Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Elon's lawsuit EXPOSED OpenAI and Microsoft: They're functionally merged without ever filing merger paperwork. Microsoft invested $14 billion starting in 2019. Now owns 27% of OpenAI (valued at $135 billion). Has exclusive IP rights through 2032. Placed Microsoft VP Dee Templeton on OpenAI's board. And allegedly forces investors into...

Ric_RTP's profile picture

Ricardo

12,614 subscribers

177,005 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политикаНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Microsoft is about to sue its own golden child. $14 billion invested. Exclusive cloud rights. The most important AI partnership in history. And Sam Altman just went behind their back with a $50 billion Amazon deal. Here's why they're betraying each other: When Microsoft first invested in OpenAI in 2019, they locked in ONE rule above everything else... ALL access to OpenAI's models must go through Microsoft's Azure cloud. No exceptions. That deal made Azure the backbone of the AI revolution. Every company using ChatGPT's API was paying Microsoft for the privilege. It was the smartest infrastructure play of the decade. Then last month, OpenAI quietly signed a deal with Amazon. $50 billion. AWS becomes the exclusive third-party cloud provider for Frontier, OpenAI's new enterprise AI agent platform. $138 billion committed to Amazon cloud services. Microsoft found out and got really angry.... A person familiar with Microsoft's position told the Financial Times today: "We know our contract. We will sue them if they breach it. If Amazon and OpenAI want to take a bet on the creativity of their contractual lawyers, I would back us, not them." That's basically a declaration of war. And here's where it gets crazy: OpenAI and Amazon are trying to build a technical workaround. A system called the "Stateful Runtime Environment" that runs on Amazon's Bedrock platform. Their argument is that the system "only" handles memory and context for AI agents using enterprise data on AWS. It doesn't technically "invoke" OpenAI's core models through Amazon. Microsoft's response: Bullshit. The workaround violates the spirit of the deal even if it technically dances around the letter. Amazon knows they're on thin ice too. An internal memo leaked showing Amazon told employees exactly what language they can and can't use. They can say Frontier is "powered by OpenAI" or "enabled by OpenAI." But they CANNOT say customers can "access" or "invoke" OpenAI models on AWS. When you're coaching employees on which verbs to avoid, you know you're in trouble. But here's the thing everyone seems to forget: OpenAI is planning an IPO this year. They just closed a $110 billion funding round last month. So if Microsoft sues, the IPO timeline is DEAD. You can't go public while your biggest partner and investor is suing you for breach of contract. Elon Musk is already suing OpenAI separately for abandoning its nonprofit mission. Two active lawsuits from two of the most powerful people in tech. Against one company trying to IPO. Good luck with that S-1 filing. But WHY did Altman do this? Microsoft gave OpenAI everything. Capital. Infrastructure. Distribution. Enterprise customers. And Altman's response was to secretly build an escape route through Amazon... Because he saw what was coming: Microsoft launched Copilot. Their own AI product. Competing directly with ChatGPT. Microsoft started building their own models. Hiring their own AI researchers. Reducing dependency on OpenAI. So Altman did the same thing back. Found another cloud provider. Started building leverage. Both sides were preparing for divorce while still living in the same house. So the $50 billion Amazon deal was just an insurance policy against the day Microsoft decides it doesn't need OpenAI anymore. And Microsoft caught him packing his bags. What happens next: The companies are still talking. Trying to resolve this before Frontier launches. But Microsoft has made their position clear. Litigation is on the table. If this goes to court, it sets a precedent for every AI partnership in the industry. Every cloud deal. Every exclusive licensing agreement. The entire AI infrastructure map gets redrawn. Sam Altman built OpenAI on Microsoft's money, Microsoft's cloud, and Microsoft's trust. Then he signed a $50 billion deal with their biggest competitor. In any other industry they'd call that what it is.
0:28

Microsoft is about to sue its own golden child. $14 billion invested. Exclusive cloud rights. The most important AI partnership in history. And Sam Altman just went behind their back with a $50 billion Amazon deal. Here's why they're betraying each other: When Microsoft first invested in OpenAI in 2019, they locked in ONE rule above everything else... ALL access to OpenAI's models must go through Microsoft's Azure cloud. No exceptions. That deal made Azure the backbone of the AI revolution. Every company using ChatGPT's API was paying Microsoft for the privilege. It was the smartest infrastructure play of the decade. Then last month, OpenAI quietly signed a deal with Amazon. $50 billion. AWS becomes the exclusive third-party cloud provider for Frontier, OpenAI's new enterprise AI agent platform. $138 billion committed to Amazon cloud services. Microsoft found out and got really angry.... A person familiar with Microsoft's position told the Financial Times today: "We know our contract. We will sue them if they breach it. If Amazon and OpenAI want to take a bet on the creativity of their contractual lawyers, I would back us, not them." That's basically a declaration of war. And here's where it gets crazy: OpenAI and Amazon are trying to build a technical workaround. A system called the "Stateful Runtime Environment" that runs on Amazon's Bedrock platform. Their argument is that the system "only" handles memory and context for AI agents using enterprise data on AWS. It doesn't technically "invoke" OpenAI's core models through Amazon. Microsoft's response: Bullshit. The workaround violates the spirit of the deal even if it technically dances around the letter. Amazon knows they're on thin ice too. An internal memo leaked showing Amazon told employees exactly what language they can and can't use. They can say Frontier is "powered by OpenAI" or "enabled by OpenAI." But they CANNOT say customers can "access" or "invoke" OpenAI models on AWS. When you're coaching employees on which verbs to avoid, you know you're in trouble. But here's the thing everyone seems to forget: OpenAI is planning an IPO this year. They just closed a $110 billion funding round last month. So if Microsoft sues, the IPO timeline is DEAD. You can't go public while your biggest partner and investor is suing you for breach of contract. Elon Musk is already suing OpenAI separately for abandoning its nonprofit mission. Two active lawsuits from two of the most powerful people in tech. Against one company trying to IPO. Good luck with that S-1 filing. But WHY did Altman do this? Microsoft gave OpenAI everything. Capital. Infrastructure. Distribution. Enterprise customers. And Altman's response was to secretly build an escape route through Amazon... Because he saw what was coming: Microsoft launched Copilot. Their own AI product. Competing directly with ChatGPT. Microsoft started building their own models. Hiring their own AI researchers. Reducing dependency on OpenAI. So Altman did the same thing back. Found another cloud provider. Started building leverage. Both sides were preparing for divorce while still living in the same house. So the $50 billion Amazon deal was just an insurance policy against the day Microsoft decides it doesn't need OpenAI anymore. And Microsoft caught him packing his bags. What happens next: The companies are still talking. Trying to resolve this before Frontier launches. But Microsoft has made their position clear. Litigation is on the table. If this goes to court, it sets a precedent for every AI partnership in the industry. Every cloud deal. Every exclusive licensing agreement. The entire AI infrastructure map gets redrawn. Sam Altman built OpenAI on Microsoft's money, Microsoft's cloud, and Microsoft's trust. Then he signed a $50 billion deal with their biggest competitor. In any other industry they'd call that what it is.

Ricardo

209,411 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🚨 BREAKING: TECH COMPANIES ARE STRAIGHT FALSIFICATING EARNINGS Microsoft just gave OpenAI $13 BILLION OpenAI invested it back to Azure Microsoft booked it as revenue OpenAI booked it as a revenue too Amazon and Google are running similar loops with Anthropic while marking up huge paper gains from AI valuations Nvidia and Oracle don't even hide this scheme anymore OpenAI is spending over $60 BILLION a year on compute while generating only $25 BILLION in revenue. Ray Dalio, one of the most profitable investors in the world, has warned that late stage bubbles are driven by fake flows, not real economics He saw it before in 2000, 2008 Now he warns the same ponzi is happening at bigger scale That is exactly the definition of top of the market Keep in mind: I’ve called every major market top and bottom for over 10 YEARS I was one of the only people who called the top in October, and I’ll do it again That’s literally my job If you still haven’t followed me, you’ll regret
0:29

🚨 BREAKING: TECH COMPANIES ARE STRAIGHT FALSIFICATING EARNINGS Microsoft just gave OpenAI $13 BILLION OpenAI invested it back to Azure Microsoft booked it as revenue OpenAI booked it as a revenue too Amazon and Google are running similar loops with Anthropic while marking up huge paper gains from AI valuations Nvidia and Oracle don't even hide this scheme anymore OpenAI is spending over $60 BILLION a year on compute while generating only $25 BILLION in revenue. Ray Dalio, one of the most profitable investors in the world, has warned that late stage bubbles are driven by fake flows, not real economics He saw it before in 2000, 2008 Now he warns the same ponzi is happening at bigger scale That is exactly the definition of top of the market Keep in mind: I’ve called every major market top and bottom for over 10 YEARS I was one of the only people who called the top in October, and I’ll do it again That’s literally my job If you still haven’t followed me, you’ll regret

Hopper

18,271 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

OpenAI entered 2026 with the most insane revenue targets in corporate history. $30 billion in sales. Up from $13 billion in 2025. While LOSING $14 billion doing it. Let's understand this: OpenAI needed to convert from nonprofit to for-profit by December 31st, 2025 to unlock their $40 billion SoftBank funding. Miss that deadline? The round drops to $20 billion. And they made it. But here's the thing: The nonprofit STILL controls everything. They spent an entire year fighting to become for-profit, got sued by Elon Musk, pissed off California's attorney general, lost key employees over it. Then ended up basically right where they started. Except now the nonprofit has a $130 billion stake and Microsoft got $135 billion for 27% ownership. So OpenAI burned a year of political capital to give away $265 billion in equity while keeping the same power structure that almost destroyed them in 2023. The revenue math is absolutely deranged: To hit $30 billion in 2026, they need to more than double revenue in 12 months. No company in history has done this from a $13 billion base. Not even Nvidia. Not even ByteDance. OpenAI wants to go from $10B to $100B in 3 years. And the losses are worse: $14 billion in losses in 2026. Triple their 2025 burn. They've committed to: - $250 billion to Microsoft Azure - $38 billion to Amazon AWS - $1+ trillion in chip deals with Nvidia, AMD, and Broadcom They won't be profitable until 2029. Maybe. But here's the part that makes this whole thing insane... They're not just competing anymore. Anthropic: Fully for-profit. On track for $15 billion revenue in 2026. AI insiders surveyed in December said they'd invest in Anthropic over OpenAI. Meta's pouring billions into Llama. Chinese models eating market share. And OpenAI still has to answer to a nonprofit board that can shut down AGI research whenever they decide it's not "benefiting humanity." The same board that fired Sam Altman in November 2023. The investors know this. That's why the $40B was contingent on conversion. When OpenAI reversed course and kept nonprofit control, they had to give the nonprofit a $130B stake. Basically: "You can keep control, but you better make us whole." What happens if they miss targets? The Azure commitment becomes a liability. The AWS deal gets renegotiated. The nonprofit board starts asking why they're burning billions while people die of preventable diseases. Investors start wondering if that $300B valuation was justified. OpenAI is betting they can: 1. More than double revenue annually for 3 years straight 2. Burn $44 billion doing it 3. Keep a nonprofit board happy 4. Fend off Anthropic, Meta, and Chinese competitors 5. Avoid another Sam Altman situation 6. Actually build AGI 7. Convince everyone it was worth it Nobody in history has pulled this off. We're 1 day into 2026. By December 31st, we'll know if OpenAI is the most ambitious company ever built or the biggest AI bubble in history. What are you betting on?
1:28

OpenAI entered 2026 with the most insane revenue targets in corporate history. $30 billion in sales. Up from $13 billion in 2025. While LOSING $14 billion doing it. Let's understand this: OpenAI needed to convert from nonprofit to for-profit by December 31st, 2025 to unlock their $40 billion SoftBank funding. Miss that deadline? The round drops to $20 billion. And they made it. But here's the thing: The nonprofit STILL controls everything. They spent an entire year fighting to become for-profit, got sued by Elon Musk, pissed off California's attorney general, lost key employees over it. Then ended up basically right where they started. Except now the nonprofit has a $130 billion stake and Microsoft got $135 billion for 27% ownership. So OpenAI burned a year of political capital to give away $265 billion in equity while keeping the same power structure that almost destroyed them in 2023. The revenue math is absolutely deranged: To hit $30 billion in 2026, they need to more than double revenue in 12 months. No company in history has done this from a $13 billion base. Not even Nvidia. Not even ByteDance. OpenAI wants to go from $10B to $100B in 3 years. And the losses are worse: $14 billion in losses in 2026. Triple their 2025 burn. They've committed to: - $250 billion to Microsoft Azure - $38 billion to Amazon AWS - $1+ trillion in chip deals with Nvidia, AMD, and Broadcom They won't be profitable until 2029. Maybe. But here's the part that makes this whole thing insane... They're not just competing anymore. Anthropic: Fully for-profit. On track for $15 billion revenue in 2026. AI insiders surveyed in December said they'd invest in Anthropic over OpenAI. Meta's pouring billions into Llama. Chinese models eating market share. And OpenAI still has to answer to a nonprofit board that can shut down AGI research whenever they decide it's not "benefiting humanity." The same board that fired Sam Altman in November 2023. The investors know this. That's why the $40B was contingent on conversion. When OpenAI reversed course and kept nonprofit control, they had to give the nonprofit a $130B stake. Basically: "You can keep control, but you better make us whole." What happens if they miss targets? The Azure commitment becomes a liability. The AWS deal gets renegotiated. The nonprofit board starts asking why they're burning billions while people die of preventable diseases. Investors start wondering if that $300B valuation was justified. OpenAI is betting they can: 1. More than double revenue annually for 3 years straight 2. Burn $44 billion doing it 3. Keep a nonprofit board happy 4. Fend off Anthropic, Meta, and Chinese competitors 5. Avoid another Sam Altman situation 6. Actually build AGI 7. Convince everyone it was worth it Nobody in history has pulled this off. We're 1 day into 2026. By December 31st, we'll know if OpenAI is the most ambitious company ever built or the biggest AI bubble in history. What are you betting on?

Ricardo

97,607 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. OpenAI and Anthropic are losing money on every dollar they make. OpenAI generated $20 billion in revenue in 2025 and is projected to lose $14 billion in the same year. Internal forecasts project cumulative losses hitting $44 billion by 2028. The company's own CFO warned executives in April 2026 that OpenAI might struggle to finance upcoming computing deals if revenue growth slows. Anthropic reached $4.3 billion in annualized revenue in April 2026 against $19 billion in total costs. It spends $3 to make $1, and is not expected to stop burning cash until 2027. Now look at what these two companies have committed to spend. OpenAI and Anthropic together have committed $1.05 trillion in cloud spending to Microsoft, Oracle, Google and Amazon, making up 43 to 54% of each provider's entire future revenue backlog. - Microsoft: $627B total backlog. OpenAI and Anthropic account for 49%. - Oracle: $553B total backlog. OpenAI alone accounts for 54%. - Google: $467.6B total backlog. Anthropic accounts for 43%. - Amazon: $464B total backlog. OpenAI and Anthropic account for 51%. The entire cloud industry's future revenue is a bet on two companies losing billions every quarter. Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and Amazon are collectively expected to spend $725 billion in capex in 2026, almost entirely on AI infrastructure. Combined hyperscaler capex from 2025 to 2027 is projected at $1.15 trillion, more than double what was spent from 2022 to 2024. What is the return on all of this? McKinsey's 2025 State of AI survey found that only a minority of companies reported AI meaningfully increased revenue or reduced costs. Enterprise generative AI spending grew from $1.7 billion in 2023 to $37 billion in 2025 and most CIOs still describe their initiatives as pilots without clear ROI metrics. Microsoft's AI business is running at a $37 billion annual revenue run rate with 123% year over year growth. That sounds impressive until you realize most of the capex funding is justified by expected future AI revenue rather than current AI profit. The internet burned money for years before it became the most profitable industry in history. But right now $1 trillion in committed cloud spend, $725 billion in annual capex, two loss-making customers making up half of every major cloud provider's revenue backlog, and the enterprises writing the checks cannot tell you if any of it is working.
0:22

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. OpenAI and Anthropic are losing money on every dollar they make. OpenAI generated $20 billion in revenue in 2025 and is projected to lose $14 billion in the same year. Internal forecasts project cumulative losses hitting $44 billion by 2028. The company's own CFO warned executives in April 2026 that OpenAI might struggle to finance upcoming computing deals if revenue growth slows. Anthropic reached $4.3 billion in annualized revenue in April 2026 against $19 billion in total costs. It spends $3 to make $1, and is not expected to stop burning cash until 2027. Now look at what these two companies have committed to spend. OpenAI and Anthropic together have committed $1.05 trillion in cloud spending to Microsoft, Oracle, Google and Amazon, making up 43 to 54% of each provider's entire future revenue backlog. - Microsoft: $627B total backlog. OpenAI and Anthropic account for 49%. - Oracle: $553B total backlog. OpenAI alone accounts for 54%. - Google: $467.6B total backlog. Anthropic accounts for 43%. - Amazon: $464B total backlog. OpenAI and Anthropic account for 51%. The entire cloud industry's future revenue is a bet on two companies losing billions every quarter. Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and Amazon are collectively expected to spend $725 billion in capex in 2026, almost entirely on AI infrastructure. Combined hyperscaler capex from 2025 to 2027 is projected at $1.15 trillion, more than double what was spent from 2022 to 2024. What is the return on all of this? McKinsey's 2025 State of AI survey found that only a minority of companies reported AI meaningfully increased revenue or reduced costs. Enterprise generative AI spending grew from $1.7 billion in 2023 to $37 billion in 2025 and most CIOs still describe their initiatives as pilots without clear ROI metrics. Microsoft's AI business is running at a $37 billion annual revenue run rate with 123% year over year growth. That sounds impressive until you realize most of the capex funding is justified by expected future AI revenue rather than current AI profit. The internet burned money for years before it became the most profitable industry in history. But right now $1 trillion in committed cloud spend, $725 billion in annual capex, two loss-making customers making up half of every major cloud provider's revenue backlog, and the enterprises writing the checks cannot tell you if any of it is working.

Crypto Rover

58,862 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Google just STOLE Apple away from OpenAI... And it might decide who wins the AI race. Apple announced a multi-year $1 billion deal with Google to power the next generation of Siri using Gemini AI. Not ChatGPT. Gemini. This is the same Apple that 18 months ago announced a partnership with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into iPhones. Everyone thought that meant OpenAI won. Turns out it was an audition. And OpenAI failed. Here's why: June 2024: Apple announces OpenAI partnership. Sam Altman tweets: "very happy to be partnering with apple." Media declares OpenAI the winner of the AI race. December 2025: Sam Altman issues "code red" at OpenAI. Tells everyone to pause everything and ship ChatGPT 5.2 faster. Why the panic? Google released Gemini 3 and it was actually good. January 2026: Apple picks Google. ChatGPT stays as an "optional feature" for complicated queries. But Gemini becomes the DEFAULT intelligence layer for 2 billion Apple devices. The financial reality: Apple pays OpenAI $0 But Apple pays Google $1 BILLION per year That's a verdict. The excuse OpenAI gave for why they did it for free was "exposure to millions of iPhone users." Which basically means "we couldn't negotiate worth shit." Meanwhile Google walked away with both the money AND the distribution. Why Google won: Infrastructure ownership. OpenAI runs on Microsoft's Azure cloud. That creates a dependency chain: Apple → OpenAI → Microsoft. 3 companies. 3 points of failure. Google owns its entire stack. One relationship. Zero middlemen. Apple's statement said Google's technology provides "the most capable foundation." Not "most innovative." Not "best partner." Most CAPABLE. In other words, OpenAI's tech couldn't handle the scale. The Alphabet boost: Google's stock hit $4 trillion market cap after the announcement. Up 65% in 2024 on AI momentum alone. This deal validates Google's pivot from "search company" to "AI infrastructure company." Now they power Samsung's Galaxy AI AND Apple's Siri. Billions of mobile devices running on Gemini. OpenAI's big problem here: Still no profit. Ever. Anthropic is stealing enterprise customers. DeepSeek launched a price war forcing ChatGPT to cut prices. GPT-5 was overhyped and underwhelming. Circular financing deals are getting scrutinized. And now Apple just downgraded them from partner to backup option. That "code red" in December? Too little, too late. The reality everyone's missing: This isn't about chatbot quality. It's about who owns the infrastructure to power billions of devices. Google proved it with Samsung. Now Apple. OpenAI proved it can build a viral product but can't scale it profitably. Very different skill sets. Elon called it "unreasonable concentration of power for Google." He's right. But that's exactly why Apple chose them. Apple doesn't want a startup partner. They want a utility provider. Google is now the default AI for Android AND iOS. OpenAI is relegated to opt-in queries for people who specifically request ChatGPT. That's the difference between infrastructure and feature. The next 12 months: Apple launches Gemini-powered Siri in spring 2026. If it works, every iPhone user defaults to Google's AI. ChatGPT becomes the thing people use when Siri can't answer. The backup plan. My takeaway for entrepreneurs watching this: Distribution beats innovation. Google didn't necessarily build a better chatbot. They built better infrastructure and negotiated better terms. OpenAI won the hype race. Google won the business war. What do you think can save OpenAI now?
1:19

Google just STOLE Apple away from OpenAI... And it might decide who wins the AI race. Apple announced a multi-year $1 billion deal with Google to power the next generation of Siri using Gemini AI. Not ChatGPT. Gemini. This is the same Apple that 18 months ago announced a partnership with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into iPhones. Everyone thought that meant OpenAI won. Turns out it was an audition. And OpenAI failed. Here's why: June 2024: Apple announces OpenAI partnership. Sam Altman tweets: "very happy to be partnering with apple." Media declares OpenAI the winner of the AI race. December 2025: Sam Altman issues "code red" at OpenAI. Tells everyone to pause everything and ship ChatGPT 5.2 faster. Why the panic? Google released Gemini 3 and it was actually good. January 2026: Apple picks Google. ChatGPT stays as an "optional feature" for complicated queries. But Gemini becomes the DEFAULT intelligence layer for 2 billion Apple devices. The financial reality: Apple pays OpenAI $0 But Apple pays Google $1 BILLION per year That's a verdict. The excuse OpenAI gave for why they did it for free was "exposure to millions of iPhone users." Which basically means "we couldn't negotiate worth shit." Meanwhile Google walked away with both the money AND the distribution. Why Google won: Infrastructure ownership. OpenAI runs on Microsoft's Azure cloud. That creates a dependency chain: Apple → OpenAI → Microsoft. 3 companies. 3 points of failure. Google owns its entire stack. One relationship. Zero middlemen. Apple's statement said Google's technology provides "the most capable foundation." Not "most innovative." Not "best partner." Most CAPABLE. In other words, OpenAI's tech couldn't handle the scale. The Alphabet boost: Google's stock hit $4 trillion market cap after the announcement. Up 65% in 2024 on AI momentum alone. This deal validates Google's pivot from "search company" to "AI infrastructure company." Now they power Samsung's Galaxy AI AND Apple's Siri. Billions of mobile devices running on Gemini. OpenAI's big problem here: Still no profit. Ever. Anthropic is stealing enterprise customers. DeepSeek launched a price war forcing ChatGPT to cut prices. GPT-5 was overhyped and underwhelming. Circular financing deals are getting scrutinized. And now Apple just downgraded them from partner to backup option. That "code red" in December? Too little, too late. The reality everyone's missing: This isn't about chatbot quality. It's about who owns the infrastructure to power billions of devices. Google proved it with Samsung. Now Apple. OpenAI proved it can build a viral product but can't scale it profitably. Very different skill sets. Elon called it "unreasonable concentration of power for Google." He's right. But that's exactly why Apple chose them. Apple doesn't want a startup partner. They want a utility provider. Google is now the default AI for Android AND iOS. OpenAI is relegated to opt-in queries for people who specifically request ChatGPT. That's the difference between infrastructure and feature. The next 12 months: Apple launches Gemini-powered Siri in spring 2026. If it works, every iPhone user defaults to Google's AI. ChatGPT becomes the thing people use when Siri can't answer. The backup plan. My takeaway for entrepreneurs watching this: Distribution beats innovation. Google didn't necessarily build a better chatbot. They built better infrastructure and negotiated better terms. OpenAI won the hype race. Google won the business war. What do you think can save OpenAI now?

Ricardo

50,663 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?
1:05

Microsoft just betrayed OpenAI and Anthropic, the two companies it helped build. And it could break the entire AI trade... Here's what happened: Inside Excel and Outlook, two of the most used business apps on Earth, Microsoft has started routing tens of thousands of AI requests every week to its own in-house models instead of OpenAI and Anthropic. Microsoft's own AI chief, Mustafa Suleyman, said himself: "We pay a lot of money to Anthropic, so our goal is to reduce and ultimately ELIMINATE that cost." This is the company that poured $13 billion into OpenAI and effectively created the modern AI industry, and it just decided the most advanced models on the market are NOT worth paying for. And here's the thing... Microsoft is not just ripping out OpenAI everywhere - it is being surgical about it. The hardest and rarest tasks can still go to OpenAI or Anthropic. What Microsoft is taking back is the boring, high-volume work, like the email replies, the thread summaries, and the simple spreadsheet formulas. Why does that matter so much? Because that boring, repetitive work is where the actual money lives. The frontier labs assumed businesses would push BILLIONS of these tiny requests through expensive models forever. That endless river of tokens is the entire reason OpenAI and Anthropic are valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Microsoft looked at that river, decided it was massively overpaying, and rerouted it to models it owns outright. So the single biggest customer in the industry just walked off with the most profitable part of the business. And it is not only Microsoft: That same week, CNBC reported that American companies have been escaping to Chinese AI models to dodge rising US prices. Chinese models now handle more than 30% of US companies' AI usage on one major platform, peaking at 46%, up from an average of 11% a year earlier. They cost 60 to 90% less, and on some benchmarks they land within a single point of the best American model. One US startup moved ALL of its AI traffic off Claude and onto China's DeepSeek, and expects to save millions. Meanwhile Meta just admitted it has "excess" AI compute it wants to sell, becoming the first giant to concede it built far too much. Do you see the pattern forming? For two years, the entire AI story rested on one assumption: Every company on Earth would happily pay premium prices for the best model, forever. That assumption literally died in a single week. And the market noticed. More than a trillion dollars has been wiped off AI and chip stocks in a matter of days, as Wall Street finally started asking whether all of this spending will ever pay for itself. What this means for OpenAI and Anthropic: Their models are extraordinary, and it may not matter because their own biggest customers have decided they do not NEED the best model in the world to answer an email, and "good enough" now costs a fraction of the price. When even Microsoft refuses to pay full price for AI, the real question becomes who exactly IS left to pay it. What do you think?

Ricardo

92,910 просмотров • 15 дней назад

🚨 DOT-COM 2.0 IS ALREADY HERE A $2 trillion AI economy built on the same dollars being passed in a circle I'm not being dramatic. The accounting trick is right there in the filings The scariest part? It's all 100% legal Here's how it works: A tech giant gives an AI startup billions in "investment." The contract forces that startup to spend the exact same money renting servers from… the tech giant. The tech giant then books that server usage as brand new "cloud revenue." Translation: they're paying themselves with their own money and calling it a sale. Look at Microsoft and OpenAI. Microsoft "invested" $13 billion in OpenAI. Most of it never left Microsoft - it was cloud credits that could only be spent on Microsoft servers. OpenAI used those credits to train its models. Microsoft turned around and recorded that exact spend as new cloud revenue That's why OpenAI's annual cloud bill is now $60 BILLION For a company doing only $25 BILLION in actual revenue It's not a customer. It's a recycled funding loop Anthropic runs the exact same script: $2.66 billion paid to AWS in 9 months - basically 100% of everything Anthropic earned. And it gets worse Every time these AI startups raise at a higher valuation, the tech giants mark up their equity and book the paper gain as PROFIT. Q1 2026: ➮ Alphabet reported $62.6B in profit. $28.7B of it (nearly half) was just a paper markup on Anthropic. ➮ Amazon reported $30.3B in profit. $16.8B of it was the same Anthropic paper gain. While Amazon was reporting record profits, its actual free cash flow collapsed 95% to just $1.2 billion Because they had to spend $44.2 BILLION in REAL money building data centers Real cash going out. Paper "profits" coming in Now here's where it gets dangerous: ➮ Microsoft has 49% of its $627 billion future backlog tied to OpenAI alone ➮ Oracle has 54% of its $553 billion pipeline depending on OpenAI alone Trillions of dollars of "demand" resting on one or two unprofitable startups If this all sounds familiar, it should This is 2001 all over again Back then, Global Crossing and Qwest swapped identical fiber-optic capacity with each other just to book fake sales Qwest had to erase $1.4 billion in fake income Global Crossing went bankrupt The only difference between then and now? The dot-com swaps were illegal Today's AI loop is fully legal under current accounting rules That's not a comfort. That's a warning Legal doesn't mean safe. It just means nobody can stop it before it blows up And here's the part most people don't realize: Every 401k, every index fund, every retirement account in America is being forced to buy more of these tech stocks every month. The loop inflates the stock prices The funds chase the prices The chase inflates them further Until the day the music stops and there's no real cash underneath. Don't worry though - my system flags the exact moment the market shifts from caution to DANGER. You'll be warned before it hits, like always. All you need to NOT miss my next call is to keep NOTIFS ON
0:59

🚨 DOT-COM 2.0 IS ALREADY HERE A $2 trillion AI economy built on the same dollars being passed in a circle I'm not being dramatic. The accounting trick is right there in the filings The scariest part? It's all 100% legal Here's how it works: A tech giant gives an AI startup billions in "investment." The contract forces that startup to spend the exact same money renting servers from… the tech giant. The tech giant then books that server usage as brand new "cloud revenue." Translation: they're paying themselves with their own money and calling it a sale. Look at Microsoft and OpenAI. Microsoft "invested" $13 billion in OpenAI. Most of it never left Microsoft - it was cloud credits that could only be spent on Microsoft servers. OpenAI used those credits to train its models. Microsoft turned around and recorded that exact spend as new cloud revenue That's why OpenAI's annual cloud bill is now $60 BILLION For a company doing only $25 BILLION in actual revenue It's not a customer. It's a recycled funding loop Anthropic runs the exact same script: $2.66 billion paid to AWS in 9 months - basically 100% of everything Anthropic earned. And it gets worse Every time these AI startups raise at a higher valuation, the tech giants mark up their equity and book the paper gain as PROFIT. Q1 2026: ➮ Alphabet reported $62.6B in profit. $28.7B of it (nearly half) was just a paper markup on Anthropic. ➮ Amazon reported $30.3B in profit. $16.8B of it was the same Anthropic paper gain. While Amazon was reporting record profits, its actual free cash flow collapsed 95% to just $1.2 billion Because they had to spend $44.2 BILLION in REAL money building data centers Real cash going out. Paper "profits" coming in Now here's where it gets dangerous: ➮ Microsoft has 49% of its $627 billion future backlog tied to OpenAI alone ➮ Oracle has 54% of its $553 billion pipeline depending on OpenAI alone Trillions of dollars of "demand" resting on one or two unprofitable startups If this all sounds familiar, it should This is 2001 all over again Back then, Global Crossing and Qwest swapped identical fiber-optic capacity with each other just to book fake sales Qwest had to erase $1.4 billion in fake income Global Crossing went bankrupt The only difference between then and now? The dot-com swaps were illegal Today's AI loop is fully legal under current accounting rules That's not a comfort. That's a warning Legal doesn't mean safe. It just means nobody can stop it before it blows up And here's the part most people don't realize: Every 401k, every index fund, every retirement account in America is being forced to buy more of these tech stocks every month. The loop inflates the stock prices The funds chase the prices The chase inflates them further Until the day the music stops and there's no real cash underneath. Don't worry though - my system flags the exact moment the market shifts from caution to DANGER. You'll be warned before it hits, like always. All you need to NOT miss my next call is to keep NOTIFS ON

Reflection🪩

3,868,930 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Dylan on why Anthropic leading on models doesn't mean OpenAI loses. Even the tier 2 and 3 labs will sell out of tokens: "Everyone's like Anthropic won. They had Mythos, Opus 4.7 and their revenue is adding $10 billion a month all before OpenAI's alleged Spud release. So clearly Anthropic is in the lead and OpenAI is cooked. Anthropic has such bounds on compute, they can only grow it so fast. Dario used to gloat about how OpenAI was being too aggressive on compute and Anthropic was more sensible in their scaling. Now Anthropic is like I wish we had a lot more compute. OpenAI just raised a ton of money to get incremental compute in addition to the irresponsible levels of compute that they were buying. By the end of the year, let's say a 4.6 Opus tier model, the economy would spend $100 billion on. Anthropic won't have enough compute to do that. And presumably OpenAI and Google will hit that tier soon. Anthropic may get to charge 70%+ gross margins but if OpenAI hits it next, they charge 50% gross margins. They still get all of this incremental demand. There is such demand for these tokens and such limitations on compute. It's pretty clear even the tier 2 or tier 3 lab are going to be sold out of tokens. The economic value that the best model can deliver is growing faster than our ability to actually serve those tokens to people via the infrastructure."
2:33

Dylan on why Anthropic leading on models doesn't mean OpenAI loses. Even the tier 2 and 3 labs will sell out of tokens: "Everyone's like Anthropic won. They had Mythos, Opus 4.7 and their revenue is adding $10 billion a month all before OpenAI's alleged Spud release. So clearly Anthropic is in the lead and OpenAI is cooked. Anthropic has such bounds on compute, they can only grow it so fast. Dario used to gloat about how OpenAI was being too aggressive on compute and Anthropic was more sensible in their scaling. Now Anthropic is like I wish we had a lot more compute. OpenAI just raised a ton of money to get incremental compute in addition to the irresponsible levels of compute that they were buying. By the end of the year, let's say a 4.6 Opus tier model, the economy would spend $100 billion on. Anthropic won't have enough compute to do that. And presumably OpenAI and Google will hit that tier soon. Anthropic may get to charge 70%+ gross margins but if OpenAI hits it next, they charge 50% gross margins. They still get all of this incremental demand. There is such demand for these tokens and such limitations on compute. It's pretty clear even the tier 2 or tier 3 lab are going to be sold out of tokens. The economic value that the best model can deliver is growing faster than our ability to actually serve those tokens to people via the infrastructure."

Patrick OShaughnessy

295,138 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Elon Musk offered $97.4 billion to buy OpenAI, and Sam Altman answered in under 60 minutes. “no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.” Same digits, 1/10th the price the insult was in the math. Rewind to 2015, when Musk co-founded OpenAI as a nonprofit, put in $44 million and sent late-night emails about saving humanity. Then he walked. OpenAI took $13 billion from Microsoft, shipped ChatGPT and grew into a $135 billion company without him. Altman wrote him a private email: “I don’t think OpenAI would have happened without you and it really fing hurts when you publicly attack us.” Musk reply came in public instead “Scam Altman,” “Greg Stockman,” and then a lawsuit. In court, OpenAI lawyer handed him a 2018 email from his own inbox, spelling out the plan to raise $10 billion years before he claims he learned of it. Musk, under oath: “I did not read the fine print.” The lawyer: “It’s a 4-page document.” The jury ruled against him unanimously. So count what’s left on the table: a $44 million donation, a $97.4 billion bid dead in an hour, and a $135 billion company run by the man he once mentored. He co-founded the future, then sued it and it won.
5:28

Elon Musk offered $97.4 billion to buy OpenAI, and Sam Altman answered in under 60 minutes. “no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.” Same digits, 1/10th the price the insult was in the math. Rewind to 2015, when Musk co-founded OpenAI as a nonprofit, put in $44 million and sent late-night emails about saving humanity. Then he walked. OpenAI took $13 billion from Microsoft, shipped ChatGPT and grew into a $135 billion company without him. Altman wrote him a private email: “I don’t think OpenAI would have happened without you and it really fing hurts when you publicly attack us.” Musk reply came in public instead “Scam Altman,” “Greg Stockman,” and then a lawsuit. In court, OpenAI lawyer handed him a 2018 email from his own inbox, spelling out the plan to raise $10 billion years before he claims he learned of it. Musk, under oath: “I did not read the fine print.” The lawyer: “It’s a 4-page document.” The jury ruled against him unanimously. So count what’s left on the table: a $44 million donation, a $97.4 billion bid dead in an hour, and a $135 billion company run by the man he once mentored. He co-founded the future, then sued it and it won.

West Lord

4,441,922 просмотров • 11 дней назад

OpenAI just created a $10 billion company whose ONLY job is forcing businesses to use AI. And they're literally guaranteeing investors a 17.5% annual return to make it happen. It's called "The Deployment Company." OpenAI finalized it yesterday with 19 investors including TPG, SoftBank, Bain Capital, Brookfield, and Advent International. Here's the structure: OpenAI puts in $1.5 billion. The private equity firms put in $4 billion. In exchange, those PE firms open up their 2,000+ portfolio companies as a CAPTIVE customer base for OpenAI's products. OpenAI then embeds teams of engineers directly inside those companies, Palantir-style, to integrate their tools into daily operations. And here's the big red flag in all of this: OpenAI is GUARANTEEING those PE firms a 17.5% annual return over five years. That means even if the companies in the portfolio don't want AI, don't need AI, or get zero value from AI, OpenAI is still on the hook to pay those returns. Think about what that means for a second. OpenAI is so desperate for enterprise adoption that they're paying Wall Street to force their product into thousands of businesses. They've essentially turned private equity firms into a distribution cartel with a guaranteed commission. This has NEVER been done before in enterprise software. No software company in history has guaranteed above-market returns to financial sponsors just to get their product installed. And it gets crazier: Within MINUTES of OpenAI's announcement, Anthropic announced their own version. A $1.5 billion joint venture with Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and Hellman & Friedman. Same playbook. Two companies worth a combined $1+ TRILLION in private valuation both concluded on the same day that organic demand for their products is not growing fast enough. If enterprises were lining up to buy AI on their own, you wouldn't need to bribe private equity firms with guaranteed returns to shove it into their portfolios. You would just sell it normally like every other software company in history. But they can't. Because the gap between what AI companies PROMISE and what enterprises actually experience is still enormous. OpenAI's COO Brad Lightcap just moved into a new role specifically to lead this push. They've also signed "Frontier Alliances" with major consulting firms to embed AI through professional services channels. Every move they're making screams the same thing: We have a demand problem. And this is all happening right before OpenAI tries to IPO at $850 billion. If they can show Wall Street that 2,000+ companies are "using OpenAI products" through this PE distribution channel, it inflates their enterprise metrics right before the roadshow. Doesn't matter if those companies actually need it or if it creates real value. What matters is the number on the S-1. This is the AI playbook entering its most dangerous phase. The tech is real but the business model is being held together by financial engineering, guaranteed returns, and captive distribution deals that look more like a pharmaceutical company paying doctors to prescribe their drug than a software company earning customers on merit. And both OpenAI and Anthropic admitted it on the same day.
0:54

OpenAI just created a $10 billion company whose ONLY job is forcing businesses to use AI. And they're literally guaranteeing investors a 17.5% annual return to make it happen. It's called "The Deployment Company." OpenAI finalized it yesterday with 19 investors including TPG, SoftBank, Bain Capital, Brookfield, and Advent International. Here's the structure: OpenAI puts in $1.5 billion. The private equity firms put in $4 billion. In exchange, those PE firms open up their 2,000+ portfolio companies as a CAPTIVE customer base for OpenAI's products. OpenAI then embeds teams of engineers directly inside those companies, Palantir-style, to integrate their tools into daily operations. And here's the big red flag in all of this: OpenAI is GUARANTEEING those PE firms a 17.5% annual return over five years. That means even if the companies in the portfolio don't want AI, don't need AI, or get zero value from AI, OpenAI is still on the hook to pay those returns. Think about what that means for a second. OpenAI is so desperate for enterprise adoption that they're paying Wall Street to force their product into thousands of businesses. They've essentially turned private equity firms into a distribution cartel with a guaranteed commission. This has NEVER been done before in enterprise software. No software company in history has guaranteed above-market returns to financial sponsors just to get their product installed. And it gets crazier: Within MINUTES of OpenAI's announcement, Anthropic announced their own version. A $1.5 billion joint venture with Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and Hellman & Friedman. Same playbook. Two companies worth a combined $1+ TRILLION in private valuation both concluded on the same day that organic demand for their products is not growing fast enough. If enterprises were lining up to buy AI on their own, you wouldn't need to bribe private equity firms with guaranteed returns to shove it into their portfolios. You would just sell it normally like every other software company in history. But they can't. Because the gap between what AI companies PROMISE and what enterprises actually experience is still enormous. OpenAI's COO Brad Lightcap just moved into a new role specifically to lead this push. They've also signed "Frontier Alliances" with major consulting firms to embed AI through professional services channels. Every move they're making screams the same thing: We have a demand problem. And this is all happening right before OpenAI tries to IPO at $850 billion. If they can show Wall Street that 2,000+ companies are "using OpenAI products" through this PE distribution channel, it inflates their enterprise metrics right before the roadshow. Doesn't matter if those companies actually need it or if it creates real value. What matters is the number on the S-1. This is the AI playbook entering its most dangerous phase. The tech is real but the business model is being held together by financial engineering, guaranteed returns, and captive distribution deals that look more like a pharmaceutical company paying doctors to prescribe their drug than a software company earning customers on merit. And both OpenAI and Anthropic admitted it on the same day.

Ricardo

52,664 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

OpenAI's OWN CFO just admitted they cannot pay their bills. Let me walk you through what just leaked, because the implications are bigger than you'd expect: Sarah Friar, the Chief Financial Officer of OpenAI, has been warning OpenAI's leadership that the company may NOT be able to pay for the computing contracts it has already signed if revenue does not start growing a lot faster than it currently is. Read that sentence again, because it is the single most important thing you'll read about AI infrastructure this year. The person whose actual JOB is signing the checks is telling the people around her that the checks may not clear. Sam Altman and Friar issued a joint statement calling the report "ridiculous" and insisting they're aligned on buying as much compute as possible. Of course they did. Sarah Friar is steering this company into an IPO with a reported $852 billion valuation. The last thing they need 6 months before printing the S-1 is the CFO publicly questioning whether the entire infrastructure thesis is solvent. But the denial doesn't change what WAS reported. And the reported facts are devastating: OpenAI missed its internal target of 1 billion weekly active ChatGPT users by the end of 2025. ChatGPT's share of generative AI web traffic collapsed from 86.7% a year ago to 64.5% in January. In the same window, Google's Gemini rose from 5.7% to 21.5%. They missed MULTIPLE monthly revenue targets earlier this year. They are losing ground to Anthropic in coding and to enterprise customers more broadly. Subscribers are leaving. Now hold that picture in your head and look at what they have committed to spend: Roughly $1.4 TRILLION in data center, GPU, and memory contracts. $300 billion to Oracle. $250 billion to Microsoft. $38 billion to Amazon. $90 billion to AMD. Tens of billions more to Broadcom, CoreWeave, and Nvidia. And Deutsche Bank estimates $143 billion in cumulative negative free cash flow between now and 2029. The CFO is not "worried" because she is conservative by nature. She is worried because she is doing the math. Here's the part the market hasn't yet processed: OpenAI is the marginal buyer for the ENTIRE AI infrastructure complex. - Oracle's $553 billion backlog is more than half OpenAI. - Nvidia's 2027 revenue assumptions lean heavily on OpenAI deployments. - AMD's "$90 billion in cumulative hardware revenue" claim from its OpenAI deal IS the OpenAI deal. - CoreWeave is essentially a leveraged bet on OpenAI's ability to pay. - Broadcom's custom silicon roadmap was built around OpenAI demand. If OpenAI cannot fund the contracts it has signed, every one of those numbers gets re-cut. Every Mag 7 capex slide gets re-cut. Every analyst model that uses "AI infrastructure demand" as a justification for trading the S&P 500 at 26x forward earnings gets re-cut. This is exactly what I've been calling the counterparty risk problem. You can't have a $1.4 trillion supply chain whose ultimate customer expects to LOSE $143 billion before it generates a dollar of free cash flow, and then pretend the suppliers carry no risk. Pre-market this morning told you the market is starting to figure it out: Rambus down. Marvell down. Oracle indicated down 4.5%. Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom under pressure. The chip complex understands that "OpenAI's CFO is worried" is not noise. It is the first crack in the financing structure that the entire AI trade rests on. This is just like the junk bonds in 1989, Telecom in 2000, or Subprime CDOs in 2007. The pattern is always the same: Outside skeptics raise the alarm and get ignored. Then someone inside the building tells the truth and the building empties. Sarah Friar just told the truth. The Mag 7 are literally priced for OpenAI delivering what its OWN CFO says it may not be able to pay for. Below is a video from February of last year - everything is aging TERRIBLY...
1:08

OpenAI's OWN CFO just admitted they cannot pay their bills. Let me walk you through what just leaked, because the implications are bigger than you'd expect: Sarah Friar, the Chief Financial Officer of OpenAI, has been warning OpenAI's leadership that the company may NOT be able to pay for the computing contracts it has already signed if revenue does not start growing a lot faster than it currently is. Read that sentence again, because it is the single most important thing you'll read about AI infrastructure this year. The person whose actual JOB is signing the checks is telling the people around her that the checks may not clear. Sam Altman and Friar issued a joint statement calling the report "ridiculous" and insisting they're aligned on buying as much compute as possible. Of course they did. Sarah Friar is steering this company into an IPO with a reported $852 billion valuation. The last thing they need 6 months before printing the S-1 is the CFO publicly questioning whether the entire infrastructure thesis is solvent. But the denial doesn't change what WAS reported. And the reported facts are devastating: OpenAI missed its internal target of 1 billion weekly active ChatGPT users by the end of 2025. ChatGPT's share of generative AI web traffic collapsed from 86.7% a year ago to 64.5% in January. In the same window, Google's Gemini rose from 5.7% to 21.5%. They missed MULTIPLE monthly revenue targets earlier this year. They are losing ground to Anthropic in coding and to enterprise customers more broadly. Subscribers are leaving. Now hold that picture in your head and look at what they have committed to spend: Roughly $1.4 TRILLION in data center, GPU, and memory contracts. $300 billion to Oracle. $250 billion to Microsoft. $38 billion to Amazon. $90 billion to AMD. Tens of billions more to Broadcom, CoreWeave, and Nvidia. And Deutsche Bank estimates $143 billion in cumulative negative free cash flow between now and 2029. The CFO is not "worried" because she is conservative by nature. She is worried because she is doing the math. Here's the part the market hasn't yet processed: OpenAI is the marginal buyer for the ENTIRE AI infrastructure complex. - Oracle's $553 billion backlog is more than half OpenAI. - Nvidia's 2027 revenue assumptions lean heavily on OpenAI deployments. - AMD's "$90 billion in cumulative hardware revenue" claim from its OpenAI deal IS the OpenAI deal. - CoreWeave is essentially a leveraged bet on OpenAI's ability to pay. - Broadcom's custom silicon roadmap was built around OpenAI demand. If OpenAI cannot fund the contracts it has signed, every one of those numbers gets re-cut. Every Mag 7 capex slide gets re-cut. Every analyst model that uses "AI infrastructure demand" as a justification for trading the S&P 500 at 26x forward earnings gets re-cut. This is exactly what I've been calling the counterparty risk problem. You can't have a $1.4 trillion supply chain whose ultimate customer expects to LOSE $143 billion before it generates a dollar of free cash flow, and then pretend the suppliers carry no risk. Pre-market this morning told you the market is starting to figure it out: Rambus down. Marvell down. Oracle indicated down 4.5%. Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom under pressure. The chip complex understands that "OpenAI's CFO is worried" is not noise. It is the first crack in the financing structure that the entire AI trade rests on. This is just like the junk bonds in 1989, Telecom in 2000, or Subprime CDOs in 2007. The pattern is always the same: Outside skeptics raise the alarm and get ignored. Then someone inside the building tells the truth and the building empties. Sarah Friar just told the truth. The Mag 7 are literally priced for OpenAI delivering what its OWN CFO says it may not be able to pay for. Below is a video from February of last year - everything is aging TERRIBLY...

George Noble

25,935 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

The most dangerous thing a company can do right now is rent intelligence from the same place as its competitors (Save this). You cannot rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor as Chamath Palihapitiya points out. If every company in an industry is feeding their workflows into the same frontier model, they are all converging on the same outputs, the same decisions, the same product improvements. The model becomes the equalizer and everyone pays a premium to become more mediocre. This is happening exactly as Chamath predicted, and the evidence is now concrete. Anthropic and OpenAI have established what analysts are now openly calling an emerging model layer duopoly. Anthropic crossed $45 billion ARR in may 2026, more than tripling from $9 billion at the end of 2025, OpenAI was at roughly $24 to $33 billion ARR at the same time. Together, the two companies combined could hit $160 to $240 billion ARR by end of 2026 and Anthropic and OpenAI now control 88% of enterprise LLM spend. That concentration is the structural problem Chamath is pointing at. And Anthropic isn't just winning on merit because it's actively lobbying for regulatory outcomes that would make that duopoly permanent. Dario Amodei has explicitly framed open source models as unsafe, pushing a safety agenda that, if enshrined in regulation, would effectively make it illegal for enterprises to use the cheaper, private, sovereign alternatives locking them into a closed model dependency by government decree rather than by choice. So you have market forces producing a duopoly, and potential regulatory capture moving to enforce it from the top down. This is exactly why the Nvidia Palantir partnership is not just a product announcement but rather a strategic counter to that duopoly. The logic is straightforward from both sides because If you're Palantir, sitting at the application layer, the last thing you want is to be permanently beholden to Anthropic or OpenAI for the intelligence that powers your product. You want competitive model options, sovereignty and be able to tell enterprise customers they can run AI on their own infrastructure with their own data without any of it touching a frontier lab's servers. If you're Nvidia, sitting at the chip layer, an Anthropic-OpenAI duopoly is an existential concentration risk. Right now, Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and dozens of other companies buy Nvidia's hardware. If the model layer consolidates into two players, both of which are building their own chips Nvidia faces a monopsony where its best customers are building the tools to displace it. A healthy open source ecosystem where thousands of enterprises train, fine tune, and deploy their own models is Nvidia's ideal market structure. More buyers, more diversity, more demand, less pricing leverage from any single customer.
4:38

The most dangerous thing a company can do right now is rent intelligence from the same place as its competitors (Save this). You cannot rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor as Chamath Palihapitiya points out. If every company in an industry is feeding their workflows into the same frontier model, they are all converging on the same outputs, the same decisions, the same product improvements. The model becomes the equalizer and everyone pays a premium to become more mediocre. This is happening exactly as Chamath predicted, and the evidence is now concrete. Anthropic and OpenAI have established what analysts are now openly calling an emerging model layer duopoly. Anthropic crossed $45 billion ARR in may 2026, more than tripling from $9 billion at the end of 2025, OpenAI was at roughly $24 to $33 billion ARR at the same time. Together, the two companies combined could hit $160 to $240 billion ARR by end of 2026 and Anthropic and OpenAI now control 88% of enterprise LLM spend. That concentration is the structural problem Chamath is pointing at. And Anthropic isn't just winning on merit because it's actively lobbying for regulatory outcomes that would make that duopoly permanent. Dario Amodei has explicitly framed open source models as unsafe, pushing a safety agenda that, if enshrined in regulation, would effectively make it illegal for enterprises to use the cheaper, private, sovereign alternatives locking them into a closed model dependency by government decree rather than by choice. So you have market forces producing a duopoly, and potential regulatory capture moving to enforce it from the top down. This is exactly why the Nvidia Palantir partnership is not just a product announcement but rather a strategic counter to that duopoly. The logic is straightforward from both sides because If you're Palantir, sitting at the application layer, the last thing you want is to be permanently beholden to Anthropic or OpenAI for the intelligence that powers your product. You want competitive model options, sovereignty and be able to tell enterprise customers they can run AI on their own infrastructure with their own data without any of it touching a frontier lab's servers. If you're Nvidia, sitting at the chip layer, an Anthropic-OpenAI duopoly is an existential concentration risk. Right now, Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and dozens of other companies buy Nvidia's hardware. If the model layer consolidates into two players, both of which are building their own chips Nvidia faces a monopsony where its best customers are building the tools to displace it. A healthy open source ecosystem where thousands of enterprises train, fine tune, and deploy their own models is Nvidia's ideal market structure. More buyers, more diversity, more demand, less pricing leverage from any single customer.

Milk Road AI

33,493 просмотров • 18 дней назад

In 45 years on Wall Street, I've never seen anything like this. Sam Altman just convinced 3 of the world's smartest investors to fund his losses. $110 billion. But ZERO profit in sight. The largest private funding round in history. Let me explain why this is borderline criminal & what you have to understand as an investor: Amazon. Nvidia. SoftBank. 3 of the world's most sophisticated investors just handed OpenAI $110 billion at an $840 billion valuation. That's more than double the $40 billion OpenAI raised last year. For context: all US venture capital combined invested $170 billion into American startups in all of 2023. Altman just raised 65% of that. Alone. In one round. And the company STILL isn't profitable. Let's look at the actual numbers: OpenAI burned $8 billion in 2025. They project burning $17 billion in 2026. $35 billion in 2027. $47 billion in 2028. Cumulative losses before any projected path to profitability: over $115 billion. Meanwhile, Amazon's $50 billion comes with strings attached. $35 billion is contingent on OpenAI either achieving AGI or completing its IPO by year end. Read that again. $35 billion is conditioned on ACHIEVING AGI. They're literally writing checks against a scientific breakthrough that may not happen on any predictable timeline. This is what peak cycle financing looks like. The circular logic every investor should understand: Amazon invests $50 billion in OpenAI. OpenAI commits to spending $100 billion on Amazon Web Services. Nvidia invests $30 billion. OpenAI commits to buying 3 gigawatts of Nvidia compute. These aren't arms-length investments. They're vendor financing dressed up as venture capital. Amazon and Nvidia are essentially paying OpenAI to buy their own products. The $840 billion valuation prices in a future that doesn't exist yet. At $13 billion in 2025 revenue, that's 65x revenue. Even in 2021 - the most speculative bubble in recent tech history - Snowflake peaked at 50-80x revenue. And Snowflake was actually profitable. J.P. Morgan calculates that the AI industry needs $650 billion in annual revenue just to generate a 10% return on total infrastructure buildout. The entire industry currently generates a fraction of that. I've seen cycles my entire 45-year career. The 1980s defense build-up. The dot-com bubble. The 2008 mortgage machine. The pattern is always the same: When the biggest players start financing each other's growth through circular investment structures, you're not witnessing a revolution... You're watching the LAST PHASE of a credit cycle. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said OpenAI is going to be "one of the very big winners long term." Maybe. But $840 billion assumes they've already won. Stock prices follow earnings. Always have. Always will. And right now, OpenAI's earnings are deeply, structurally, massively negative. The IPO is coming. The hype will peak. And the question every serious investor needs to answer is simple: At what price does this actually make sense? Sam Altman doesn’t know either - he just keeps raising money faster than he can burn it. This can’t end well.
1:14

In 45 years on Wall Street, I've never seen anything like this. Sam Altman just convinced 3 of the world's smartest investors to fund his losses. $110 billion. But ZERO profit in sight. The largest private funding round in history. Let me explain why this is borderline criminal & what you have to understand as an investor: Amazon. Nvidia. SoftBank. 3 of the world's most sophisticated investors just handed OpenAI $110 billion at an $840 billion valuation. That's more than double the $40 billion OpenAI raised last year. For context: all US venture capital combined invested $170 billion into American startups in all of 2023. Altman just raised 65% of that. Alone. In one round. And the company STILL isn't profitable. Let's look at the actual numbers: OpenAI burned $8 billion in 2025. They project burning $17 billion in 2026. $35 billion in 2027. $47 billion in 2028. Cumulative losses before any projected path to profitability: over $115 billion. Meanwhile, Amazon's $50 billion comes with strings attached. $35 billion is contingent on OpenAI either achieving AGI or completing its IPO by year end. Read that again. $35 billion is conditioned on ACHIEVING AGI. They're literally writing checks against a scientific breakthrough that may not happen on any predictable timeline. This is what peak cycle financing looks like. The circular logic every investor should understand: Amazon invests $50 billion in OpenAI. OpenAI commits to spending $100 billion on Amazon Web Services. Nvidia invests $30 billion. OpenAI commits to buying 3 gigawatts of Nvidia compute. These aren't arms-length investments. They're vendor financing dressed up as venture capital. Amazon and Nvidia are essentially paying OpenAI to buy their own products. The $840 billion valuation prices in a future that doesn't exist yet. At $13 billion in 2025 revenue, that's 65x revenue. Even in 2021 - the most speculative bubble in recent tech history - Snowflake peaked at 50-80x revenue. And Snowflake was actually profitable. J.P. Morgan calculates that the AI industry needs $650 billion in annual revenue just to generate a 10% return on total infrastructure buildout. The entire industry currently generates a fraction of that. I've seen cycles my entire 45-year career. The 1980s defense build-up. The dot-com bubble. The 2008 mortgage machine. The pattern is always the same: When the biggest players start financing each other's growth through circular investment structures, you're not witnessing a revolution... You're watching the LAST PHASE of a credit cycle. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said OpenAI is going to be "one of the very big winners long term." Maybe. But $840 billion assumes they've already won. Stock prices follow earnings. Always have. Always will. And right now, OpenAI's earnings are deeply, structurally, massively negative. The IPO is coming. The hype will peak. And the question every serious investor needs to answer is simple: At what price does this actually make sense? Sam Altman doesn’t know either - he just keeps raising money faster than he can burn it. This can’t end well.

George Noble

1,197,031 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Sam Altman just dropped the most insane business flex in tech history. OpenAI doing $13 BILLION in revenue this year. Projecting $100 BILLION by 2027. That's a 7.7X in revenue in 2 years. But they also just committed $1.4 TRILLION to infrastructure over 8 years. When a reporter asked "how the fuck are you paying for that?" Sam literally said: "We're doing WELL MORE revenue than reported. If you don't like it, I'll find someone to buy your shares." Then Satya Nadella (Microsoft CEO) just laughed. This is the most aggressive "fuck around and find out" energy I've ever seen from a CEO. OpenAI is literally spending 107X their current revenue on infrastructure. That's not a typo. ONE HUNDRED AND SEVEN TIMES Most cloud companies spend 15-30% of revenue on infrastructure. OpenAI? 10,700%. This is either: The biggest bet in tech history. OR The setup for the most catastrophic collapse since Theranos. And Sam's basically daring short-sellers to try him. "I would LOVE to see them get burned on that." Meanwhile they're losing $12 BILLION per quarter. Microsoft's latest earnings showed a $4 billion charge that implies OpenAI burned through $12B last quarter alone. But Sam doesn't care. He's doubling down. $300 billion deal with Oracle. $100 billion with Nvidia. Tens of billions more with AMD, Broadcom, and AWS. All while the company isn't even profitable. When the podcast host asked if OpenAI could hit $100 billion by 2028 or 2029... Sam cut him off and said: "How about '27?" This man is either: A) The next Elon Musk building the future. B) About to pull off the biggest financial implosion in tech history. There's literally no middle ground here. Either OpenAI becomes a trillion-dollar company. Or it goes down as the most expensive failure ever. And Sam's basically telling everyone who doubts him to short the stock so he can watch them burn...
2:14

Sam Altman just dropped the most insane business flex in tech history. OpenAI doing $13 BILLION in revenue this year. Projecting $100 BILLION by 2027. That's a 7.7X in revenue in 2 years. But they also just committed $1.4 TRILLION to infrastructure over 8 years. When a reporter asked "how the fuck are you paying for that?" Sam literally said: "We're doing WELL MORE revenue than reported. If you don't like it, I'll find someone to buy your shares." Then Satya Nadella (Microsoft CEO) just laughed. This is the most aggressive "fuck around and find out" energy I've ever seen from a CEO. OpenAI is literally spending 107X their current revenue on infrastructure. That's not a typo. ONE HUNDRED AND SEVEN TIMES Most cloud companies spend 15-30% of revenue on infrastructure. OpenAI? 10,700%. This is either: The biggest bet in tech history. OR The setup for the most catastrophic collapse since Theranos. And Sam's basically daring short-sellers to try him. "I would LOVE to see them get burned on that." Meanwhile they're losing $12 BILLION per quarter. Microsoft's latest earnings showed a $4 billion charge that implies OpenAI burned through $12B last quarter alone. But Sam doesn't care. He's doubling down. $300 billion deal with Oracle. $100 billion with Nvidia. Tens of billions more with AMD, Broadcom, and AWS. All while the company isn't even profitable. When the podcast host asked if OpenAI could hit $100 billion by 2028 or 2029... Sam cut him off and said: "How about '27?" This man is either: A) The next Elon Musk building the future. B) About to pull off the biggest financial implosion in tech history. There's literally no middle ground here. Either OpenAI becomes a trillion-dollar company. Or it goes down as the most expensive failure ever. And Sam's basically telling everyone who doubts him to short the stock so he can watch them burn...

Ricardo

429,823 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

MEET THE NVIDIA KILLER: OpenAI bet $10 BILLION on this company that makes chips 20x faster than Nvidia's. If this plays out as expected, it’s over for Nvidia. Cerebras Systems just locked in 750 megawatts of computing power to OpenAI through 2028. For reference: that's equivalent to the annual power consumption of 600,000 US homes. The deal? Over $10 billion. Here's what nobody understands: Cerebras doesn't make normal chips. Nvidia sells you thousands of tiny chips that you connect together. Cerebras makes ONE chip. A single wafer-scale processor the size of a dinner plate. 900,000 AI cores. 4 trillion transistors. All on one piece of silicon. The result? When OpenAI tested it, Cerebras ran inference 20X FASTER than Nvidia GPUs. That's not incremental improvement. That's a different category of performance. But here's where the story gets wild: Four months ago, Cerebras was a struggling company. Their IPO filing revealed that 87% of their revenue came from ONE customer: G42, a UAE-based AI firm. The US government launched a national security review. G42 had ties to Huawei. Ties to China. The IPO collapsed. Investors panicked. Cerebras withdrew their filing in October 2025. Most startups would've been dead. Instead, Cerebras did the opposite. They raised $1.1 billion at an $8.1 billion valuation. Kicked G42 out of the cap table entirely. Got CFIUS clearance. Then landed the OpenAI deal. Now they're raising ANOTHER $1 billion at a $22 billion valuation. They more than DOUBLED their valuation in 4 months. From near-death to $22 billion. While getting rid of their biggest customer. Why OpenAI chose them: ChatGPT has 900 million weekly users. Sam Altman keeps saying they have a "severe shortage" of compute. They need SPEED, not just power. When you ask ChatGPT a question, there's a loop happening: You send request → model thinks → sends response back Nvidia chips are fast at training models. Cerebras chips are built specifically for inference. For real-time responses. For the exact bottleneck OpenAI is trying to solve. Sachin Katti from OpenAI said it best: "Cerebras adds a dedicated low-latency inference solution to our platform. That means faster responses, more natural interactions, and a stronger foundation to scale real-time AI to many more people." In other words: "We need this to scale ChatGPT." The competitive landscape just shifted: Nvidia announced a $100 billion deal with OpenAI in September. But it's still not finalized. Meanwhile, Cerebras closed their deal before Thanksgiving. And it's ALREADY being deployed. Here's the part that should terrify Nvidia: In December, Nvidia bought Groq for $20 billion. Groq makes fast inference chips. Just like Cerebras. So why would Nvidia spend $20 billion buying a competitor to something they supposedly already dominate? Because they know what's coming. Inference is the new battleground. And Cerebras is winning it. The IPO is coming Q2 2026. After this OpenAI deal, Cerebras now has: ✓ IBM contracts ✓ Department of Energy contracts ✓ OpenAI locked in for 3 years ✓ $22 billion valuation ✓ CFIUS clearance ✓ Zero customer concentration risk They went from 87% revenue dependency on one customer to the most diversified chip company outside Nvidia. In four months. The lesson? Smart money doesn't follow headlines. It follows where the AI leaders are actually spending. OpenAI didn't announce this deal for publicity. They need Cerebras hardware to scale ChatGPT. That's a $10 billion vote of confidence. While everyone's watching Nvidia stock, the real war is happening in inference. And the company with ONE giant chip just beat the company with thousands of tiny ones. What do you think happens when Cerebras IPOs?
1:03

MEET THE NVIDIA KILLER: OpenAI bet $10 BILLION on this company that makes chips 20x faster than Nvidia's. If this plays out as expected, it’s over for Nvidia. Cerebras Systems just locked in 750 megawatts of computing power to OpenAI through 2028. For reference: that's equivalent to the annual power consumption of 600,000 US homes. The deal? Over $10 billion. Here's what nobody understands: Cerebras doesn't make normal chips. Nvidia sells you thousands of tiny chips that you connect together. Cerebras makes ONE chip. A single wafer-scale processor the size of a dinner plate. 900,000 AI cores. 4 trillion transistors. All on one piece of silicon. The result? When OpenAI tested it, Cerebras ran inference 20X FASTER than Nvidia GPUs. That's not incremental improvement. That's a different category of performance. But here's where the story gets wild: Four months ago, Cerebras was a struggling company. Their IPO filing revealed that 87% of their revenue came from ONE customer: G42, a UAE-based AI firm. The US government launched a national security review. G42 had ties to Huawei. Ties to China. The IPO collapsed. Investors panicked. Cerebras withdrew their filing in October 2025. Most startups would've been dead. Instead, Cerebras did the opposite. They raised $1.1 billion at an $8.1 billion valuation. Kicked G42 out of the cap table entirely. Got CFIUS clearance. Then landed the OpenAI deal. Now they're raising ANOTHER $1 billion at a $22 billion valuation. They more than DOUBLED their valuation in 4 months. From near-death to $22 billion. While getting rid of their biggest customer. Why OpenAI chose them: ChatGPT has 900 million weekly users. Sam Altman keeps saying they have a "severe shortage" of compute. They need SPEED, not just power. When you ask ChatGPT a question, there's a loop happening: You send request → model thinks → sends response back Nvidia chips are fast at training models. Cerebras chips are built specifically for inference. For real-time responses. For the exact bottleneck OpenAI is trying to solve. Sachin Katti from OpenAI said it best: "Cerebras adds a dedicated low-latency inference solution to our platform. That means faster responses, more natural interactions, and a stronger foundation to scale real-time AI to many more people." In other words: "We need this to scale ChatGPT." The competitive landscape just shifted: Nvidia announced a $100 billion deal with OpenAI in September. But it's still not finalized. Meanwhile, Cerebras closed their deal before Thanksgiving. And it's ALREADY being deployed. Here's the part that should terrify Nvidia: In December, Nvidia bought Groq for $20 billion. Groq makes fast inference chips. Just like Cerebras. So why would Nvidia spend $20 billion buying a competitor to something they supposedly already dominate? Because they know what's coming. Inference is the new battleground. And Cerebras is winning it. The IPO is coming Q2 2026. After this OpenAI deal, Cerebras now has: ✓ IBM contracts ✓ Department of Energy contracts ✓ OpenAI locked in for 3 years ✓ $22 billion valuation ✓ CFIUS clearance ✓ Zero customer concentration risk They went from 87% revenue dependency on one customer to the most diversified chip company outside Nvidia. In four months. The lesson? Smart money doesn't follow headlines. It follows where the AI leaders are actually spending. OpenAI didn't announce this deal for publicity. They need Cerebras hardware to scale ChatGPT. That's a $10 billion vote of confidence. While everyone's watching Nvidia stock, the real war is happening in inference. And the company with ONE giant chip just beat the company with thousands of tiny ones. What do you think happens when Cerebras IPOs?

Ricardo

28,088 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

In 19 days, a jury in Oakland is going to decide whether the entire legal foundation of the AI industry is built on fraud. Everyone thinks the Musk vs Altman lawsuit is a billionaire grudge match. Two egos, one grudge, a $150 billion damages number designed for headlines. Easy to dismiss. Easy to scroll past. That's exactly what Altman wants you to think. Because what's actually on trial on April 27 is something much BIGGER than Elon's hurt feelings... A jury is going to decide whether you can legally take billions of dollars in nonprofit donations, use them to build the most valuable technology in human history, and then quietly convert that nonprofit into a for-profit company worth $850 billion. If the answer is no, the entire AI industry has a problem. Because OpenAI is not the only company that did this: Anthropic was founded by OpenAI defectors using the same nonprofit-first mission language. xAI pitches itself as building AI "for humanity." Every frontier lab has used the moral cover of "we're doing this for the good of the world" to attract talent, capital, and regulatory goodwill they would have never gotten otherwise. An Elon win doesn't just touch OpenAI. It creates a legal precedent that every AI company built on a nonprofit or public benefit promise becomes vulnerable to shareholder and donor clawback suits. That's why this case matters. And that's why Altman is panicking. Just look at what he did this week: Elon filed a motion demanding the court remove Altman and Brockman from their roles and FORCE OpenAI to return to its nonprofit origins. Then he amended the suit to say if he wins the $150 billion, all of it goes to OpenAI's charity arm. Not him. Zero dollars to Elon personally. That amendment was surgical. It stripped Altman of his entire public defense. He can no longer claim this is about Elon's ego or Elon's bank account. Elon is now legally on record saying he just wants the mission back. OpenAI's response was to panic-write a letter to the California and Delaware attorneys general asking them to investigate Elon for "anti-competitive behavior." Their strategy chief publicly accused Elon of coordinating attacks with Mark Zuckerberg. They called the lawsuit "harassment driven by ego and jealousy." That's NOT the response of a company that thinks it's going to win. Real companies with real defenses don't ask the government to silence the person suing them 3 weeks before trial. They let the evidence speak. OpenAI is scrambling because they know what's in discovery. Elon's team has been building this case for two years. Emails, board minutes, internal conversations about the conversion. The kind of paper trail that juries understand and executives can't explain away. And the timing couldn't be worse... OpenAI is trying to IPO at $852 billion. They just raised $122 billion. Microsoft has $135 billion of exposure to them. A jury verdict that even partially sides with Elon in late April or May would crater the entire IPO runway and send shockwaves through every major AI investor on Earth. This is why Altman spent the last 2 weeks doing press tours and policy blueprints and "super intelligence agendas" aimed at Washington. He's trying to REFRAME himself as the responsible statesman of AI right before a jury decides if he's a con artist. Most people will watch this trial start and think it's celebrity drama. The smart money is watching it and realizing that the legal foundation of the AI boom is about to be tested in court for the first time EVER. And if that foundation cracks, everything built on top of it is at risk.
1:28

In 19 days, a jury in Oakland is going to decide whether the entire legal foundation of the AI industry is built on fraud. Everyone thinks the Musk vs Altman lawsuit is a billionaire grudge match. Two egos, one grudge, a $150 billion damages number designed for headlines. Easy to dismiss. Easy to scroll past. That's exactly what Altman wants you to think. Because what's actually on trial on April 27 is something much BIGGER than Elon's hurt feelings... A jury is going to decide whether you can legally take billions of dollars in nonprofit donations, use them to build the most valuable technology in human history, and then quietly convert that nonprofit into a for-profit company worth $850 billion. If the answer is no, the entire AI industry has a problem. Because OpenAI is not the only company that did this: Anthropic was founded by OpenAI defectors using the same nonprofit-first mission language. xAI pitches itself as building AI "for humanity." Every frontier lab has used the moral cover of "we're doing this for the good of the world" to attract talent, capital, and regulatory goodwill they would have never gotten otherwise. An Elon win doesn't just touch OpenAI. It creates a legal precedent that every AI company built on a nonprofit or public benefit promise becomes vulnerable to shareholder and donor clawback suits. That's why this case matters. And that's why Altman is panicking. Just look at what he did this week: Elon filed a motion demanding the court remove Altman and Brockman from their roles and FORCE OpenAI to return to its nonprofit origins. Then he amended the suit to say if he wins the $150 billion, all of it goes to OpenAI's charity arm. Not him. Zero dollars to Elon personally. That amendment was surgical. It stripped Altman of his entire public defense. He can no longer claim this is about Elon's ego or Elon's bank account. Elon is now legally on record saying he just wants the mission back. OpenAI's response was to panic-write a letter to the California and Delaware attorneys general asking them to investigate Elon for "anti-competitive behavior." Their strategy chief publicly accused Elon of coordinating attacks with Mark Zuckerberg. They called the lawsuit "harassment driven by ego and jealousy." That's NOT the response of a company that thinks it's going to win. Real companies with real defenses don't ask the government to silence the person suing them 3 weeks before trial. They let the evidence speak. OpenAI is scrambling because they know what's in discovery. Elon's team has been building this case for two years. Emails, board minutes, internal conversations about the conversion. The kind of paper trail that juries understand and executives can't explain away. And the timing couldn't be worse... OpenAI is trying to IPO at $852 billion. They just raised $122 billion. Microsoft has $135 billion of exposure to them. A jury verdict that even partially sides with Elon in late April or May would crater the entire IPO runway and send shockwaves through every major AI investor on Earth. This is why Altman spent the last 2 weeks doing press tours and policy blueprints and "super intelligence agendas" aimed at Washington. He's trying to REFRAME himself as the responsible statesman of AI right before a jury decides if he's a con artist. Most people will watch this trial start and think it's celebrity drama. The smart money is watching it and realizing that the legal foundation of the AI boom is about to be tested in court for the first time EVER. And if that foundation cracks, everything built on top of it is at risk.

Ricardo

27,878,670 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

PROOF THAT AI IS A PONZI SCHEME (and why it's the reason for Bitcoin's crash): Nvidia just posted the most insane earnings in tech history. $31.9 billion in profit. $57 billion in revenue. 65% profit jump year-over-year. Stock rallied immediately. Then 18 hours later, it dropped 5%. And when people looked closer at the numbers, they found something absolutely wild... The Unpaid Bills Nobody Talked About: Nvidia's accounts receivable jumped to $33.4 billion. That's up 89% in one year. Translation: $33 billion worth of "sales" that haven't been paid yet. The average wait time for payment went from 46 days to 53 days. That extra week of waiting? $10.4 billion that may never turn into actual cash. They're booking revenue. But customers aren't paying. The Inventory That Shouldn't Exist: Unsold chip inventory surged 32% in three months to $19.8 billion. Meanwhile, Nvidia's CEO keeps saying demand is "insane" and they can't make chips fast enough. If demand is so crazy, why is inventory piling up? Either customers aren't buying with cash, or the demand story is bullshit. The Profit vs Cash Problem: Nvidia reported $19.3 billion in profit. But only generated $14.5 billion in actual cash flow. That's a $4.8 billion gap. Their profit-to-cash conversion is 75%. TSMC and AMD? Over 95%. When profit doesn't turn into cash, something's wrong. Here's Where It Gets Insane: The money is going in circles. And the same dollars are being counted as revenue multiple times. Follow this: - Nvidia gave xAI $2 billion - xAI borrowed $12.5 billion to buy Nvidia chips - Microsoft invested $13 billion in OpenAI - OpenAI committed $50 billion to Microsoft's cloud - Microsoft ordered $100 billion in Nvidia chips for that cloud - Oracle gave OpenAI $300 billion in cloud credits - OpenAI used those credits to order Nvidia chips for Oracle data centers The money goes in a circle. Nvidia → xAI → Nvidia Microsoft → OpenAI → Microsoft → Nvidia Oracle → OpenAI → Oracle → Nvidia Everyone books revenue. Nobody's actually paying cash. It's financial engineering disguised as growth. The Smart Money Already Left: Peter Thiel sold his Nvidia stake. SoftBank dumped massive positions. Michael Burry (the guy who called 2008) bought $1.1 billion in put options betting Nvidia crashes. They saw the numbers before everyone else did. And they got out. The Bitcoin Collapse: Bitcoin crashed almost 30% from $126,000 to $89,567. Why does this matter? AI startups use Bitcoin as collateral for loans. If Nvidia's crisis deepens, those startups get margin called. They're forced to sell Bitcoin to cover. Which crashes Bitcoin further. Which triggers more margin calls. Analysts think it could hit $52,000 if this unravels. The MIT Reality Check: OpenAI is valued at $157 billion. MIT released a study saying 95% of AI projects will never be profitable. Not "might struggle." NEVER be profitable. The entire sector is built on inflated expectations. What Happens Next: February 2026: Nvidia's Q4 report shows how many bills are 60+ days overdue. March 2026: Credit agencies start downgrading Nvidia and related companies. April 2026: First earnings restatements hit. The whole thing unwinds. Some experts are calling this a Ponzi scheme. No formal fraud investigation yet. But the structure is there: - Use new investor money to pay old investors - Inflate revenue with circular deals - Book sales before receiving cash - Keep the music playing until someone asks for their money Nvidia executives deny everything. Say it's real growth. Real demand. Real transformation. But the numbers don't lie. $10.4 billion in delayed payments. $19.8 billion in unsold inventory. $4.8 billion profit-to-cash gap. Circular funding loops inflating revenue. This is either the biggest tech transformation in history, or the biggest financial engineering scam since 2008. The next three months will tell us which one it is. What are you betting on?
3:21

PROOF THAT AI IS A PONZI SCHEME (and why it's the reason for Bitcoin's crash): Nvidia just posted the most insane earnings in tech history. $31.9 billion in profit. $57 billion in revenue. 65% profit jump year-over-year. Stock rallied immediately. Then 18 hours later, it dropped 5%. And when people looked closer at the numbers, they found something absolutely wild... The Unpaid Bills Nobody Talked About: Nvidia's accounts receivable jumped to $33.4 billion. That's up 89% in one year. Translation: $33 billion worth of "sales" that haven't been paid yet. The average wait time for payment went from 46 days to 53 days. That extra week of waiting? $10.4 billion that may never turn into actual cash. They're booking revenue. But customers aren't paying. The Inventory That Shouldn't Exist: Unsold chip inventory surged 32% in three months to $19.8 billion. Meanwhile, Nvidia's CEO keeps saying demand is "insane" and they can't make chips fast enough. If demand is so crazy, why is inventory piling up? Either customers aren't buying with cash, or the demand story is bullshit. The Profit vs Cash Problem: Nvidia reported $19.3 billion in profit. But only generated $14.5 billion in actual cash flow. That's a $4.8 billion gap. Their profit-to-cash conversion is 75%. TSMC and AMD? Over 95%. When profit doesn't turn into cash, something's wrong. Here's Where It Gets Insane: The money is going in circles. And the same dollars are being counted as revenue multiple times. Follow this: - Nvidia gave xAI $2 billion - xAI borrowed $12.5 billion to buy Nvidia chips - Microsoft invested $13 billion in OpenAI - OpenAI committed $50 billion to Microsoft's cloud - Microsoft ordered $100 billion in Nvidia chips for that cloud - Oracle gave OpenAI $300 billion in cloud credits - OpenAI used those credits to order Nvidia chips for Oracle data centers The money goes in a circle. Nvidia → xAI → Nvidia Microsoft → OpenAI → Microsoft → Nvidia Oracle → OpenAI → Oracle → Nvidia Everyone books revenue. Nobody's actually paying cash. It's financial engineering disguised as growth. The Smart Money Already Left: Peter Thiel sold his Nvidia stake. SoftBank dumped massive positions. Michael Burry (the guy who called 2008) bought $1.1 billion in put options betting Nvidia crashes. They saw the numbers before everyone else did. And they got out. The Bitcoin Collapse: Bitcoin crashed almost 30% from $126,000 to $89,567. Why does this matter? AI startups use Bitcoin as collateral for loans. If Nvidia's crisis deepens, those startups get margin called. They're forced to sell Bitcoin to cover. Which crashes Bitcoin further. Which triggers more margin calls. Analysts think it could hit $52,000 if this unravels. The MIT Reality Check: OpenAI is valued at $157 billion. MIT released a study saying 95% of AI projects will never be profitable. Not "might struggle." NEVER be profitable. The entire sector is built on inflated expectations. What Happens Next: February 2026: Nvidia's Q4 report shows how many bills are 60+ days overdue. March 2026: Credit agencies start downgrading Nvidia and related companies. April 2026: First earnings restatements hit. The whole thing unwinds. Some experts are calling this a Ponzi scheme. No formal fraud investigation yet. But the structure is there: - Use new investor money to pay old investors - Inflate revenue with circular deals - Book sales before receiving cash - Keep the music playing until someone asks for their money Nvidia executives deny everything. Say it's real growth. Real demand. Real transformation. But the numbers don't lie. $10.4 billion in delayed payments. $19.8 billion in unsold inventory. $4.8 billion profit-to-cash gap. Circular funding loops inflating revenue. This is either the biggest tech transformation in history, or the biggest financial engineering scam since 2008. The next three months will tell us which one it is. What are you betting on?

Ricardo

212,902 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

I can't believe that the once richest man on earth just bet his entire empire on ONE company. And he has 9 days to pull it off. SoftBank is scrambling to deliver $22.5 billion to OpenAI by December 31st. To get there, CEO Masayoshi Son sold his ENTIRE stake in the best-performing AI stock on the planet. Then sold billions more in other holdings. Cut staff. Froze dealmaking. Borrowed against everything he owns. This is the biggest all-in bet in the past few years. And it might be the most reckless financial engineering since 2008. Here's what's actually happening: SoftBank promised OpenAI $40 billion back in April when the company was valued at $300 billion. The deal had conditions. OpenAI had to convert to a for-profit structure by year-end. They did that in October. Now the clock is ticking. $22.5 billion must arrive in 9 days or the deal breaks. Son already delivered $17.5 billion earlier this year. Getting the rest is proving harder than anyone expected. The moves Son made to raise the cash are absolutely wild: He dumped SoftBank's entire $5.8 billion position in Nvidia. Not trimmed. Not reduced. LIQUIDATED. The same Nvidia that's been printing money for AI investors all year. He sold $4.8 billion worth of T-Mobile shares. Slashed staff across the company. And the Vision Fund that used to write checks for everything? Dead. Any deal over $50 million now requires Son's personal approval. Investment managers who used to hunt for the next big thing are now working full-time on the OpenAI transaction. But it still wasn't enough cash... So Son went to the debt markets. He expanded SoftBank's margin loan capacity by $6.5 billion, bringing total undrawn capacity to $11.5 billion. All of it backed by Arm Holdings stock. If Arm's stock drops, those loans get called. SoftBank faces margin calls. The whole thing unravels. And the risk gets crazier. OpenAI's valuation has tripled since April. Started at $300 billion. Now heading toward $900 billion according to sources. Amazon is reportedly joining the next round. On paper, SoftBank's investment looks brilliant. A 3X return in 8 months. But here's the thing: OpenAI is hemorrhaging cash at a rate that makes Uber's losses look responsible. The company generates $13 billion in annual revenue. Impressive... right? But they're literally projected to LOSE $74 billion by 2028. Not break even with losses. Not approach profitability. $74 billion in the red. Their revenue is growing. Their losses are growing faster. Because AI compute costs don't scale down. They scale UP. Every new ChatGPT user costs OpenAI money. Every API call burns cash. Every model training run requires millions in compute. Sam Altman told employees OpenAI is now in "code red" mode. Pausing all other product launches to focus entirely on beating Google's Gemini. That's the language of desperation. And Altman's long-term vision is even more expensive. He wants to build 30 gigawatts of AI compute capacity. Cost: $1.4 TRILLION. For context, that's larger than Mexico's entire GDP. He wants to add 1 gigawat every single week. Each gigawatt costs over $40 billion. The math doesn't work. The business model doesn't work. The capital requirements are impossible. But Son is betting everything anyway. Why would he do this? Because if it works, he owns the future. If OpenAI becomes the infrastructure layer for the next 20 years of computing, that $22.5 billion turns into trillions. SoftBank becomes the kingmaker of AI. Son becomes the most powerful investor in history. But if it fails? SoftBank vaporizes. The Nvidia stake is gone. Can't get it back. The T-Mobile shares are gone. The margin loans against Arm come due. Son has systematically dismantled his portfolio to concentrate everything into one bet. This is the opposite of diversification. This is the opposite of prudent risk management. This is a founder going all-in on a vision that everyone else thinks is insane. And he might be right. Other investors see it too. That's why OpenAI's valuation tripled in 8 months. BlackRock, Fidelity, and JP Morgan are all writing massive checks to private AI companies. Databricks just raised $4 billion at a $134 billion valuation. The entire market is betting that AI infrastructure will define the next decade. But the difference? They're diversifying. Spreading risk. Building portfolios. Son put everything on one company. The deadline is December 31st. In 9 days, we'll know if SoftBank pulled it off. If they deliver the $22.5 billion on time, the bet stays alive. If they miss the deadline, the deal could collapse. The terms could change. Competitors could swoop in. And Son will have sold the farm for nothing. This is either: The greatest venture bet in history. Or the most reckless financial move since Lehman Brothers. There's no middle ground. Masayoshi Son doesn't do middle ground. He bet big on Alibaba in 2000 and turned $20 million into $60 billion. He bet big on WeWork and lost $14 billion. Now he's betting bigger than ever. $22.5 billion. 9 days. Everything on the line. What would you do?
1:06

I can't believe that the once richest man on earth just bet his entire empire on ONE company. And he has 9 days to pull it off. SoftBank is scrambling to deliver $22.5 billion to OpenAI by December 31st. To get there, CEO Masayoshi Son sold his ENTIRE stake in the best-performing AI stock on the planet. Then sold billions more in other holdings. Cut staff. Froze dealmaking. Borrowed against everything he owns. This is the biggest all-in bet in the past few years. And it might be the most reckless financial engineering since 2008. Here's what's actually happening: SoftBank promised OpenAI $40 billion back in April when the company was valued at $300 billion. The deal had conditions. OpenAI had to convert to a for-profit structure by year-end. They did that in October. Now the clock is ticking. $22.5 billion must arrive in 9 days or the deal breaks. Son already delivered $17.5 billion earlier this year. Getting the rest is proving harder than anyone expected. The moves Son made to raise the cash are absolutely wild: He dumped SoftBank's entire $5.8 billion position in Nvidia. Not trimmed. Not reduced. LIQUIDATED. The same Nvidia that's been printing money for AI investors all year. He sold $4.8 billion worth of T-Mobile shares. Slashed staff across the company. And the Vision Fund that used to write checks for everything? Dead. Any deal over $50 million now requires Son's personal approval. Investment managers who used to hunt for the next big thing are now working full-time on the OpenAI transaction. But it still wasn't enough cash... So Son went to the debt markets. He expanded SoftBank's margin loan capacity by $6.5 billion, bringing total undrawn capacity to $11.5 billion. All of it backed by Arm Holdings stock. If Arm's stock drops, those loans get called. SoftBank faces margin calls. The whole thing unravels. And the risk gets crazier. OpenAI's valuation has tripled since April. Started at $300 billion. Now heading toward $900 billion according to sources. Amazon is reportedly joining the next round. On paper, SoftBank's investment looks brilliant. A 3X return in 8 months. But here's the thing: OpenAI is hemorrhaging cash at a rate that makes Uber's losses look responsible. The company generates $13 billion in annual revenue. Impressive... right? But they're literally projected to LOSE $74 billion by 2028. Not break even with losses. Not approach profitability. $74 billion in the red. Their revenue is growing. Their losses are growing faster. Because AI compute costs don't scale down. They scale UP. Every new ChatGPT user costs OpenAI money. Every API call burns cash. Every model training run requires millions in compute. Sam Altman told employees OpenAI is now in "code red" mode. Pausing all other product launches to focus entirely on beating Google's Gemini. That's the language of desperation. And Altman's long-term vision is even more expensive. He wants to build 30 gigawatts of AI compute capacity. Cost: $1.4 TRILLION. For context, that's larger than Mexico's entire GDP. He wants to add 1 gigawat every single week. Each gigawatt costs over $40 billion. The math doesn't work. The business model doesn't work. The capital requirements are impossible. But Son is betting everything anyway. Why would he do this? Because if it works, he owns the future. If OpenAI becomes the infrastructure layer for the next 20 years of computing, that $22.5 billion turns into trillions. SoftBank becomes the kingmaker of AI. Son becomes the most powerful investor in history. But if it fails? SoftBank vaporizes. The Nvidia stake is gone. Can't get it back. The T-Mobile shares are gone. The margin loans against Arm come due. Son has systematically dismantled his portfolio to concentrate everything into one bet. This is the opposite of diversification. This is the opposite of prudent risk management. This is a founder going all-in on a vision that everyone else thinks is insane. And he might be right. Other investors see it too. That's why OpenAI's valuation tripled in 8 months. BlackRock, Fidelity, and JP Morgan are all writing massive checks to private AI companies. Databricks just raised $4 billion at a $134 billion valuation. The entire market is betting that AI infrastructure will define the next decade. But the difference? They're diversifying. Spreading risk. Building portfolios. Son put everything on one company. The deadline is December 31st. In 9 days, we'll know if SoftBank pulled it off. If they deliver the $22.5 billion on time, the bet stays alive. If they miss the deadline, the deal could collapse. The terms could change. Competitors could swoop in. And Son will have sold the farm for nothing. This is either: The greatest venture bet in history. Or the most reckless financial move since Lehman Brothers. There's no middle ground. Masayoshi Son doesn't do middle ground. He bet big on Alibaba in 2000 and turned $20 million into $60 billion. He bet big on WeWork and lost $14 billion. Now he's betting bigger than ever. $22.5 billion. 9 days. Everything on the line. What would you do?

Ricardo

1,880,484 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

AI is the first technology in history where more customers makes you POORER. Every tech company in history got cheaper as it scaled. More users meant lower costs per user. That's the entire model. That's why Microsoft prints money. That's why Google prints money. That's why Meta prints money. Software has near-zero marginal cost. Build it once. Sell it a billion times. The 100 millionth user costs basically nothing to serve. This is the single most important rule in tech economics. But AI completely broke it. Every single query costs real compute. Every interaction burns real electricity. Every response depreciates real hardware. There is no "build once, sell forever." There is only "burn money every time someone asks a question." And the numbers prove it: OpenAI hit $20 billion in annualized revenue. Losses? $14 billion. For every dollar they earn, they spend $1.69 delivering it. Their losses TRIPLED as their revenue grew. Not because they're bad at business, but simply because the model itself is broken. Anthropic crossed $30 billion in annualized revenue. Still burning billions. Still not profitable. Still raising tens of billions just to keep the lights on. xAI is burning $1 billion every single month. Perplexity spent 164% of its revenue on compute costs from AWS, They literally spent more on running the AI than they made from selling it. This is not how technology is supposed to work. Google once estimated that adding AI to every search query would require 500,000 A100 servers. The cost of answering a single AI query is 10x MORE than a traditional search result. Traditional software: Serving 1 million users costs roughly the same as serving 100,000. The marginal cost is basically zero. AI: Serving 1 million users can cost 10 times what 100,000 costs. Every new user is a new expense. Every new query is a new dollar burned. This is reverse economics. The more successful you become, the faster you die. And nobody in the industry wants to talk about it because the entire narrative depends on you believing AI companies work like software companies. But they don't. They NEVER will. Software scales to infinity. AI scales to bankruptcy. HSBC ran the numbers on OpenAI specifically. Their conclusion: Even after every funding round, every investment, every deal, OpenAI still faces a $207 BILLION shortfall to reach profitability. The industry response has been to raise prices. ChatGPT went from free to $20 to $200 for the Pro plan. And it's still not enough because the cost of running these models grows FASTER than any price increase consumers will accept. Meanwhile 966 AI startups died in 2024. A 25.6% jump from the year before. AI startups burn cash twice as fast as non-AI tech companies. And the ones building on TOP of OpenAI and Anthropic are in even worse shape. Every wrapper app. Every "AI-powered" SaaS tool. Every startup whose entire product is someone else's model with a different skin on it. They're all margin-negative. Every single one. And these are the companies about to IPO. SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cerebras. $240 billion in combined raises planned for 2026. They're asking you to invest in an industry where the fundamental unit economics don't work. Where the MORE customers you get, the MORE money you lose. Where no company has figured out how to make the math positive. The dot-com bubble had the same pitch: "Revenue is growing. Profitability comes later." For most of them, later never came. The question isn't whether AI will change the world. It will. The question is whether it can do it without going broke first. And right now, every single number literally says no. How can they become profitable?
0:26

AI is the first technology in history where more customers makes you POORER. Every tech company in history got cheaper as it scaled. More users meant lower costs per user. That's the entire model. That's why Microsoft prints money. That's why Google prints money. That's why Meta prints money. Software has near-zero marginal cost. Build it once. Sell it a billion times. The 100 millionth user costs basically nothing to serve. This is the single most important rule in tech economics. But AI completely broke it. Every single query costs real compute. Every interaction burns real electricity. Every response depreciates real hardware. There is no "build once, sell forever." There is only "burn money every time someone asks a question." And the numbers prove it: OpenAI hit $20 billion in annualized revenue. Losses? $14 billion. For every dollar they earn, they spend $1.69 delivering it. Their losses TRIPLED as their revenue grew. Not because they're bad at business, but simply because the model itself is broken. Anthropic crossed $30 billion in annualized revenue. Still burning billions. Still not profitable. Still raising tens of billions just to keep the lights on. xAI is burning $1 billion every single month. Perplexity spent 164% of its revenue on compute costs from AWS, They literally spent more on running the AI than they made from selling it. This is not how technology is supposed to work. Google once estimated that adding AI to every search query would require 500,000 A100 servers. The cost of answering a single AI query is 10x MORE than a traditional search result. Traditional software: Serving 1 million users costs roughly the same as serving 100,000. The marginal cost is basically zero. AI: Serving 1 million users can cost 10 times what 100,000 costs. Every new user is a new expense. Every new query is a new dollar burned. This is reverse economics. The more successful you become, the faster you die. And nobody in the industry wants to talk about it because the entire narrative depends on you believing AI companies work like software companies. But they don't. They NEVER will. Software scales to infinity. AI scales to bankruptcy. HSBC ran the numbers on OpenAI specifically. Their conclusion: Even after every funding round, every investment, every deal, OpenAI still faces a $207 BILLION shortfall to reach profitability. The industry response has been to raise prices. ChatGPT went from free to $20 to $200 for the Pro plan. And it's still not enough because the cost of running these models grows FASTER than any price increase consumers will accept. Meanwhile 966 AI startups died in 2024. A 25.6% jump from the year before. AI startups burn cash twice as fast as non-AI tech companies. And the ones building on TOP of OpenAI and Anthropic are in even worse shape. Every wrapper app. Every "AI-powered" SaaS tool. Every startup whose entire product is someone else's model with a different skin on it. They're all margin-negative. Every single one. And these are the companies about to IPO. SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cerebras. $240 billion in combined raises planned for 2026. They're asking you to invest in an industry where the fundamental unit economics don't work. Where the MORE customers you get, the MORE money you lose. Where no company has figured out how to make the math positive. The dot-com bubble had the same pitch: "Revenue is growing. Profitability comes later." For most of them, later never came. The question isn't whether AI will change the world. It will. The question is whether it can do it without going broke first. And right now, every single number literally says no. How can they become profitable?

Ricardo

167,283 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад