正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

OPENAI IS FALLING APART IN REAL TIME I've watched companies implode for decades. This one has all the warning signs. OpenAI declared "Code Red" in December. Altman sent an internal memo telling employees to drop everything because Google's Gemini 3 is eating their lunch. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff publicly...

gnoble79's profile picture

George Noble

110,667 subscribers

3,321,903 次观看 • 6 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治科学技术财经
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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 次观看 • 7 个月前

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

1,880,981 次观看 • 7 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

OpenAI just admitted Anthropic is KILLING their business. Their own applications chief told employees it was a "code red." Said Anthropic was a "wake-up call." Then admitted OpenAI had been "spreading efforts across too many apps" and it was "slowing them down." This is an internal confession. Here's why Anthropic is eating up OpenAI: 12 months ago, OpenAI owned 50% of all enterprise AI spending. Today it's just 27%. Anthropic went from nearly ZERO to winning 70% of every first-time enterprise AI deal. Seven out of ten companies buying AI tools for the first time are choosing Claude over ChatGPT. A year ago, one in 25 businesses on Ramp paid for Anthropic. Today it's one in four. OpenAI just had its biggest single-month adoption decline ever recorded. And Anthropic literally charges MORE than OpenAI for roughly the same performance. And businesses are STILL choosing them. In enterprise software, that never happens. The cheaper product usually wins. But Claude became something OpenAI never figured out how to be: Cool. Celebrities publicly switched to Claude. Senators are tweeting about using it. Engineers are shipping entire products with Claude Code in hours that used to take weeks. It started to became an identity signal. Like blue bubble vs green bubble in iMessage. Choosing Claude says something about you now. Meanwhile OpenAI went the opposite direction: They took the Pentagon contract that Anthropic refused. Greg Brockman donated $25 million to fund wars. ChatGPT uninstalls jumped 295% in a single day. Reddit posts saying "Cancel and Delete ChatGPT" got 30,000 upvotes. Anthropic said no to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Got blacklisted by the Pentagon. Trump called them a "Radical Left AI company." And their downloads went to #1 on the App Store the next day. Turns out refusing to build weapons is good marketing. But the real damage isn't consumer downloads. It's the MONEY. Claude Code hit $2.5 billion in annual revenue in six months. OpenAI's competing product Codex just barely crossed $1 billion. And Anthropic literally cannot meet demand. They're turning away paying customers because they don't have enough compute to serve them. A company REJECTING revenue because it's growing too fast. While OpenAI scrambles to consolidate. Last week OpenAI announced they're merging ChatGPT, Codex, and their browser into one "superapp." But what this really means: "We launched too many products, none of them worked well enough alone, so now we're cramming everything together and hoping it sticks." And remember their video tool Sora? Launched standalone. Hit #1 on the App Store. Usage flatlined within weeks. Now they're forced to shut it down. Their browser Atlas? Still hasn't launched publicly. Their IPO? Polymarket odds dropped from 55% to 35%. OpenAI has 900 million users. Anthropic has maybe 10 million daily actives. But here's the thing... OpenAI won the consumer war. ChatGPT is where your mom asks about recipes and your cousin makes memes. Anthropic won the war that actually MATTERS. The developers. The engineers. The enterprises writing 7 figure checks. OpenAI built the biggest chatbot on Earth. Anthropic built the tool that companies can't stop paying for. This is Yahoo vs Google all over again. Yahoo had the users. Google had the product. And we all know how that ended. OpenAI has 12 months to prove the superapp works, land the IPO, and stop the enterprise bleeding. If they can't, the most valuable startup in history becomes the most cautionary tale in tech. 900 million users don't mean anything if the people who actually pay are walking out the door. What do you think?
2:25

OpenAI just admitted Anthropic is KILLING their business. Their own applications chief told employees it was a "code red." Said Anthropic was a "wake-up call." Then admitted OpenAI had been "spreading efforts across too many apps" and it was "slowing them down." This is an internal confession. Here's why Anthropic is eating up OpenAI: 12 months ago, OpenAI owned 50% of all enterprise AI spending. Today it's just 27%. Anthropic went from nearly ZERO to winning 70% of every first-time enterprise AI deal. Seven out of ten companies buying AI tools for the first time are choosing Claude over ChatGPT. A year ago, one in 25 businesses on Ramp paid for Anthropic. Today it's one in four. OpenAI just had its biggest single-month adoption decline ever recorded. And Anthropic literally charges MORE than OpenAI for roughly the same performance. And businesses are STILL choosing them. In enterprise software, that never happens. The cheaper product usually wins. But Claude became something OpenAI never figured out how to be: Cool. Celebrities publicly switched to Claude. Senators are tweeting about using it. Engineers are shipping entire products with Claude Code in hours that used to take weeks. It started to became an identity signal. Like blue bubble vs green bubble in iMessage. Choosing Claude says something about you now. Meanwhile OpenAI went the opposite direction: They took the Pentagon contract that Anthropic refused. Greg Brockman donated $25 million to fund wars. ChatGPT uninstalls jumped 295% in a single day. Reddit posts saying "Cancel and Delete ChatGPT" got 30,000 upvotes. Anthropic said no to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Got blacklisted by the Pentagon. Trump called them a "Radical Left AI company." And their downloads went to #1 on the App Store the next day. Turns out refusing to build weapons is good marketing. But the real damage isn't consumer downloads. It's the MONEY. Claude Code hit $2.5 billion in annual revenue in six months. OpenAI's competing product Codex just barely crossed $1 billion. And Anthropic literally cannot meet demand. They're turning away paying customers because they don't have enough compute to serve them. A company REJECTING revenue because it's growing too fast. While OpenAI scrambles to consolidate. Last week OpenAI announced they're merging ChatGPT, Codex, and their browser into one "superapp." But what this really means: "We launched too many products, none of them worked well enough alone, so now we're cramming everything together and hoping it sticks." And remember their video tool Sora? Launched standalone. Hit #1 on the App Store. Usage flatlined within weeks. Now they're forced to shut it down. Their browser Atlas? Still hasn't launched publicly. Their IPO? Polymarket odds dropped from 55% to 35%. OpenAI has 900 million users. Anthropic has maybe 10 million daily actives. But here's the thing... OpenAI won the consumer war. ChatGPT is where your mom asks about recipes and your cousin makes memes. Anthropic won the war that actually MATTERS. The developers. The engineers. The enterprises writing 7 figure checks. OpenAI built the biggest chatbot on Earth. Anthropic built the tool that companies can't stop paying for. This is Yahoo vs Google all over again. Yahoo had the users. Google had the product. And we all know how that ended. OpenAI has 12 months to prove the superapp works, land the IPO, and stop the enterprise bleeding. If they can't, the most valuable startup in history becomes the most cautionary tale in tech. 900 million users don't mean anything if the people who actually pay are walking out the door. What do you think?

Ricardo

35,020 次观看 • 4 个月前

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

1,197,555 次观看 • 5 个月前

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

50,720 次观看 • 7 个月前

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 次观看 • 6 个月前

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

167,414 次观看 • 3 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

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

209,440 次观看 • 4 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

Larry Ellison borrowed $125 billion to bet everything on a single customer that LOSES $5 billion a year. American banks are already refusing to lend him another dollar. And now that single customer has started to slowly walk away. This is one of the biggest gambles in tech history - and it’s NOT looking good: Oracle has $124.7 billion in debt on its books right now. That's more than the GDP of 100+ countries. Their free cash flow over the last 12 months? Negative $13.18 billion. They are spending more money than they make. And they're doing it on PURPOSE. Every other hyperscaler funds their AI buildout with cash. Google has cash. Amazon has cash. Microsoft has cash. Oracle has IOUs. They raised $58 billion in debt in just two months. $38 billion for Texas and Wisconsin data centers. $20 billion for New Mexico. And they need another $100 billion on top of that. Even US banks are starting to say no. TD Cowen reported that multiple banks have pulled back from Oracle lending. Borrowing costs have roughly DOUBLED since September. They're now paying interest rates typically reserved for companies rated below investment grade. Barclays downgraded their debt to underweight and warned Oracle could run out of cash by November 2026. So what does Larry Ellison do? He FIRES 30,000 people. Oracle is planning layoffs affecting up to 18% of its entire workforce. The goal is to free up $8 to $10 billion in cash flow just to keep the lights on while they build data centers for ONE customer: OpenAI. Oracle's $553 billion backlog sounds incredible until you realize a massive chunk of it flows through a single relationship. If OpenAI sneezes, Oracle catches pneumonia. And OpenAI is already sneezing... Sam Altman DROPPED plans to expand the Stargate site in Abilene, Texas. And the reason is insane: Nvidia's chips are improving so fast that by the time Oracle finishes building the data center, the processors inside it will already be outdated. Oracle is building with Blackwell chips. But Nvidia's new Vera Rubin platform delivers 5x the inference performance at 10x lower cost per token. So Oracle is borrowing billions to build facilities that will house yesterday's technology before they even open. The world of bits moves faster than the world of atoms. And Oracle is trapped in between. But here's where it gets wild: The earnings call revealed something most people missed... Oracle now REQUIRES certain customers to buy their own GPUs upfront and hand them over. They call it the "bring your own chips" model. Translation: Oracle can't afford the hardware anymore. So they're asking customers to fund the construction of Oracle's OWN data centers. The stock is still down 23% this year even after the 12% earnings pop. Moody's rates Oracle just two notches above junk status. Lower than Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft. And they have $248 billion in ADDITIONAL lease obligations that aren't even on the balance sheet yet. Larry Ellison is 81 years old and making the biggest bet in corporate history. He's trying to turn a legacy database company into a hyperscale AI cloud provider using other people's money. All while his only major customer is a startup that burns $5 billion a year and just had its expansion partner refuse to fund the next campus. The earnings beat was real. Revenue up 22%. Cloud infrastructure up 84%. But revenue growth funded by debt isn't growth. It's leverage. And leverage works both ways. If OpenAI stays loyal, if the Stargate buildout continues, if the debt markets keep lending, if Vera Rubin doesn't make their entire infrastructure obsolete overnight, then Larry Ellison pulled off the greatest corporate reinvention in history. But that's a lot of ifs for a company two notches above junk. Oracle is either the most undervalued AI play on the market or the most overleveraged house of cards since 2008. The next six months will tell us which one.
1:44

Larry Ellison borrowed $125 billion to bet everything on a single customer that LOSES $5 billion a year. American banks are already refusing to lend him another dollar. And now that single customer has started to slowly walk away. This is one of the biggest gambles in tech history - and it’s NOT looking good: Oracle has $124.7 billion in debt on its books right now. That's more than the GDP of 100+ countries. Their free cash flow over the last 12 months? Negative $13.18 billion. They are spending more money than they make. And they're doing it on PURPOSE. Every other hyperscaler funds their AI buildout with cash. Google has cash. Amazon has cash. Microsoft has cash. Oracle has IOUs. They raised $58 billion in debt in just two months. $38 billion for Texas and Wisconsin data centers. $20 billion for New Mexico. And they need another $100 billion on top of that. Even US banks are starting to say no. TD Cowen reported that multiple banks have pulled back from Oracle lending. Borrowing costs have roughly DOUBLED since September. They're now paying interest rates typically reserved for companies rated below investment grade. Barclays downgraded their debt to underweight and warned Oracle could run out of cash by November 2026. So what does Larry Ellison do? He FIRES 30,000 people. Oracle is planning layoffs affecting up to 18% of its entire workforce. The goal is to free up $8 to $10 billion in cash flow just to keep the lights on while they build data centers for ONE customer: OpenAI. Oracle's $553 billion backlog sounds incredible until you realize a massive chunk of it flows through a single relationship. If OpenAI sneezes, Oracle catches pneumonia. And OpenAI is already sneezing... Sam Altman DROPPED plans to expand the Stargate site in Abilene, Texas. And the reason is insane: Nvidia's chips are improving so fast that by the time Oracle finishes building the data center, the processors inside it will already be outdated. Oracle is building with Blackwell chips. But Nvidia's new Vera Rubin platform delivers 5x the inference performance at 10x lower cost per token. So Oracle is borrowing billions to build facilities that will house yesterday's technology before they even open. The world of bits moves faster than the world of atoms. And Oracle is trapped in between. But here's where it gets wild: The earnings call revealed something most people missed... Oracle now REQUIRES certain customers to buy their own GPUs upfront and hand them over. They call it the "bring your own chips" model. Translation: Oracle can't afford the hardware anymore. So they're asking customers to fund the construction of Oracle's OWN data centers. The stock is still down 23% this year even after the 12% earnings pop. Moody's rates Oracle just two notches above junk status. Lower than Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Microsoft. And they have $248 billion in ADDITIONAL lease obligations that aren't even on the balance sheet yet. Larry Ellison is 81 years old and making the biggest bet in corporate history. He's trying to turn a legacy database company into a hyperscale AI cloud provider using other people's money. All while his only major customer is a startup that burns $5 billion a year and just had its expansion partner refuse to fund the next campus. The earnings beat was real. Revenue up 22%. Cloud infrastructure up 84%. But revenue growth funded by debt isn't growth. It's leverage. And leverage works both ways. If OpenAI stays loyal, if the Stargate buildout continues, if the debt markets keep lending, if Vera Rubin doesn't make their entire infrastructure obsolete overnight, then Larry Ellison pulled off the greatest corporate reinvention in history. But that's a lot of ifs for a company two notches above junk. Oracle is either the most undervalued AI play on the market or the most overleveraged house of cards since 2008. The next six months will tell us which one.

Ricardo

181,176 次观看 • 5 个月前

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

27,880,578 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨 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 次观看 • 1 个月前

OpenAI is falling apart right now. 9 of their most important leaders have left the company recently, and Altman is about to ask the public to buy the stock. 2 of them even walked out within 72 hours of OpenAI handing its own staff $7 billion in cash... On Monday, August 10, OpenAI completed a deal letting current and former employees sell roughly $7 billion worth of their shares. The price valued the company at $852 billion, the exact same number as its March funding round. On Tuesday, August 11, Brad Lightcap announced he was leaving after 8 years. He spent 4 of them as chief financial officer, then ran the company as chief operating officer from 2022 until April. He worked alongside Sam Altman at Y Combinator before OpenAI existed. On Thursday, August 13, chief revenue officer Denise Dresser announced she was leaving. She was hired in December from Salesforce, where she had been the CEO of Slack. In April she took over most of Lightcap's responsibilities. She lasted 8 months. The cash window opened Monday. By Thursday both executives who ran the business side were gone. But what's interesting is who actually wrote the $7 billion cheque: Every previous time OpenAI let its employees cash out, an outside investor bought the shares. In October, Thrive Capital, SoftBank and others put up $6.6 billion at a valuation near $500 billion. There was a $1.5 billion version of the same deal in 2024. This time OpenAI bought the shares back itself, using its OWN money. So no outside investor put a single dollar behind that $852 billion price. The company named its own number and then paid it. This is a business generating around $2 billion a month while losing roughly $1.22 for every single dollar it earns. And it just spent $7 billion of that cash buying its own stock at a number no third party ever tested. Here is the full list of the people who left since April: - Bill Peebles, who ran the Sora video app - Kevin Weil, vice president of OpenAI for Science - Srinivas Narayanan, technology chief of B2B applications - Kate Rouch, chief marketing officer - Josh Achiam, chief futurist, after nearly nine years - Johannes Heidecke, head of Safety Systems - Chloe Bakalar, the only person at OpenAI whose entire job was ethics - Brad Lightcap - Denise Dresser Bakalar left in July. OpenAI never announced it, and NOBODY has replaced her. Fidji Simo stepped down the same month, and two thirds of the organization had been reporting to her. Greg Brockman absorbed most of her job. He also introduced Dresser's replacement this week, a Wiz executive named Dali Rajic. OpenAI filed its IPO paperwork confidentially on June 8. The full prospectus, the one with audited financials in it, still has not appeared. So the order of operations is worth sitting with... File the paperwork in June. Buy your insiders out in August at a price you set yourself. Watch the people who built the commercial side leave that same week. Then show the public the books. Retail investors will see those numbers for the first time in a document written after every one of these people had already made their decision. Sam Altman told staff in June that he expects to go public within the next year. Reporting since then has pointed at 2027 instead, and a tender offer of this size is usually what a company does when the listing is not close. Here is what I think happens next: That prospectus lands with a revenue line big enough to carry the story, and the executive turnover gets buried in the risk factors where almost nobody reads. The people who priced OpenAI at $852 billion this month were the same people who took the money out of it; and the next set of buyers will not get that arrangement.
1:10

OpenAI is falling apart right now. 9 of their most important leaders have left the company recently, and Altman is about to ask the public to buy the stock. 2 of them even walked out within 72 hours of OpenAI handing its own staff $7 billion in cash... On Monday, August 10, OpenAI completed a deal letting current and former employees sell roughly $7 billion worth of their shares. The price valued the company at $852 billion, the exact same number as its March funding round. On Tuesday, August 11, Brad Lightcap announced he was leaving after 8 years. He spent 4 of them as chief financial officer, then ran the company as chief operating officer from 2022 until April. He worked alongside Sam Altman at Y Combinator before OpenAI existed. On Thursday, August 13, chief revenue officer Denise Dresser announced she was leaving. She was hired in December from Salesforce, where she had been the CEO of Slack. In April she took over most of Lightcap's responsibilities. She lasted 8 months. The cash window opened Monday. By Thursday both executives who ran the business side were gone. But what's interesting is who actually wrote the $7 billion cheque: Every previous time OpenAI let its employees cash out, an outside investor bought the shares. In October, Thrive Capital, SoftBank and others put up $6.6 billion at a valuation near $500 billion. There was a $1.5 billion version of the same deal in 2024. This time OpenAI bought the shares back itself, using its OWN money. So no outside investor put a single dollar behind that $852 billion price. The company named its own number and then paid it. This is a business generating around $2 billion a month while losing roughly $1.22 for every single dollar it earns. And it just spent $7 billion of that cash buying its own stock at a number no third party ever tested. Here is the full list of the people who left since April: - Bill Peebles, who ran the Sora video app - Kevin Weil, vice president of OpenAI for Science - Srinivas Narayanan, technology chief of B2B applications - Kate Rouch, chief marketing officer - Josh Achiam, chief futurist, after nearly nine years - Johannes Heidecke, head of Safety Systems - Chloe Bakalar, the only person at OpenAI whose entire job was ethics - Brad Lightcap - Denise Dresser Bakalar left in July. OpenAI never announced it, and NOBODY has replaced her. Fidji Simo stepped down the same month, and two thirds of the organization had been reporting to her. Greg Brockman absorbed most of her job. He also introduced Dresser's replacement this week, a Wiz executive named Dali Rajic. OpenAI filed its IPO paperwork confidentially on June 8. The full prospectus, the one with audited financials in it, still has not appeared. So the order of operations is worth sitting with... File the paperwork in June. Buy your insiders out in August at a price you set yourself. Watch the people who built the commercial side leave that same week. Then show the public the books. Retail investors will see those numbers for the first time in a document written after every one of these people had already made their decision. Sam Altman told staff in June that he expects to go public within the next year. Reporting since then has pointed at 2027 instead, and a tender offer of this size is usually what a company does when the listing is not close. Here is what I think happens next: That prospectus lands with a revenue line big enough to carry the story, and the executive turnover gets buried in the risk factors where almost nobody reads. The people who priced OpenAI at $852 billion this month were the same people who took the money out of it; and the next set of buyers will not get that arrangement.

Ricardo

82,812 次观看 • 11 小时前

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

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

Ricardo

159,345 次观看 • 3 个月前

SAM ALTMAN IS PULLING OFF THE BIGGEST THEFT IN TECH HISTORY And his $100B Nvidia deal just collapsed because Jensen Huang caught on to his schemes. IT'S OVER FOR OPENAI But he's STILL trying to raise another $100B+ from Amazon, SoftBank, and sovereign wealth funds. The largest private VC round in history. But the numbers make zero sense. Let me break down why (Scam) Altman is the biggest grifter tech has ever seen: Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Nvidia's $100B investment in OpenAI has completely stalled. The deal announced with tremendous fanfare in September? Dead. Jensen Huang privately told industry associates the agreement was "non-binding and not finalized." It was basically just a a press release designed to pump OpenAI's valuation. Meanwhile, Altman is flying around the world desperately seeking $100B more at an $830B valuation. Amazon is reportedly in talks for up to $50B. SoftBank just completed $41B and is discussing another $30B. The Financial Times called OpenAI an "era-defining money furnace." They're being kind. The actual numbers: OpenAI burned $8B in 2025. They project burning $17B in 2026. $35B in 2027. $47B in 2028. Cumulative cash burn through 2029? $115B. Yet they're valued at 65x revenue. At $13B in 2025 revenue and an $830B valuation, OpenAI trades at a multiple that doesn't exist in conventional SaaS benchmarking. Even in 2021, at the peak of the tech bubble, Snowflake only hit 50-80x. Meanwhile, Altman's promises keep evaporating. In May 2024, he said: "Ads plus AI is uniquely unsettling to me." He called advertising a "last resort." 20 months later: OpenAI announced ads in ChatGPT. The "last resort" arrived right on schedule. And the nonprofit-to-for-profit conversion is even worse... OpenAI started as a nonprofit with a mission to "benefit humanity." Elon Musk donated $38M based on that promise. Now the nonprofit foundation holds just 26% of the for-profit OpenAI Group. Microsoft owns 27%. Employees and investors own 47%. Greg Brockman's own words from the early days: "If we succeed, we believe we'll create orders of magnitude more value than any existing company, in which case all but a fraction is returned to the world." That fraction? It's now the majority going to private investors. Then there's Worldcoin. Altman's OTHER venture scans people's eyeballs in exchange for cryptocurrency. Kenya ordered the company to delete all biometric data after a court ruled they collected it without valid consent. Thailand demanded destruction of 1.2M iris scans. Spain banned operations. Portugal issued a 3 month suspension. Indonesia launched investigations. Hong Kong raided their offices. The pattern: target lower-income communities, offer crypto incentives, collect irreplaceable biometric data. But sure. Let's trust Sam Altman with $830B. Here's the investment reality: OpenAI projects positive cash flow in 2029 or 2030. That's assuming revenue hits $200B annually. They need 70-75% growth every year for five straight years. Only a handful of companies in history have achieved that. Meanwhile, their market share is eroding. Enterprise AI leadership dropped from 50% to 34% as Anthropic and Google gain ground. Anthropic expects to break even in 2028. OpenAI expects $74B in operating losses that same year. The company needs constant fundraising to survive. If markets cool on AI, the entire model collapses. This bait-and-switch scheme is so obvious and yet it succeeds: Promise world-changing technology. Burn through investor capital. Break every promise when the cash gets tight. The nonprofit mission: Gone The "no ads" promise: Gone The safety commitments that got former researchers to resign: Gone The $100B Nvidia deal: Gone What remains is a company valued at $830B that can't turn a profit, led by a CEO who built his fortune elsewhere while preaching about humanity's benefit. That's the oldest con in Silicon Valley. NOT innovation.
2:00

SAM ALTMAN IS PULLING OFF THE BIGGEST THEFT IN TECH HISTORY And his $100B Nvidia deal just collapsed because Jensen Huang caught on to his schemes. IT'S OVER FOR OPENAI But he's STILL trying to raise another $100B+ from Amazon, SoftBank, and sovereign wealth funds. The largest private VC round in history. But the numbers make zero sense. Let me break down why (Scam) Altman is the biggest grifter tech has ever seen: Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Nvidia's $100B investment in OpenAI has completely stalled. The deal announced with tremendous fanfare in September? Dead. Jensen Huang privately told industry associates the agreement was "non-binding and not finalized." It was basically just a a press release designed to pump OpenAI's valuation. Meanwhile, Altman is flying around the world desperately seeking $100B more at an $830B valuation. Amazon is reportedly in talks for up to $50B. SoftBank just completed $41B and is discussing another $30B. The Financial Times called OpenAI an "era-defining money furnace." They're being kind. The actual numbers: OpenAI burned $8B in 2025. They project burning $17B in 2026. $35B in 2027. $47B in 2028. Cumulative cash burn through 2029? $115B. Yet they're valued at 65x revenue. At $13B in 2025 revenue and an $830B valuation, OpenAI trades at a multiple that doesn't exist in conventional SaaS benchmarking. Even in 2021, at the peak of the tech bubble, Snowflake only hit 50-80x. Meanwhile, Altman's promises keep evaporating. In May 2024, he said: "Ads plus AI is uniquely unsettling to me." He called advertising a "last resort." 20 months later: OpenAI announced ads in ChatGPT. The "last resort" arrived right on schedule. And the nonprofit-to-for-profit conversion is even worse... OpenAI started as a nonprofit with a mission to "benefit humanity." Elon Musk donated $38M based on that promise. Now the nonprofit foundation holds just 26% of the for-profit OpenAI Group. Microsoft owns 27%. Employees and investors own 47%. Greg Brockman's own words from the early days: "If we succeed, we believe we'll create orders of magnitude more value than any existing company, in which case all but a fraction is returned to the world." That fraction? It's now the majority going to private investors. Then there's Worldcoin. Altman's OTHER venture scans people's eyeballs in exchange for cryptocurrency. Kenya ordered the company to delete all biometric data after a court ruled they collected it without valid consent. Thailand demanded destruction of 1.2M iris scans. Spain banned operations. Portugal issued a 3 month suspension. Indonesia launched investigations. Hong Kong raided their offices. The pattern: target lower-income communities, offer crypto incentives, collect irreplaceable biometric data. But sure. Let's trust Sam Altman with $830B. Here's the investment reality: OpenAI projects positive cash flow in 2029 or 2030. That's assuming revenue hits $200B annually. They need 70-75% growth every year for five straight years. Only a handful of companies in history have achieved that. Meanwhile, their market share is eroding. Enterprise AI leadership dropped from 50% to 34% as Anthropic and Google gain ground. Anthropic expects to break even in 2028. OpenAI expects $74B in operating losses that same year. The company needs constant fundraising to survive. If markets cool on AI, the entire model collapses. This bait-and-switch scheme is so obvious and yet it succeeds: Promise world-changing technology. Burn through investor capital. Break every promise when the cash gets tight. The nonprofit mission: Gone The "no ads" promise: Gone The safety commitments that got former researchers to resign: Gone The $100B Nvidia deal: Gone What remains is a company valued at $830B that can't turn a profit, led by a CEO who built his fortune elsewhere while preaching about humanity's benefit. That's the oldest con in Silicon Valley. NOT innovation.

George Noble

590,436 次观看 • 6 个月前

🚨🇺🇸 OPENAI DECLARES "CODE RED" AS GOOGLE AND ANTHROPIC EAT THEIR LUNCH Sam Altman has sent an internal memo telling OpenAI employees to drop everything and focus on fixing ChatGPT. Jason Calacanis from the All In Podcast: "A Code Red has been called by Sam Altman. He sent a memo on Monday, told employees to stop working on side quests, you know, like ads, et cetera, and focus on the core ChatGPT experience. Make it faster, make it better. And I think we all know why, because Gemini and Claude from Anthropic have been crushing it. ChatGPT 5, let's call it what it is, was a bit of a flop. It didn't perform to expectations. And Anthropic is beating OpenAI in enterprise revenue." For those of you unaware, Google released Gemini 3 last month, which surpassed ChatGPT in a range of benchmark tests and set a new record on "Humanity's Last Exam," a test designed to identify artificial superintelligence. Altman publicly called Gemini 3 a "great model." Privately, he told staff ChatGPT had fallen behind and they're "catching up fast." And then there's Grok. Elon Musk xAI started years behind everyone else and is already nipping at OpenAI's heels. OpenAI was supposed to be the unbeatable first mover. Now they're playing defense while the competition sprints ahead. The AI wars just got real. Source: The Information, Wall Street Journal, The All-In Podcast
0:36

🚨🇺🇸 OPENAI DECLARES "CODE RED" AS GOOGLE AND ANTHROPIC EAT THEIR LUNCH Sam Altman has sent an internal memo telling OpenAI employees to drop everything and focus on fixing ChatGPT. Jason Calacanis from the All In Podcast: "A Code Red has been called by Sam Altman. He sent a memo on Monday, told employees to stop working on side quests, you know, like ads, et cetera, and focus on the core ChatGPT experience. Make it faster, make it better. And I think we all know why, because Gemini and Claude from Anthropic have been crushing it. ChatGPT 5, let's call it what it is, was a bit of a flop. It didn't perform to expectations. And Anthropic is beating OpenAI in enterprise revenue." For those of you unaware, Google released Gemini 3 last month, which surpassed ChatGPT in a range of benchmark tests and set a new record on "Humanity's Last Exam," a test designed to identify artificial superintelligence. Altman publicly called Gemini 3 a "great model." Privately, he told staff ChatGPT had fallen behind and they're "catching up fast." And then there's Grok. Elon Musk xAI started years behind everyone else and is already nipping at OpenAI's heels. OpenAI was supposed to be the unbeatable first mover. Now they're playing defense while the competition sprints ahead. The AI wars just got real. Source: The Information, Wall Street Journal, The All-In Podcast

Mario Nawfal

65,725 次观看 • 8 个月前