all breaks apart the moment one domino falls. Both cases use the exact same evidence.

Ricardo

159,113 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨 do you understand what happened to the AI money loop.. Google just signed a deal to pay SpaceX $920 million a month for AI compute. Yes, Google - the company that owns one of the biggest GPU stockpiles on Earth - is now renting servers from a rocket company. - Anthropic pays SpaceX $1.25 billion a month for the same kind of compute - Google's old stake in SpaceX could be worth over $100 billion after the IPO - So Anthropic pays SpaceX, SpaceX answers to Google, Google funds Anthropic - The entire AI industry is quietly paying itself in a circle The money never leaves the room. It just changes whose name is on the check.
1:34

🚨 do you understand what happened to the AI money loop.. Google just signed a deal to pay SpaceX $920 million a month for AI compute. Yes, Google - the company that owns one of the biggest GPU stockpiles on Earth - is now renting servers from a rocket company. - Anthropic pays SpaceX $1.25 billion a month for the same kind of compute - Google's old stake in SpaceX could be worth over $100 billion after the IPO - So Anthropic pays SpaceX, SpaceX answers to Google, Google funds Anthropic - The entire AI industry is quietly paying itself in a circle The money never leaves the room. It just changes whose name is on the check.

BuBBliK

18,631 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

In 2018, Tesla $TSLA was worth just under $60 billion. They signed a 10-year CEO extension & compensation deal with Elon Musk , which offered him *zero base compensation*, but up to $55 billion in compensation if, and only if, he could more than *10x the company's value* to $650 billion, a feat no CEO has ever accomplished. By 2020, less than 3 years later, Tesla did indeed hit a $650 billion market cap, despite the skeptics who literally called it "laughably impossible" when the plan was publicized. Now, the Delaware courts are shooting down that compensation package, citing that the Board of Directors were not truly independent and that shareholders weren't aware of the Board's relationship with Musk. This is a joke, an insult to basic capitalist principles, and a mockery of the work that Elon put in to grow Tesla to this point. Below is a clip from 2018 highlighting how wildly ambitious these milestones were considered by the media at that time:
1:51

In 2018, Tesla $TSLA was worth just under $60 billion. They signed a 10-year CEO extension & compensation deal with Elon Musk , which offered him *zero base compensation*, but up to $55 billion in compensation if, and only if, he could more than *10x the company's value* to $650 billion, a feat no CEO has ever accomplished. By 2020, less than 3 years later, Tesla did indeed hit a $650 billion market cap, despite the skeptics who literally called it "laughably impossible" when the plan was publicized. Now, the Delaware courts are shooting down that compensation package, citing that the Board of Directors were not truly independent and that shareholders weren't aware of the Board's relationship with Musk. This is a joke, an insult to basic capitalist principles, and a mockery of the work that Elon put in to grow Tesla to this point. Below is a clip from 2018 highlighting how wildly ambitious these milestones were considered by the media at that time:

Stock Talk

39,791,142 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Nebius will be a trillion dollar company (Save this). The neocloud market, purpose-built AI cloud infrastructure, separate from legacy hyperscalers generated roughly $25 billion in revenue in 2025, up 223% year over year. Synergy Research projects it will approach $400 billion by 2031, compounding at 58% annually one of the fastest sustained growth rates ever recorded for an infrastructure category of this scale. The CEO's explanation for why they win is worth understanding in detail. GPU compute is scarce and that part everyone knows but Nebius is not simply renting GPUs by the hour and marking them up, which is what most neocloud imitators do. They have built their own physical capacity for inference, optimized the full technology stack from the software layer all the way down to the rack hardware and recently acquired a company called Agen specifically to push inference latency even lower and throughput even higher. The CEO frames the core problem directly that in 2026, every product you build is powered by tokens, AI intelligence and while you can get those tokens from OpenAI or Anthropic via a simple API call, the moment you want to run open source models, specialized vertical models, or anything other than the two dominant frontier labs, you run into a wall. You can download the weights from Hugging Face and assemble the pieces. But getting those workloads to run at scale, at the economics you need, with the reliability your product requires, is an extraordinarily complex engineering challenge that most companies cannot staff or afford to solve in-house. That is the problem Nebius is solving, and that is why their inference product called Token Factory exists. The financial results are among the most dramatic growth numbers reported by any public company this year. In Q1 2026, Nebius posted $399 million in revenue, a 684% increase from the same quarter a year earlier. In the span of twelve months, the company swung from a $104 million net loss to $621 million in net income. Cash from operations went from negative $184 million to positive $2.26 billion in the same period meaning this is not growth funded by burning investor capital, it is growth that is now generating its own fuel. For the full year 2026, Nebius is guiding for an annualized revenue run rate of $7 billion to $9 billion, with pipeline creation tracking to surpass $4 billion. The contracted backlog sits at $49 billion, anchored by a $27 billion agreement with Meta, a deal worth up to $19.4 billion with Microsoft, and a public endorsement from Jensen Huang at NVIDIA's GTC conference in 2026. The current market cap is approximately $56 billion. A company with $7 to $9 billion in annualized revenue, growing at 684%, turning cash-flow positive, sitting on $49 billion in contracted backlog, operating in a market compounding at 58% annually toward $400 billion, that company has a credible path to 20x from its current valuation if execution holds. That is the trillion dollar case, and it does not require any heroic assumptions and it requires Nebius to keep doing what it is already demonstrably doing. Milk Road Pro called this one early. Our analysts added Nebius to the portfolio when it was still flying under the radar, and we are sitting on a massive gain on that position right now. If you want to see what else we are building conviction on before the rest of the market catches up, come join us at Milk Road Pro using the link below!
1:04

Nebius will be a trillion dollar company (Save this). The neocloud market, purpose-built AI cloud infrastructure, separate from legacy hyperscalers generated roughly $25 billion in revenue in 2025, up 223% year over year. Synergy Research projects it will approach $400 billion by 2031, compounding at 58% annually one of the fastest sustained growth rates ever recorded for an infrastructure category of this scale. The CEO's explanation for why they win is worth understanding in detail. GPU compute is scarce and that part everyone knows but Nebius is not simply renting GPUs by the hour and marking them up, which is what most neocloud imitators do. They have built their own physical capacity for inference, optimized the full technology stack from the software layer all the way down to the rack hardware and recently acquired a company called Agen specifically to push inference latency even lower and throughput even higher. The CEO frames the core problem directly that in 2026, every product you build is powered by tokens, AI intelligence and while you can get those tokens from OpenAI or Anthropic via a simple API call, the moment you want to run open source models, specialized vertical models, or anything other than the two dominant frontier labs, you run into a wall. You can download the weights from Hugging Face and assemble the pieces. But getting those workloads to run at scale, at the economics you need, with the reliability your product requires, is an extraordinarily complex engineering challenge that most companies cannot staff or afford to solve in-house. That is the problem Nebius is solving, and that is why their inference product called Token Factory exists. The financial results are among the most dramatic growth numbers reported by any public company this year. In Q1 2026, Nebius posted $399 million in revenue, a 684% increase from the same quarter a year earlier. In the span of twelve months, the company swung from a $104 million net loss to $621 million in net income. Cash from operations went from negative $184 million to positive $2.26 billion in the same period meaning this is not growth funded by burning investor capital, it is growth that is now generating its own fuel. For the full year 2026, Nebius is guiding for an annualized revenue run rate of $7 billion to $9 billion, with pipeline creation tracking to surpass $4 billion. The contracted backlog sits at $49 billion, anchored by a $27 billion agreement with Meta, a deal worth up to $19.4 billion with Microsoft, and a public endorsement from Jensen Huang at NVIDIA's GTC conference in 2026. The current market cap is approximately $56 billion. A company with $7 to $9 billion in annualized revenue, growing at 684%, turning cash-flow positive, sitting on $49 billion in contracted backlog, operating in a market compounding at 58% annually toward $400 billion, that company has a credible path to 20x from its current valuation if execution holds. That is the trillion dollar case, and it does not require any heroic assumptions and it requires Nebius to keep doing what it is already demonstrably doing. Milk Road Pro called this one early. Our analysts added Nebius to the portfolio when it was still flying under the radar, and we are sitting on a massive gain on that position right now. If you want to see what else we are building conviction on before the rest of the market catches up, come join us at Milk Road Pro using the link below!

Milk Road AI

28,622 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Big Tech is spending $700 BILLION on AI this year. But their cash flow is collapsing. Amazon is going into debt. Google's free cash flow is dropping 90%. And they're literally paying influencers $600,000 each to convince you AI is worth using. If this technology was as revolutionary as they claim, why are they spending half a million dollars per creator to sell it? Here's what's actually happening behind the scenes: This week, all four tech giants reported earnings at once and every single one dropped a spending number that made Wall Street lose its mind. Amazon: $200 billion in capex. The largest corporate capital expenditure in HISTORY. Stock dropped 9%. Google: $185 billion. Wall Street expected $120 billion. Stock dropped 5%. Meta: $135 billion. Double what they spent last year. Microsoft: down 17% this year, worst performer in the group. Combined 2026 AI infrastructure spend: almost $700 billion. But here's where it gets ugly. Amazon's free cash flow collapsed 71%. Morgan Stanley projects they'll burn through $17 billion in NEGATIVE free cash flow this year. Bank of America says the deficit could hit $28 billion. Amazon quietly filed with the SEC on Friday saying they might need to raise debt to keep building. Google's free cash flow is projected to crater 90%, from $73 billion down to $8.2 billion. They already did a $25 billion bond sale in November and their long-term debt QUADRUPLED last year. These companies are spending everything they have, then borrowing more, then spending that too. Now here's the part that got me thinking: CNBC just reported that Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta are paying influencers between $400,000 and $600,000 EACH to promote AI products on Instagram and YouTube. AI platforms spent over $1 BILLION on digital ads in 2025, a 126% jump year-over-year. Google and Microsoft's AI ad spending jumped 495% in January 2026 alone. Anthropic is running Super Bowl ads. OpenAI is flying creators to private events and covering all expenses. When was the last time a truly revolutionary technology needed a $1 billion ad campaign and $600K influencer deals to get adoption? Did the iPhone need influencer campaigns? Did Google Search need Super Bowl ads in 1998? Did email need a billion dollar marketing push? No. People just used them because the value was obvious. You know what DOES need massive paid promotions? Pharmaceutical drugs. Crypto exchanges. Online gambling apps. MLM companies. Products where adoption is driven by hype, not utility. And now, apparently, AI. So the pitch from Big Tech is: "This technology will eliminate your job. Also please use it. Here's $600K if you tell your followers it's cool." They need HUMANS to sell a product they designed to REPLACE humans. They need creators to promote a technology that will eventually make creators obsolete. They need influencers to build trust in a system that will eliminate the need for influencer marketing entirely. The question everyone should be asking: If $700 billion per year in spending can't produce a product that sells itself, when exactly does this start making money? Because right now the math is messed up. $700 billion in spending, cash flow crashing, stocks tanking, SEC filings about raising more capital, and the best growth strategy they've got is paying tiktokers to demo features. Either AI is about to deliver the greatest economic transformation in human history, or we're watching the most expensive corporate Hail Mary ever thrown. And the fact that they need to pay half a million dollars per influencer to convince you it's the first one isn't a good sign.
0:49

Big Tech is spending $700 BILLION on AI this year. But their cash flow is collapsing. Amazon is going into debt. Google's free cash flow is dropping 90%. And they're literally paying influencers $600,000 each to convince you AI is worth using. If this technology was as revolutionary as they claim, why are they spending half a million dollars per creator to sell it? Here's what's actually happening behind the scenes: This week, all four tech giants reported earnings at once and every single one dropped a spending number that made Wall Street lose its mind. Amazon: $200 billion in capex. The largest corporate capital expenditure in HISTORY. Stock dropped 9%. Google: $185 billion. Wall Street expected $120 billion. Stock dropped 5%. Meta: $135 billion. Double what they spent last year. Microsoft: down 17% this year, worst performer in the group. Combined 2026 AI infrastructure spend: almost $700 billion. But here's where it gets ugly. Amazon's free cash flow collapsed 71%. Morgan Stanley projects they'll burn through $17 billion in NEGATIVE free cash flow this year. Bank of America says the deficit could hit $28 billion. Amazon quietly filed with the SEC on Friday saying they might need to raise debt to keep building. Google's free cash flow is projected to crater 90%, from $73 billion down to $8.2 billion. They already did a $25 billion bond sale in November and their long-term debt QUADRUPLED last year. These companies are spending everything they have, then borrowing more, then spending that too. Now here's the part that got me thinking: CNBC just reported that Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta are paying influencers between $400,000 and $600,000 EACH to promote AI products on Instagram and YouTube. AI platforms spent over $1 BILLION on digital ads in 2025, a 126% jump year-over-year. Google and Microsoft's AI ad spending jumped 495% in January 2026 alone. Anthropic is running Super Bowl ads. OpenAI is flying creators to private events and covering all expenses. When was the last time a truly revolutionary technology needed a $1 billion ad campaign and $600K influencer deals to get adoption? Did the iPhone need influencer campaigns? Did Google Search need Super Bowl ads in 1998? Did email need a billion dollar marketing push? No. People just used them because the value was obvious. You know what DOES need massive paid promotions? Pharmaceutical drugs. Crypto exchanges. Online gambling apps. MLM companies. Products where adoption is driven by hype, not utility. And now, apparently, AI. So the pitch from Big Tech is: "This technology will eliminate your job. Also please use it. Here's $600K if you tell your followers it's cool." They need HUMANS to sell a product they designed to REPLACE humans. They need creators to promote a technology that will eventually make creators obsolete. They need influencers to build trust in a system that will eliminate the need for influencer marketing entirely. The question everyone should be asking: If $700 billion per year in spending can't produce a product that sells itself, when exactly does this start making money? Because right now the math is messed up. $700 billion in spending, cash flow crashing, stocks tanking, SEC filings about raising more capital, and the best growth strategy they've got is paying tiktokers to demo features. Either AI is about to deliver the greatest economic transformation in human history, or we're watching the most expensive corporate Hail Mary ever thrown. And the fact that they need to pay half a million dollars per influencer to convince you it's the first one isn't a good sign.

Ricardo

725,403 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

NEW LONG FORM VIDEO: The rise and fall of Groupon: Their $6 billion mistake In December 2010, Google offered $6 billion to buy a two year old coupon website run by a 30 year old college dropout. At the time, it would have been the most expensive acquisition in Google’s history by a wide margin. That founder, Andrew Mason, turned the offer down. He said he wanted to control the company’s destiny. Early on, it looked like he made the right call. The company went public at a $13 billion valuation and became one of the hottest tech stocks on the market. But the success didn’t last. Over the following years, the stock fell more than 80%. The company went into a tailspin and eventually had to do a one for 20 reverse stock split just to keep its share price above $1 and remain listed on the Nasdaq. So what went wrong? This is the rise and fall of Groupon.
15:19

NEW LONG FORM VIDEO: The rise and fall of Groupon: Their $6 billion mistake In December 2010, Google offered $6 billion to buy a two year old coupon website run by a 30 year old college dropout. At the time, it would have been the most expensive acquisition in Google’s history by a wide margin. That founder, Andrew Mason, turned the offer down. He said he wanted to control the company’s destiny. Early on, it looked like he made the right call. The company went public at a $13 billion valuation and became one of the hottest tech stocks on the market. But the success didn’t last. Over the following years, the stock fell more than 80%. The company went into a tailspin and eventually had to do a one for 20 reverse stock split just to keep its share price above $1 and remain listed on the Nasdaq. So what went wrong? This is the rise and fall of Groupon.

Michael Girdley

234,645 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

The most overlooked part of the SpaceX IPO thesis is the model and most people are completely missing it (Save this) Everyone has been focused on the Anthropic compute deal and the Colossus revenue because those are numbers you can put in a spreadsheet. Six months ago, xAI was competing reasonably well on model performance but was not clearly on the frontier. Then SpaceX exercised its option to acquire Cursor for $60 billion, the largest startup acquisition in history just days after completing the largest IPO in history at $75 billion. Cursor is a team of 700 to 800 people, was on track to exit 2026 at up to $10 billion in revenue, had millions of professional developers using it daily, and had already built a team with the genuine potential to compete at the frontier, the one thing holding them back was compute. SpaceX just gave them the largest GPU cluster in the world to work with. Grok 4.3, a 1.5 trillion parameter model, is currently training with Cursor's proprietary coding data being injected directly into pre-training, not just fine tuning which is a fundamentally more powerful integration than anything the market is currently modeling. The prior version, Grok 4, was already on the Pareto frontier as of 10 to 12 days ago, the most intelligent 500 billion parameter model in the world, sitting alongside Google Gemini, Anthropic, and OpenAI as one of only four systems at the true frontier. Composer 2.5, the previous Cursor model was Pareto dominant in coding tasks just before the acquisition closed, meaning SpaceX inherited a model that was already best-in-class in the highest-value AI use case in the market. The AWS parallel is the one everyone keeps missing. Bezos built data center capacity for Black Friday, sat on idle infrastructure the rest of the year, and monetized it into what was at the time the most profitable technology business in history and investors hated it in 2009 and 2010 because he was burning free cash flow on capacity that had no obvious revenue yet. SpaceX is in exactly that position, it built Colossus for xAI's own training needs, is monetizing excess capacity to Anthropic at $1.25 billion per month across 220,000 Nvidia GPUs, and has reportedly secured up to 20% of Nvidia's early Vera Rubin allocation, giving it the most powerful and scarcest GPU infrastructure in the world during the critical window when those chips are hardest to get. The $60 billion Cursor acquisition closed at a moment when SpaceX had essentially unlimited compute, a team already at the frontier, and a product with deep enterprise distribution, three things no other model lab had simultaneously when it was at this stage. The market is pricing the compute business conservatively and ignoring the model call option entirely, and coding is the fastest path to AGI, once you are on the Pareto frontier with that compute, revenue scales fast. Anthropic went from negligible revenue to $30 billion annualized in under 18 months and that is the existence proof. Bullish on SpaceXAI and Elon Musk
6:02

The most overlooked part of the SpaceX IPO thesis is the model and most people are completely missing it (Save this) Everyone has been focused on the Anthropic compute deal and the Colossus revenue because those are numbers you can put in a spreadsheet. Six months ago, xAI was competing reasonably well on model performance but was not clearly on the frontier. Then SpaceX exercised its option to acquire Cursor for $60 billion, the largest startup acquisition in history just days after completing the largest IPO in history at $75 billion. Cursor is a team of 700 to 800 people, was on track to exit 2026 at up to $10 billion in revenue, had millions of professional developers using it daily, and had already built a team with the genuine potential to compete at the frontier, the one thing holding them back was compute. SpaceX just gave them the largest GPU cluster in the world to work with. Grok 4.3, a 1.5 trillion parameter model, is currently training with Cursor's proprietary coding data being injected directly into pre-training, not just fine tuning which is a fundamentally more powerful integration than anything the market is currently modeling. The prior version, Grok 4, was already on the Pareto frontier as of 10 to 12 days ago, the most intelligent 500 billion parameter model in the world, sitting alongside Google Gemini, Anthropic, and OpenAI as one of only four systems at the true frontier. Composer 2.5, the previous Cursor model was Pareto dominant in coding tasks just before the acquisition closed, meaning SpaceX inherited a model that was already best-in-class in the highest-value AI use case in the market. The AWS parallel is the one everyone keeps missing. Bezos built data center capacity for Black Friday, sat on idle infrastructure the rest of the year, and monetized it into what was at the time the most profitable technology business in history and investors hated it in 2009 and 2010 because he was burning free cash flow on capacity that had no obvious revenue yet. SpaceX is in exactly that position, it built Colossus for xAI's own training needs, is monetizing excess capacity to Anthropic at $1.25 billion per month across 220,000 Nvidia GPUs, and has reportedly secured up to 20% of Nvidia's early Vera Rubin allocation, giving it the most powerful and scarcest GPU infrastructure in the world during the critical window when those chips are hardest to get. The $60 billion Cursor acquisition closed at a moment when SpaceX had essentially unlimited compute, a team already at the frontier, and a product with deep enterprise distribution, three things no other model lab had simultaneously when it was at this stage. The market is pricing the compute business conservatively and ignoring the model call option entirely, and coding is the fastest path to AGI, once you are on the Pareto frontier with that compute, revenue scales fast. Anthropic went from negligible revenue to $30 billion annualized in under 18 months and that is the existence proof. Bullish on SpaceXAI and Elon Musk

Milk Road AI

69,446 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Elon Musk reveals the brutal math behind why a single hour of his time is worth $100 million "Tesla this year will do over $100 billion in revenue, so that's $2 billion a week. If I make slightly better decisions I can affect the outcome by a billion dollars. The marginal value of a better decision can easily be in the course of an hour $100 million" "You have to look at it on a percentage basis. If you look at it in absolute terms, I would never get any sleep. I'd just keep working and work my brain hotter, trying to get as much as possible out of this meat computer"
4:10

Elon Musk reveals the brutal math behind why a single hour of his time is worth $100 million "Tesla this year will do over $100 billion in revenue, so that's $2 billion a week. If I make slightly better decisions I can affect the outcome by a billion dollars. The marginal value of a better decision can easily be in the course of an hour $100 million" "You have to look at it on a percentage basis. If you look at it in absolute terms, I would never get any sleep. I'd just keep working and work my brain hotter, trying to get as much as possible out of this meat computer"

Jaynit

3,323,615 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

This is the biggest irony in tech history. Microsoft beat revenue estimates. Stock plunged 11%, wiped out $400 BILLION in market cap. Salesforce reported growth. Stock fell 5.6%. ServiceNow beat earnings. Stock crashed 11%. SAP beat projections. Stock dropped 16%. Entire software sector entered bear market territory. Down 22% from peak. These are the companies everyone said would WIN from AI. They spent billions BUYING AI companies. ServiceNow: $7.75 billion for Armis. Salesforce: $8 billion for Informatica. They launched AI products. Built AI workflows. Hired AI teams. And the market said: You're all dead. Because investors just realized something nobody wanted to admit: AI doesn't make software companies stronger. AI makes software companies OBSOLETE. Morgan Stanley: "In an environment of heightened investor skepticism, stable growth falls short of shifting the narrative." Good earnings aren't enough anymore. The market is pricing in a world where AI replaces the software these companies sell. ServiceNow CEO tried defending on the earnings call: "AI needs workflow orchestration. ServiceNow is the gateway to this shift." Market response: 11% crash. Because here's what he didn't say: If AI can write code, automate workflows, and generate apps at a fraction of the cost, why would anyone pay $50,000 per year for enterprise software licenses? The per-seat pricing model that made SaaS companies rich is getting murdered by AI efficiency. One AI agent replaces 10 seats. One prompt replaces months of custom development. One LLM call replaces entire software categories. Klarna already proved it. CEO said they pulled Salesforce out of their stack. Built everything themselves using AI. And that's just the beginning. The software apocalypse hit hardest on companies that INVESTED IN AI: Atlassian: down 12.6% Intuit: down 7.8% HubSpot: down 11.5% Zscaler: down 6.3% Meanwhile, the companies ENABLING AI made money: Nvidia: up Semiconductor stocks: surging Memory firms: rallying The divide is brutal. Hardware companies print cash. Software companies get destroyed. Because in an AI-first world, you need GPUs to build the models. But you don't need software subscriptions when the AI builds the software for you. Jim Cramer called it the "P/E multiple compression crisis." Translation: Investors don't care about earnings anymore. They care about whether your business model survives the next 5 years. And right now software business models look doomed. They're literally stuck: If they DON'T invest in AI, they fall behind. If they DO invest in AI, they cannibalize their own products. It's a death spiral with no exit. ServiceNow spent $12 BILLION on acquisitions in 2025 alone. Trying to buy their way into relevance. And yesterday the market cooked them. The craziest thing to me tho... Most software companies beat earnings. Revenue was solid. Growth was fine. But it didn't matter. Because the market stopped pricing software on what it earns TODAY. It's pricing software on what it's worth in a world where AI does the job for free. And in that world these companies are worth nothing. This is the biggest sector repricing since 2008. $500 billion in market value gone in ONE DAY. And it's not stopping. Because every company watching this is thinking the same thing: "If I can replace ServiceNow with 3 AI agents and save $10 million per year, why wouldn't I?" The answer used to be: "Because you need enterprise-grade reliability." But now? AI agents are getting reliable. Fast. Software companies just realized they're competing with open-source models that cost $0.02 per 1,000 tokens. You can't win a pricing war against free. The companies that spent BILLIONS preparing for AI are getting killed BY AI. What an irony.
1:54

This is the biggest irony in tech history. Microsoft beat revenue estimates. Stock plunged 11%, wiped out $400 BILLION in market cap. Salesforce reported growth. Stock fell 5.6%. ServiceNow beat earnings. Stock crashed 11%. SAP beat projections. Stock dropped 16%. Entire software sector entered bear market territory. Down 22% from peak. These are the companies everyone said would WIN from AI. They spent billions BUYING AI companies. ServiceNow: $7.75 billion for Armis. Salesforce: $8 billion for Informatica. They launched AI products. Built AI workflows. Hired AI teams. And the market said: You're all dead. Because investors just realized something nobody wanted to admit: AI doesn't make software companies stronger. AI makes software companies OBSOLETE. Morgan Stanley: "In an environment of heightened investor skepticism, stable growth falls short of shifting the narrative." Good earnings aren't enough anymore. The market is pricing in a world where AI replaces the software these companies sell. ServiceNow CEO tried defending on the earnings call: "AI needs workflow orchestration. ServiceNow is the gateway to this shift." Market response: 11% crash. Because here's what he didn't say: If AI can write code, automate workflows, and generate apps at a fraction of the cost, why would anyone pay $50,000 per year for enterprise software licenses? The per-seat pricing model that made SaaS companies rich is getting murdered by AI efficiency. One AI agent replaces 10 seats. One prompt replaces months of custom development. One LLM call replaces entire software categories. Klarna already proved it. CEO said they pulled Salesforce out of their stack. Built everything themselves using AI. And that's just the beginning. The software apocalypse hit hardest on companies that INVESTED IN AI: Atlassian: down 12.6% Intuit: down 7.8% HubSpot: down 11.5% Zscaler: down 6.3% Meanwhile, the companies ENABLING AI made money: Nvidia: up Semiconductor stocks: surging Memory firms: rallying The divide is brutal. Hardware companies print cash. Software companies get destroyed. Because in an AI-first world, you need GPUs to build the models. But you don't need software subscriptions when the AI builds the software for you. Jim Cramer called it the "P/E multiple compression crisis." Translation: Investors don't care about earnings anymore. They care about whether your business model survives the next 5 years. And right now software business models look doomed. They're literally stuck: If they DON'T invest in AI, they fall behind. If they DO invest in AI, they cannibalize their own products. It's a death spiral with no exit. ServiceNow spent $12 BILLION on acquisitions in 2025 alone. Trying to buy their way into relevance. And yesterday the market cooked them. The craziest thing to me tho... Most software companies beat earnings. Revenue was solid. Growth was fine. But it didn't matter. Because the market stopped pricing software on what it earns TODAY. It's pricing software on what it's worth in a world where AI does the job for free. And in that world these companies are worth nothing. This is the biggest sector repricing since 2008. $500 billion in market value gone in ONE DAY. And it's not stopping. Because every company watching this is thinking the same thing: "If I can replace ServiceNow with 3 AI agents and save $10 million per year, why wouldn't I?" The answer used to be: "Because you need enterprise-grade reliability." But now? AI agents are getting reliable. Fast. Software companies just realized they're competing with open-source models that cost $0.02 per 1,000 tokens. You can't win a pricing war against free. The companies that spent BILLIONS preparing for AI are getting killed BY AI. What an irony.

Ricardo

1,814,278 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

AMD CEO Lisa Su just doubled her own CPU forecast in 6 months and the reason is one word, agents (Save this). In November, she told investors the CPU market would grow 18-20% per year through 2030. she just revised that number : "That rate is doubling. The CPU market may be over $120 billion by 2030, growing at over 35%." And here's what changed, six months ago AMD modeled 1 CPU for every 4 to 8 GPUs in an AI data center and now the new ratio is closer to 1 to 1. Because agents aren't passive and they don't wait for a question. They work constantly on behalf of every employee, every customer, every process running inside an enterprise. Each of us could have 2, 3, even 5 or 10 agents running at the same time and that's not just more GPU compute but rather a completely different CPU demand curve that nobody had modeled at this scale. And the earnings backed it up. AMD posted $10.3 billion in revenue for Q1, up 38% year over year. Data center revenue hit $5.8 billion, up 57%, free cash flow tripled to a record $2.6 billion and Q2 guidance came in at $11.2 billion, 46% growth year-over-year. The Milk Road Pro portfolio was built around exactly this thesis, that agentic AI would create a massive, underappreciated CPU demand cycle that the market was sleeping on. That position is now up nearly 100%, if you want the full thesis, check out Milk Road Pro, link in bio.
3:19

AMD CEO Lisa Su just doubled her own CPU forecast in 6 months and the reason is one word, agents (Save this). In November, she told investors the CPU market would grow 18-20% per year through 2030. she just revised that number : "That rate is doubling. The CPU market may be over $120 billion by 2030, growing at over 35%." And here's what changed, six months ago AMD modeled 1 CPU for every 4 to 8 GPUs in an AI data center and now the new ratio is closer to 1 to 1. Because agents aren't passive and they don't wait for a question. They work constantly on behalf of every employee, every customer, every process running inside an enterprise. Each of us could have 2, 3, even 5 or 10 agents running at the same time and that's not just more GPU compute but rather a completely different CPU demand curve that nobody had modeled at this scale. And the earnings backed it up. AMD posted $10.3 billion in revenue for Q1, up 38% year over year. Data center revenue hit $5.8 billion, up 57%, free cash flow tripled to a record $2.6 billion and Q2 guidance came in at $11.2 billion, 46% growth year-over-year. The Milk Road Pro portfolio was built around exactly this thesis, that agentic AI would create a massive, underappreciated CPU demand cycle that the market was sleeping on. That position is now up nearly 100%, if you want the full thesis, check out Milk Road Pro, link in bio.

Milk Road AI

13,241 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Meta literally spent $72 BILLION building AI infrastructure that generates ZERO revenue. Then a Chinese company launches an AI agent in March, hits $125 million in revenue by December, and Zuck writes a $2 billion check in 10 days. But this isn't a strategic acquisition... It's panic. Here's what happened: Meta has been burning cash on AI for years. Building data centers. Hiring researchers. Training models. Claiming they're building "superintelligence." The problem: None of it makes money. Meta AI is free. Their models are open source. Their chatbots generate zero revenue. Meanwhile, investors are getting twitchy about the $72 billion infrastructure spending spree with no clear path to profitability. Enter Manus. A startup that launched 8 months ago. Founded in Beijing. Chinese founders. Moved to Singapore in June. March 2025: Manus launches with a viral demo video showing an AI agent that screens job candidates, plans vacations, analyzes stock portfolios. April 2025: Benchmark leads a $75M funding round at $500M valuation. US Senator John Cornyn immediately drags them for investing in a Chinese AI company, asking "who thought it was a good idea for American investors to subsidize our biggest adversary in AI?" December 2025: Manus announces $100M in annual recurring revenue. The fastest startup in HISTORY to hit that milestone. Revenue run rate: $125M. That's when Meta started negotiating. The deal closed in 10 days for ~$2 billion. Meta paid 4x the valuation from 8 months ago for a company that's ACTUALLY making money from AI. Here's why this matters: Manus hit $125M revenue in 8 months. Meta spent $72B on AI and has generated exactly $0 in AI-specific revenue. Zuck couldn't build profitability, so he bought it. But there's a problem. Manus has Chinese founders. Started in Beijing. Backed by Tencent and HongShan Capital (formerly Sequoia China). In the current geopolitical climate, that's radioactive. So Meta immediately issued a statement: "There will be no continuing Chinese ownership interests in Manus following the transaction, and Manus will discontinue its services and operations in China." Translation: We're buying your revenue and your team, cutting all Chinese ties, and pretending this was always an American company. This is geopolitical cleanup. The numbers tell the real story: Manus processed 147 trillion tokens in 8 months. Created 80 million virtual computers. Hit $100M ARR faster than any startup in history. Meta spent years and $72 billion trying to build this and failed. So they panic-bought the Chinese company that figured it out in 8 months. Meanwhile, this is Meta's third major AI acquisition THIS YEAR: June: Bought 49% of Scale AI for $14 billion to get CEO Alexandr Wang. Earlier this month: Acquired AI-wearables startup Limitless. Now: Manus for $2B. Meta's AI strategy is literally pay-to-win. Because after burning $72 billion, they still can't answer the one question investors keep asking: "When does AI make money?" Manus answered that question in 8 months. Meta couldn't answer it in 3 years. The craziest part: Manus charges $39-$199/month for subscriptions. That's it. No fancy enterprise deals. No complex pricing. Just a simple SaaS model that actually works. And it took a Chinese startup to figure out what Silicon Valley couldn't: people will pay for AI that actually does work instead of just answering questions. So Zuck wrote a $2 billion check, promised to cut all Chinese ownership, and is now claiming credit for "accelerating AI innovation." But everyone watching knows the truth... Meta spent $72B building infrastructure for a business they couldn't figure out how to monetize. Then they bought the company that cracked the code in 8 months. The AI race isn't about who builds the best models. It's about who builds a business that actually makes money. And right now, Meta just admitted they can't do it alone.
1:26

Meta literally spent $72 BILLION building AI infrastructure that generates ZERO revenue. Then a Chinese company launches an AI agent in March, hits $125 million in revenue by December, and Zuck writes a $2 billion check in 10 days. But this isn't a strategic acquisition... It's panic. Here's what happened: Meta has been burning cash on AI for years. Building data centers. Hiring researchers. Training models. Claiming they're building "superintelligence." The problem: None of it makes money. Meta AI is free. Their models are open source. Their chatbots generate zero revenue. Meanwhile, investors are getting twitchy about the $72 billion infrastructure spending spree with no clear path to profitability. Enter Manus. A startup that launched 8 months ago. Founded in Beijing. Chinese founders. Moved to Singapore in June. March 2025: Manus launches with a viral demo video showing an AI agent that screens job candidates, plans vacations, analyzes stock portfolios. April 2025: Benchmark leads a $75M funding round at $500M valuation. US Senator John Cornyn immediately drags them for investing in a Chinese AI company, asking "who thought it was a good idea for American investors to subsidize our biggest adversary in AI?" December 2025: Manus announces $100M in annual recurring revenue. The fastest startup in HISTORY to hit that milestone. Revenue run rate: $125M. That's when Meta started negotiating. The deal closed in 10 days for ~$2 billion. Meta paid 4x the valuation from 8 months ago for a company that's ACTUALLY making money from AI. Here's why this matters: Manus hit $125M revenue in 8 months. Meta spent $72B on AI and has generated exactly $0 in AI-specific revenue. Zuck couldn't build profitability, so he bought it. But there's a problem. Manus has Chinese founders. Started in Beijing. Backed by Tencent and HongShan Capital (formerly Sequoia China). In the current geopolitical climate, that's radioactive. So Meta immediately issued a statement: "There will be no continuing Chinese ownership interests in Manus following the transaction, and Manus will discontinue its services and operations in China." Translation: We're buying your revenue and your team, cutting all Chinese ties, and pretending this was always an American company. This is geopolitical cleanup. The numbers tell the real story: Manus processed 147 trillion tokens in 8 months. Created 80 million virtual computers. Hit $100M ARR faster than any startup in history. Meta spent years and $72 billion trying to build this and failed. So they panic-bought the Chinese company that figured it out in 8 months. Meanwhile, this is Meta's third major AI acquisition THIS YEAR: June: Bought 49% of Scale AI for $14 billion to get CEO Alexandr Wang. Earlier this month: Acquired AI-wearables startup Limitless. Now: Manus for $2B. Meta's AI strategy is literally pay-to-win. Because after burning $72 billion, they still can't answer the one question investors keep asking: "When does AI make money?" Manus answered that question in 8 months. Meta couldn't answer it in 3 years. The craziest part: Manus charges $39-$199/month for subscriptions. That's it. No fancy enterprise deals. No complex pricing. Just a simple SaaS model that actually works. And it took a Chinese startup to figure out what Silicon Valley couldn't: people will pay for AI that actually does work instead of just answering questions. So Zuck wrote a $2 billion check, promised to cut all Chinese ownership, and is now claiming credit for "accelerating AI innovation." But everyone watching knows the truth... Meta spent $72B building infrastructure for a business they couldn't figure out how to monetize. Then they bought the company that cracked the code in 8 months. The AI race isn't about who builds the best models. It's about who builds a business that actually makes money. And right now, Meta just admitted they can't do it alone.

Ricardo

98,070 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

BREAKING: Michael Burry just compared Nvidia to the company that lost 90% of its value in the dot-com crash and took 25 years to recover. "I stand by my analysis. I am not claiming Nvidia is Enron. It is clearly Cisco." Here's the most recent warning from the investor who called the 2008 crash: Michael Burry built his reputation on one trade. He saw the housing market collapse before anyone else and bet against it. "The Big Short" made him famous. Now he's looking at Nvidia. And he says it looks like Cisco in March 2000. That comparison is not a casual insult. Cisco was the most valuable company in the world at the peak of the dot-com bubble. Its valuation crossed $500 billion. Then the bubble burst. The stock fell roughly 90% from its 2000 peak. Its market cap collapsed to about $60 billion by 2002. And it took roughly 25 years for the stock to climb back to where it started. An entire generation of investors waited a quarter century just to break even. That is the company Burry is comparing Nvidia to. Now here is the number that triggered the warning. In Nvidia's fiscal 2026 results, the company disclosed its purchase obligations. These are the commitments Nvidia makes to its suppliers to lock in future manufacturing capacity. A year ago, that figure sat at $16.1 billion. This year it jumped to $95.2 billion. Total supply obligations now sit at roughly $117 billion. Nvidia is committing $117 billion to build capacity for demand that has not arrived yet. Burry's argument is simple. A company does not lock in $117 billion in supplier commitments unless it is betting the demand keeps climbing. If that demand slows even slightly, Nvidia is holding billions in obligations it cannot unwind. And that is exactly what happened to Cisco. Cisco overcommitted to supplier capacity expecting roughly 50% annual growth. Then tech spending slowed. The inventory piled up. The stock cratered. Burry is not calling Nvidia a fraud. He is not saying it is the next Enron. He is saying it could be the market's Cisco. The single stock that becomes the symbol of an AI spending unwind that drags everything down with it. And the dot-com comparison carries weight because of what happened to the broader market. When that bubble burst, the Nasdaq 100 fell 77%. The S&P 500 dropped 49%. It was not just one stock. It was the whole market. Now here is the other side of the argument. Nvidia's supporters say the Cisco comparison is too simple. Because Cisco was riding hype. Nvidia is riding actual revenue. Nvidia reported fiscal 2026 revenue of $215.9 billion, up 65% year over year. Data center revenue alone hit roughly $193.7 billion, up 68%. Record quarterly data center revenue of $62.3 billion in the fourth quarter, up 75%. These are not promises. These are realized sales, booked and collected. The bulls argue that pricing power and margins this strong do not exist inside a pure bubble. In their view, Burry is warning about a future slowdown that has not shown up in a single quarterly report. So the debate splits into two clean halves. The bears say the $117 billion in commitments makes Nvidia dangerously sensitive to any demand slowdown. The bulls say the revenue is real, the growth is accelerating, and the buildout is justified by the orders already on the books. Both sides are looking at the same company. Both sides are looking at the same numbers. They just disagree on what those numbers mean. And there is a second force pulling at this market that has nothing to do with Nvidia's earnings. A wave of mega-IPOs is reportedly coming. SpaceX. OpenAI. Anthropic. Some estimates suggest the market may need to absorb close to $200 billion in fresh equity supply. That creates a quieter question underneath the Burry debate. Even if AI demand stays strong, capital is finite. When the next wave of private giants goes public, money has to come from somewhere. And the easiest place to pull it from is the stock that already tripled. The real test is not whether Burry is right or wrong today. It is whether demand growth, margins, and contract utilization keep matching the $117 billion that Nvidia and its entire ecosystem are committing right now. If the demand keeps climbing, the commitments look like foresight. If it stalls, they look like Cisco. The man who saw the last crash before anyone else just put a name on the risk. A company that was once worth over $500 billion, then lost 90%, then made its investors wait 25 years to get back to even. The numbers say Nvidia is booking record revenue. The same numbers say Nvidia is committing $117 billion to a future nobody can see. One of those facts ages well. The other one is the entire question.
7:21

BREAKING: Michael Burry just compared Nvidia to the company that lost 90% of its value in the dot-com crash and took 25 years to recover. "I stand by my analysis. I am not claiming Nvidia is Enron. It is clearly Cisco." Here's the most recent warning from the investor who called the 2008 crash: Michael Burry built his reputation on one trade. He saw the housing market collapse before anyone else and bet against it. "The Big Short" made him famous. Now he's looking at Nvidia. And he says it looks like Cisco in March 2000. That comparison is not a casual insult. Cisco was the most valuable company in the world at the peak of the dot-com bubble. Its valuation crossed $500 billion. Then the bubble burst. The stock fell roughly 90% from its 2000 peak. Its market cap collapsed to about $60 billion by 2002. And it took roughly 25 years for the stock to climb back to where it started. An entire generation of investors waited a quarter century just to break even. That is the company Burry is comparing Nvidia to. Now here is the number that triggered the warning. In Nvidia's fiscal 2026 results, the company disclosed its purchase obligations. These are the commitments Nvidia makes to its suppliers to lock in future manufacturing capacity. A year ago, that figure sat at $16.1 billion. This year it jumped to $95.2 billion. Total supply obligations now sit at roughly $117 billion. Nvidia is committing $117 billion to build capacity for demand that has not arrived yet. Burry's argument is simple. A company does not lock in $117 billion in supplier commitments unless it is betting the demand keeps climbing. If that demand slows even slightly, Nvidia is holding billions in obligations it cannot unwind. And that is exactly what happened to Cisco. Cisco overcommitted to supplier capacity expecting roughly 50% annual growth. Then tech spending slowed. The inventory piled up. The stock cratered. Burry is not calling Nvidia a fraud. He is not saying it is the next Enron. He is saying it could be the market's Cisco. The single stock that becomes the symbol of an AI spending unwind that drags everything down with it. And the dot-com comparison carries weight because of what happened to the broader market. When that bubble burst, the Nasdaq 100 fell 77%. The S&P 500 dropped 49%. It was not just one stock. It was the whole market. Now here is the other side of the argument. Nvidia's supporters say the Cisco comparison is too simple. Because Cisco was riding hype. Nvidia is riding actual revenue. Nvidia reported fiscal 2026 revenue of $215.9 billion, up 65% year over year. Data center revenue alone hit roughly $193.7 billion, up 68%. Record quarterly data center revenue of $62.3 billion in the fourth quarter, up 75%. These are not promises. These are realized sales, booked and collected. The bulls argue that pricing power and margins this strong do not exist inside a pure bubble. In their view, Burry is warning about a future slowdown that has not shown up in a single quarterly report. So the debate splits into two clean halves. The bears say the $117 billion in commitments makes Nvidia dangerously sensitive to any demand slowdown. The bulls say the revenue is real, the growth is accelerating, and the buildout is justified by the orders already on the books. Both sides are looking at the same company. Both sides are looking at the same numbers. They just disagree on what those numbers mean. And there is a second force pulling at this market that has nothing to do with Nvidia's earnings. A wave of mega-IPOs is reportedly coming. SpaceX. OpenAI. Anthropic. Some estimates suggest the market may need to absorb close to $200 billion in fresh equity supply. That creates a quieter question underneath the Burry debate. Even if AI demand stays strong, capital is finite. When the next wave of private giants goes public, money has to come from somewhere. And the easiest place to pull it from is the stock that already tripled. The real test is not whether Burry is right or wrong today. It is whether demand growth, margins, and contract utilization keep matching the $117 billion that Nvidia and its entire ecosystem are committing right now. If the demand keeps climbing, the commitments look like foresight. If it stalls, they look like Cisco. The man who saw the last crash before anyone else just put a name on the risk. A company that was once worth over $500 billion, then lost 90%, then made its investors wait 25 years to get back to even. The numbers say Nvidia is booking record revenue. The same numbers say Nvidia is committing $117 billion to a future nobody can see. One of those facts ages well. The other one is the entire question.

Insider Trackers

285,148 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

BREAKING: Elon Musk is days away from filing the largest IPO in human history. $75 billion. One raise. Bigger than Saudi Aramco. If it prices where he wants, he becomes the first person ever worth $1 TRILLION. And he just told Wall Street he's rewriting their rules... Here's what's actually happening and why it affects every investor in America: According to The Information and Reuters, SpaceX is aiming to file its S-1 prospectus with the SEC as soon as this week. More than 21 banks are working on the deal, with roles split by investor channel and region. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would instantly make SpaceX one of the ten most valuable companies on earth. Bigger than Walmart. Bigger than Exxon. Bigger than Meta. On day one. For context, Saudi Aramco held the record for the largest IPO ever at over $29 billion in 2019. SpaceX is reportedly looking to raise more than $75 billion. That's not beating the record. That's more than doubling it. And it could be more money than every single US company raised through IPOs in 2024 and 2025 combined. Now here's the part that has Wall Street losing its mind. Elon Musk wants to allocate up to 30% of the IPO shares to retail investors. Normal IPOs give retail 5% to 10%. The rest goes to hedge funds, pension funds, and institutional investors who get first pick at the best prices. That's how Wall Street has worked for decades. Musk said no. He wants everyday investors to get three times the normal allocation. SpaceX's CFO Bret Johnsen has reportedly already shared the proposal with the investment banks. Each bank is getting a narrowly defined role based on regional strengths rather than the usual broad competition for the same institutional clients. Why would Musk do this? Because Tesla investors made him. Tesla has consistently been one of the most purchased stocks on Robinhood for years. Retail investors believed in Tesla when Wall Street was betting against it. They held through the short seller attacks. Through the production hell. Through the skeptics calling it a bubble. Musk remembers that. Now he's returning the favor with SpaceX. He wants retail investors in early. Not after the institutions have already taken their profits on the first day pop. Let's talk about what SpaceX actually IS right now. Because the company filing this IPO is not the same SpaceX from five years ago. In February 2026, Musk merged xAI into SpaceX in a deal that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion. So the company going public now spans three major businesses: SpaceX: the rocket and satellite company that has dominated global launch activity in recent years. Starlink: the satellite internet network that has become SpaceX's largest revenue driver, with millions of subscribers worldwide. xAI: the artificial intelligence company behind Grok, now being integrated into SpaceX operations and Starlink network management. Six weeks after the merger, the IPO target jumped to $1.75 trillion. That's a $500 billion increase in six weeks. Here's the financial picture as we know it. SpaceX reportedly generated roughly $15 to $16 billion in revenue last year. About $8 billion in profit, according to Reuters, driven primarily by Starlink. At a $1.75 trillion valuation, that puts the price to sales ratio somewhere between 90x and 110x depending on the revenue figure used. For comparison: Apple trades at about 9x sales. Microsoft at about 13x. Even Nvidia at the peak of AI mania traded around 40x. SpaceX is asking for roughly 100x. That is an extraordinary number. But here's the thing about Musk. People have been saying his companies are overvalued for 15 years. They said Tesla was overvalued at $50 billion. Then at $100 billion. Then at $500 billion. Tesla hit $1.5 trillion. The people who bet against Musk's valuations have lost more money than almost any other trade in market history. SpaceX has dominated global rocket launches in recent years, with a cadence no competitor comes close to matching. Starlink is by far the largest satellite internet provider operating at global scale. The company holds billions of dollars in government contracts, including work with NASA and the Pentagon. And Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, is getting closer to full operational status with every test. No other company on earth can do what SpaceX does at this scale. Not Boeing. Not Lockheed. Not Blue Origin. Not anyone. That kind of dominance is what justifies paying a premium...
3:50

BREAKING: Elon Musk is days away from filing the largest IPO in human history. $75 billion. One raise. Bigger than Saudi Aramco. If it prices where he wants, he becomes the first person ever worth $1 TRILLION. And he just told Wall Street he's rewriting their rules... Here's what's actually happening and why it affects every investor in America: According to The Information and Reuters, SpaceX is aiming to file its S-1 prospectus with the SEC as soon as this week. More than 21 banks are working on the deal, with roles split by investor channel and region. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would instantly make SpaceX one of the ten most valuable companies on earth. Bigger than Walmart. Bigger than Exxon. Bigger than Meta. On day one. For context, Saudi Aramco held the record for the largest IPO ever at over $29 billion in 2019. SpaceX is reportedly looking to raise more than $75 billion. That's not beating the record. That's more than doubling it. And it could be more money than every single US company raised through IPOs in 2024 and 2025 combined. Now here's the part that has Wall Street losing its mind. Elon Musk wants to allocate up to 30% of the IPO shares to retail investors. Normal IPOs give retail 5% to 10%. The rest goes to hedge funds, pension funds, and institutional investors who get first pick at the best prices. That's how Wall Street has worked for decades. Musk said no. He wants everyday investors to get three times the normal allocation. SpaceX's CFO Bret Johnsen has reportedly already shared the proposal with the investment banks. Each bank is getting a narrowly defined role based on regional strengths rather than the usual broad competition for the same institutional clients. Why would Musk do this? Because Tesla investors made him. Tesla has consistently been one of the most purchased stocks on Robinhood for years. Retail investors believed in Tesla when Wall Street was betting against it. They held through the short seller attacks. Through the production hell. Through the skeptics calling it a bubble. Musk remembers that. Now he's returning the favor with SpaceX. He wants retail investors in early. Not after the institutions have already taken their profits on the first day pop. Let's talk about what SpaceX actually IS right now. Because the company filing this IPO is not the same SpaceX from five years ago. In February 2026, Musk merged xAI into SpaceX in a deal that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion. So the company going public now spans three major businesses: SpaceX: the rocket and satellite company that has dominated global launch activity in recent years. Starlink: the satellite internet network that has become SpaceX's largest revenue driver, with millions of subscribers worldwide. xAI: the artificial intelligence company behind Grok, now being integrated into SpaceX operations and Starlink network management. Six weeks after the merger, the IPO target jumped to $1.75 trillion. That's a $500 billion increase in six weeks. Here's the financial picture as we know it. SpaceX reportedly generated roughly $15 to $16 billion in revenue last year. About $8 billion in profit, according to Reuters, driven primarily by Starlink. At a $1.75 trillion valuation, that puts the price to sales ratio somewhere between 90x and 110x depending on the revenue figure used. For comparison: Apple trades at about 9x sales. Microsoft at about 13x. Even Nvidia at the peak of AI mania traded around 40x. SpaceX is asking for roughly 100x. That is an extraordinary number. But here's the thing about Musk. People have been saying his companies are overvalued for 15 years. They said Tesla was overvalued at $50 billion. Then at $100 billion. Then at $500 billion. Tesla hit $1.5 trillion. The people who bet against Musk's valuations have lost more money than almost any other trade in market history. SpaceX has dominated global rocket launches in recent years, with a cadence no competitor comes close to matching. Starlink is by far the largest satellite internet provider operating at global scale. The company holds billions of dollars in government contracts, including work with NASA and the Pentagon. And Starship, the most powerful rocket ever built, is getting closer to full operational status with every test. No other company on earth can do what SpaceX does at this scale. Not Boeing. Not Lockheed. Not Blue Origin. Not anyone. That kind of dominance is what justifies paying a premium...

Surmount

26,794 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Ken Griffin just explained exactly why you keep losing money when asked how Citadel made the biggest profit in wall street history during the 2022 crash - he exposed the cold truth: "in 2022 the market crashed 20% and regular investors got wiped out - we didn't panic, we just ran the math and walked away with $16 billion in pure profit" "people sit at home drawing lines on charts hoping to guess the next big trend - we spend $1 billion a year on computers that execute 7 million trades a day" "we don't care if a company is good or bad - we execute 20% of all us volume every single day just scooping up the pennies that retail traders drop out of fear" Griffin didn't build a $60 billion empire by predicting the future. He built it by exploiting the fear and greed of regular people with cold, ruthless speed bookmark and watch him break down the reality of the game
44:50

Ken Griffin just explained exactly why you keep losing money when asked how Citadel made the biggest profit in wall street history during the 2022 crash - he exposed the cold truth: "in 2022 the market crashed 20% and regular investors got wiped out - we didn't panic, we just ran the math and walked away with $16 billion in pure profit" "people sit at home drawing lines on charts hoping to guess the next big trend - we spend $1 billion a year on computers that execute 7 million trades a day" "we don't care if a company is good or bad - we execute 20% of all us volume every single day just scooping up the pennies that retail traders drop out of fear" Griffin didn't build a $60 billion empire by predicting the future. He built it by exploiting the fear and greed of regular people with cold, ruthless speed bookmark and watch him break down the reality of the game

ludoonchart

381,608 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Chamath Palihapitiya just dropped the number that explains the entire AI infrastructure trade (Save this). A gigawatt of compute now costs $100 billion and when he started his Arizona data center project it was $4 to $5 billion, it has gone up 20x in a single investment cycle. The implication is not just that AI infrastructure is expensive but rather that the capital barrier to owning meaningful compute has become so high that only a handful of entities in the world can actually build it and the companies who got there early are sitting on what may be the most durable pricing power in the history of the technology industry. This is the neocloud trade. The neocloud market, purpose-built GPU cloud providers like CoreWeave, Nebius, and Lambda Labs was worth $35 billion in 2026 and is projected to reach $236 billion by 2031, compounding at 46% annually. For context, that is faster growth than cloud computing itself posted in its first decade. The reason is very simple, hyperscalers like AWS, Azure, and Google are building for everything, storage, databases, enterprise software, networking and their GPU pricing reflects the overhead of that full-stack infrastructure. Neoclouds build for one thing only, AI compute. The result is a 60% to 85% cost advantage on the same Nvidia silicon, bare metal H100s at $0.78 to $2.79 per GPU-hour on a neocloud versus $3.43 to $5.07 per GPU-hour on a hyperscaler. That spread does not close as AI demand scales but rather it widens, because hyperscalers have to amortize legacy infrastructure and margin expectations that neoclouds do not carry. Gartner projects that by 2030, neoclouds will capture 20% of the $267 billion AI cloud market, and Vultr's own analysis says at least 80% of GPU market share by end of 2026 will be held by a small group of scaled neocloud providers. Now zoom into Nebius specifically, because it is the most interesting publicly traded proxy for this trade. Nebius is the infrastructure arm of the former Yandex Russia's equivalent of Google rebuilt from the ground up after Russia's invasion of Ukraine by Arkady Volozh and relisted on Nasdaq in October 2024. The team that built it already knew how to run internet-scale infrastructure at the lowest possible cost, which is exactly the operational DNA a neocloud requires. In Q1 2026, Nebius reported revenue of $399 million and already generating serious cash on a young business with revenue growing nearly eightfold year-over-year. Then in March 2026, Meta signed a five-year infrastructure agreement with Nebius worth up to $27 billion, $12 billion in committed dedicated GPU capacity deployments beginning early 2027, plus up to $15 billion more tied to Meta purchasing Nebius's unsold third-party capacity. The deal will be executed on one of the first large-scale deployments of Nvidia's Vera Rubin platform, the next-generation architecture after Blackwell making Nebius one of a tiny number of operators in the world with confirmed priority access to the most advanced AI hardware available. Following the contract, Nebius guided to $7 to $9 billion in annualized recurring revenue for 2026 representing 540% year-over-year growth. Chamath Palihapitiya point about the $100 billion capital moat is the bear case for new entrants and the bull case for incumbents. No one can afford to build the next CoreWeave or Nebius from scratch at current hardware and power costs. The companies that are already built, already contracted, and already deploying Nvidia's latest silicon have a moat that compounds with every GPU generation cycle because they get allocations first, they deploy fastest, and their customers re-sign rather than wait for a new operator that does not yet exist. Come join Milk Road Pro for our full breakdown, the complete neocloud competitive landscape, how to think about Nebius's valuation versus CoreWeave and AI entire thesis. Link below.
0:20

Chamath Palihapitiya just dropped the number that explains the entire AI infrastructure trade (Save this). A gigawatt of compute now costs $100 billion and when he started his Arizona data center project it was $4 to $5 billion, it has gone up 20x in a single investment cycle. The implication is not just that AI infrastructure is expensive but rather that the capital barrier to owning meaningful compute has become so high that only a handful of entities in the world can actually build it and the companies who got there early are sitting on what may be the most durable pricing power in the history of the technology industry. This is the neocloud trade. The neocloud market, purpose-built GPU cloud providers like CoreWeave, Nebius, and Lambda Labs was worth $35 billion in 2026 and is projected to reach $236 billion by 2031, compounding at 46% annually. For context, that is faster growth than cloud computing itself posted in its first decade. The reason is very simple, hyperscalers like AWS, Azure, and Google are building for everything, storage, databases, enterprise software, networking and their GPU pricing reflects the overhead of that full-stack infrastructure. Neoclouds build for one thing only, AI compute. The result is a 60% to 85% cost advantage on the same Nvidia silicon, bare metal H100s at $0.78 to $2.79 per GPU-hour on a neocloud versus $3.43 to $5.07 per GPU-hour on a hyperscaler. That spread does not close as AI demand scales but rather it widens, because hyperscalers have to amortize legacy infrastructure and margin expectations that neoclouds do not carry. Gartner projects that by 2030, neoclouds will capture 20% of the $267 billion AI cloud market, and Vultr's own analysis says at least 80% of GPU market share by end of 2026 will be held by a small group of scaled neocloud providers. Now zoom into Nebius specifically, because it is the most interesting publicly traded proxy for this trade. Nebius is the infrastructure arm of the former Yandex Russia's equivalent of Google rebuilt from the ground up after Russia's invasion of Ukraine by Arkady Volozh and relisted on Nasdaq in October 2024. The team that built it already knew how to run internet-scale infrastructure at the lowest possible cost, which is exactly the operational DNA a neocloud requires. In Q1 2026, Nebius reported revenue of $399 million and already generating serious cash on a young business with revenue growing nearly eightfold year-over-year. Then in March 2026, Meta signed a five-year infrastructure agreement with Nebius worth up to $27 billion, $12 billion in committed dedicated GPU capacity deployments beginning early 2027, plus up to $15 billion more tied to Meta purchasing Nebius's unsold third-party capacity. The deal will be executed on one of the first large-scale deployments of Nvidia's Vera Rubin platform, the next-generation architecture after Blackwell making Nebius one of a tiny number of operators in the world with confirmed priority access to the most advanced AI hardware available. Following the contract, Nebius guided to $7 to $9 billion in annualized recurring revenue for 2026 representing 540% year-over-year growth. Chamath Palihapitiya point about the $100 billion capital moat is the bear case for new entrants and the bull case for incumbents. No one can afford to build the next CoreWeave or Nebius from scratch at current hardware and power costs. The companies that are already built, already contracted, and already deploying Nvidia's latest silicon have a moat that compounds with every GPU generation cycle because they get allocations first, they deploy fastest, and their customers re-sign rather than wait for a new operator that does not yet exist. Come join Milk Road Pro for our full breakdown, the complete neocloud competitive landscape, how to think about Nebius's valuation versus CoreWeave and AI entire thesis. Link below.

Milk Road AI

138,663 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce