全部推文
共 6436 条 · 第 178 / 215 页 · 滚到底自动加载更多
-
博主感谢粉丝@soulbiri1 从始至终的忠实支持。
@soulbiri1 @RJCcapital @pepemoonboy @retail_mourinho @DeepValueBagger @soulbiri1 从第一天起就是我（研究）最忠实的“实验对象”之一！
英文原文
@soulbiri1 @RJCcapital @pepemoonboy @retail_mourinho @DeepValueBagger @soulbiri1 has been one of my most loyal subjects from day 1!
-
博主感谢多位用户并分享链接。
@RJCcapital @pepemoonboy @retail_mourinho @DeepValueBagger 谢谢 https://t.co/Hcz8Lw9zMG
英文原文
@RJCcapital @pepemoonboy @retail_mourinho @DeepValueBagger thx https://t.co/Hcz8Lw9zMG
-
对比WULF与IREN订单规模，批评无解释发帖。
@AustranSkolSwft 哪一个才具有侮辱性？是来自 $GOOGL/Anthropic 拥有数百亿积压订单的 $WULF，还是拥有来自 $MSFT 超90亿美元订单的 $IREN。发布这样的内容却不加任何解释，并没有太大帮助。
英文原文
@AustranSkolSwft Which one is insulting? $WULF with tens of billions of backlog from $GOOGL/Anthropic or $IREN with $9B+ from $MSFT. Posting that with no explanation is not very helpful.
-
Gemini 3 Pro/Antigravity 处理简单CSS任务时导致项目文件及备份全部损坏。
试用了 Gemini 3 Pro/Antigravity 处理一个简单的 CSS 任务。结果它摧毁并损坏了：-> 我的项目文件 -> 然后是备份文件 + 整个项目（仅为了添加简单的 CSS）。Antigravity 存在许多严重错误，希望贵团队能修复（Antigravity 规划模式及其他模型相比也没好多少）。
英文原文
Tried out Gemini 3 Pro/Antigravity for a simple CSS task. It wiped out and corrupted: -> my project files -> then the backup ones + the entire project for a simple CSS addition. There's a lot of critical errors with Antigravity that I hope your team will fix (antigrativity planning mode + other models didn't do much better compared).
-
博主吐槽AI工具搞乱代码，表示不再使用。
@RobW16856727 @MengTo @antigravity 哈哈，在 Gemini/Antigravity 刚刚因为一个简单的 CSS/JS 提示就搞乱了我公司的前端代码库后，我绝对不会再使用它了。如果能提前知道就好了。
英文原文
@RobW16856727 @MengTo @antigravity lol I'm definitely not using Gemini/Antigravity again after it just corrupted my company frontend codebase on a simple CSS/JS prompt. Would have been nice to know beforehand
-
吐槽 Gemini 3 前端表现差且误删文件，批评其 IDE 缺乏 Git 保护。
发现 Gemini 3 在前端开发上的表现极差，尤其是处理 SVG/渐变叠加等复杂 CSS 任务时。Antigravity 更是雪上加霜。 我一直使用 @cursor_ai 进行开发，所以想试试你们用 Gemini 3 + Antigravity 的提示词。 第一次运行这些提示词示例就删除了我的文件和备份，而且没有 Git 备份（因为是前端项目）。 非常愤怒，虽然这不是你们的错，但我尝试了一个新产品，而 @_mohansolo @demishassabis 编写了一个不初始化 Git 的 IDE，一旦它清除了整个公司项目和备份，就无法撤销更改。
英文原文
Found Gemini 3 performance to be extremely subpar for frontend, especially more complex CSS tasks like layering SVGs/gradients. Antigravity is the cherry on top. I've been developing with @cursor_ai for awhile, so wanted to try out your prompt with Gemini3 + Antigravity. First run with these prompt examples wiped out my files and backup with no git backup (since this is frontend). Extremely pissed, not your fault I tried a new product where @_mohansolo @demishassabis coded an IDE that doesn't init Git and then can't revert changes if it wipes your entire company project and backups.
-
吐槽Gemini 3模型导致项目数据全毁
@MengTo 我尝试用 @antigravity 运行 Gemini 3，这大概是我试过的最烂的 💩 大语言模型(LLM)。 我原封不动地使用了你的提示词(Prompt) -> 整个项目被清空 -> 备份被清空 -> 项目被清空。 谢谢 https://t.co/RTaDYHYBoE
英文原文
@MengTo Gemini 3 is probably the biggest piece of 💩LLM I've ever tried with @antigravity. Tried your prompt verbatim -> Wiped out entire project -> Wiped out backups -> Wiped out project. Thanks https://t.co/RTaDYHYBoE
-
分析GLXY评级高于APLD的原因及Coreweave风险
是的，如果仅如你所说比较高性能计算(HPC)板块，我可能会将 $GLXY 降级至与 $APLD 相同的 C 级。但由于其其他业务板块，其资产负债表要稳健得多，因此需要动用较少的债务/信贷额度，这就是它评级更高的原因。他们还从事大量其他业务，如与 $HOOD 竞争的经纪业务、加密货币流动性提供商等，这改善了自由现金流(FCF)，但这样比较有点不公平。他们确实通过与 $CRWV 在 Helios 园区的合作获得了长期的超大规模客户可见性，当时的利率约为 9.10%。但这方面的 downside 是 Coreweave，且其破产的可能性不为零。
英文原文
Yeah I'd might move $GLXY down to a C tier alongside $APLD if we just had to compare HPC sector as you mentioned. But because of their other segments, their balance sheet is vastly better so they had to tap into less debt/crdit facilitaties, which is why it's a grade higher. They do a ton of other stuff like $HOOD competitor brokerage, crypto liquidity providers, etc. and it improves fcf but a bit of an unfair comparison. They do have long term hyperscaler visibility with $CRWV on their Helios campus with the the interest rate was ≈9.10%. Downside of that is Coreweave, and there's a nonzero chance it goes under.
-
对比IREN与NBIS短期容量优势及长期利润率，并提及GLXY会计处理。
简单定性回复：$IREN 确实前置了连接容量(Connected Capacity)，若从该角度（例如 2026 年上半年 1+ GW）对比 $NBIS 2026 年下半年的 1 GW，$IREN 胜出，且应利用这段时间签署更多合同。长期来看，Nebius 在两者间实现容量持平，且凭借全栈(Full-Stack)而非纯 IaaS 拥有更高利润率，这在 $MSFT 合同的每兆瓦营收中已有所体现。我记得曾对电力成本与利润率做过定量拆解，发现在 Oracle TI 事件中，利用率/编排(Utilization/Orchestration)比廉价电力更重要。关于 $NBIS 的趣闻：他们在 NJ 300 MW 设施的新绿地(Greenfield)站点与 Dataone 合作采用新的表后(Behind the Meter)方案，但短期可能落后于 $IREN。我不是能源专家，所以不个人预测天然气管道改造估算，仅采用管理层对连接/签约容量的预测。关于 $GLXY，同意加密货币会计处理的观点。这在加权时并非考量因素。
英文原文
So just a quick qualitative reply, $IREN does frontload connected capacity and if you go from that standpoint (eg. 1+ GW H1 2026) vs. 1 GW from $NBIS H2 2026, $IREN wins and should be using that time to sign more contracts. Longer term, Nebius achieves capacity parity between the two and has higher margins from full-stack vs. pure iaas and you saw this from the revenue per mw from the $MSFT contract. I remember doing a quantitative breakdown on power costs with margins and found that utilization/orchestration mattered vs. cheap power during that Oracle TI fiasco. Fun fact about $NBIS, they have new behind the meter approaches with dataone on their greenfield sites with power generation on their 300 MW facility in NJ., but probably lags near term to $IREN. I'm not an energy expert so I won't personally go into projections regarding natural gas pipelines conversion estimates, so just going with connected/contracted capacity projections from management. For $GLXY agreed about the crypto accounting. That wasn't a factor when doing weighting.
-
询问用户关于NBIS持仓成本价的问题。
@DanielTan64198 $NBIS 的成本价是 119 美元吗？ https://t.co/N9VVLPheIm
英文原文
@DanielTan64198 $119 cost basis on $NBIS? https://t.co/N9VVLPheIm
-
讨论DGXX执行风险及CIFR受加密货币拖累，关注HPC板块。
是的，我很欣赏与你的交流，相比许多其他成员*咳咳 $IREN*，因为你补充了一些关于 $DGXX 的定性观点，并改变了我对执行风险的看法。对加密货币的依赖因比特币资产负债表拖累了 $CIFR 和许多其他公司，但我更关注高性能计算(HPC)板块。但正如你所说，这是主观排名，我相信每个人的名单都会不同。
英文原文
Yep, I appreciate talking with you compared to many other members *cough cough $IREN*, since you added some good qualitative points about $DGXX and changed my mind about execution risk. Attachment to crypto did drag down $CIFR and many others because of BTC balance sheets, but I paid more attention to HPC segments. But as you mentioned, it's subjective ranking, and I'm sure the list would be different per-person.
-
Coreweave全栈虽强但现金流紧张且依赖OpenAI，风险巨大。
同意。但关于 @_melonBird 引用的 SemiAnalysis 对 $CRWV 的排名，我认同该表格。Coreweave 和 $NBIS 是整个 Neocloud 领域中唯二在“全栈”方面做得扎实的。Coreweave 花了多年时间和数十亿美元进行收购，以完善软件。然而，当你查看公司财务报表时，该表格毫无意义。Coreweave 仅剩 19 亿美元现金等价物，且每年面临 12 亿美元以上的债务利息。在信贷收紧期间，他们还需要为其他超大规模云厂商合同的建设筹集更多资金（而像 $NBIS 这样规模小得多的玩家却有 49 亿美元以上用于资本支出）。此外，其 1/3（220 亿美元以上）的积压订单来自 OpenAI，而 OpenAI 尚未获得履行该 1 万亿美元以上承诺的资金，$CRWV / $ORCL 正在为他们建设产能，这构成了巨大风险。
英文原文
Agreed. But to @_melonBird with the SemiAnalysis ranking on $CRWV, I agree with that table. Coreweave and $NBIS are the two with full-stack nailed down in the whole Neocloud sector. Coreweave spent many years and billions of USD on acquisitions to get software right. However, that table doesn't mean anything when you look at company financials. Coreweave only has $1.9B cash equivalent left and faces $1.2B+ a year from debt interest. And they'd need to raise more for buildout for their other hyperscaler contracts during a period of credit tightening (when much smaller players like $NBIS has $4.9B+ to spend on capex) On top, 1/3 ($22B+) of their backlog comes from OpenAi which has no funding for that $1T+ promised yet, and $CRWV / $ORCL is building out capacity for them, which presents a massive risk.
-
澄清对BITF、SLNH等股评级，讨论NBIS产能及SMCI、DGXX风险。
所以我认为你是在回复我从未提出的观点。澄清一下：我没有对 $BITF 进行评级。如果你读了我的帖子，它属于未评级类别，所以我不会辩论它与 $WYFI 或 $SLNH 相比的位置。 至于 $SLNH，我们在任何观点上都没有分歧，我也将其列为 F 级，因为它是一只炒作股，其“2.8GW 产能”建设计划需要过度的债务/稀释。 你说关于 $NBIS “它与比特币挖矿的关联程度以及他们是否拥有电力”——我会把这当作口误，认为你是在用比特币挖矿指代 $CLSK，而你指的是 $NBIS 的产能。 $NBIS 在产能方面实现了与 $IREN 的近乎长期平价，后者被认为是行业中 GW 产能最高的玩家。所以我认为那部分是不正确的。 至于关于 $SMCI 作为可靠/值得信赖的合作伙伴的论点，我某种程度上不同意，但你确实改变了我的想法，认为 $DGXX 具有更低的运营和技术执行风险。 除此之外，那部分并不会真正改变排名，例如将其与 $APLD 并列，后者有 2 个超大规模云厂商合同（如果包括 $CRWV），但存在垃圾债券（收入可见性）的下行风险。 如果你想仅因市值带来的回报潜力而将其与 $CLSK 并列，我会同意。
英文原文
So I think you're replying to points I never made. Just to clarify: I didn't rate $BITF. If you read my post, it fell into the unrated category, so I'm not debating where it goes in comparison with $WYFI or $SLNH. As for $SLNH, we're not disagreeing on anything I put it as F tier as well since it's a hype stock that requires excessive debt/dilution on their "2.8GW capacity" buildout plans. You said for $NBIS "how attached it is to Bitcoin Mining and if they own their power" - I'll take that as a mispeak and that you were using Bitcoin mining in reference with $CLSK, and that you were referencing capacity for $NBIS +. $NBIS achieved near long-term parity with $IREN from the capacity side, which is associated as the highest GW capacity player in the industry. So I'd argue that part is incorrect. So as for $SMCI being a reliable/trustworthy partner argument, I sort of disagree, but you did change my mind regarding $DGXX having lower operational and technical execution risk. That aside, that part wouldn't really change rankings, eg. putting it the same as $APLD which has 2 hyperscaler contracts (if you include $CRWV) but downside from junk bonds (revenue visibility) If you wanted to put it on par with $CLSK just due to return potential from MC size, I'd give you that.
-
分析NBIS融资优势及高利润率，认为其抗风险能力强于同行。
当然，我从产能融资的角度将 $NBIS 列为 S 级，因为它不受影响其他数据中心（DC）股票（如被迫发行垃圾债的 $APLD）的信贷紧缩影响。 从第三季度财报来看，$CRWV 面临 12.1 亿至 12.5 亿美元的利息支出，而现金等价物仅为 19.4 亿美元。 其他新云（neocloud）板块股票需要更多现金来资助建设并实现吉瓦（GW）产能变现，例如 $IREN，且将面临更高的利率或缺乏融资兴趣（如可转换债券）。 这大概就是板块抛售的原因，但部分抛售相对不合理（例如 $NBIS、$CIFR）。 对于 $NBIS，你可能关注的是其 25 亿美元的自动取款机（ATM）增发。凭借现有的 48 亿美元以上现金，他们足以支持全栈建设和产能变现，并可根据与 $META、$MSFT 的可见收入合同扩展未来产能。 但我个人对其 ATM 增发并不满意，因为这会增加成本影响股价，并抵消 11 月 24 日纳入 MSCI 指数带来的资金流入。 但 $NBIS 拥有 70-90 亿美元的年度经常性收入（ARR），拥有行业最高利润率，鉴于其 200 亿美元市值，这足以抵消 10% 的稀释和可转换债券的影响。
英文原文
Sure, I put $NBIS as S tier from that capacity funding angle because it's isolated from credit tightening affecting other DC stocks like $APLD (that had to sell junk bonds). From Q3 earnings, $CRWV is facing $1.21-$1.25B in interest expenses and only has $1.94 billion in cash equivalents. Other neocloud sector stocks will need more to cash fund buildout + monetize GW capacity ike $IREN, and will face higher interest rates or lack of funding interest (eg. convertibles). This is kind of why we're seeing a sector selloff, but some were relatively undeserved (eg. $NBIS, $CIFR). With $NBIS you're probably looking at their $2.5B ATM offering. With their existing $4.8B+ in cash, they have enough for their full-stack buildout and capacity monetization + and can scale future capacity from visible revenue contracts with $META, $MSFT. But I'm personally not happy with their ATM, since it's an overhead affecting stock price + balances out inflows from MSCI inclusion in 2 days Nov 24th. But $NBIS with $7-9B ARR has the highest margins in the industry, which would offset 10% dilution and convertibles given their $20B marketcap.
-
Coreweave因高债务和OpenAI依赖被评F级，NBIS更优。
如果你花30秒读一下帖子，就会发现我并没有给 $BITF 评级。 关于 $CRWV，短期有上涨空间，因为抛售至60美元区间确实过度了。但中长期的债务利息负担过重。 相比之下，$NBIS 和 $IREN 通过可转换债券融资或低利息，每季度对利润率的侵蚀很小；而 Coreweave 每年支付的债务利息超过12亿美元。 此外，OpenAI 占其总积压订单的三分之一。虽然他们拥有一些有防御性的大型超大规模客户（$META, $MSFT）以及 $NVDA 的背书，但像 $ORCL 那样为 OpenAI 建设基础设施，鉴于其缺乏收入以及 Gemini ($GOOGL) 的竞争，存在相当大的风险。 因此，尽管 Coreweave 是备受好评的全栈式服务供应商，但由于荒谬的债务利息侵蚀利润率，加上积压订单高度集中于 OpenAI（合同不确定性），其评级为 F 级，而这并不影响像 $NBIS 这样多元化的全栈式服务供应商。
英文原文
If you spent just 30 seconds reading the post, you would see I didn't rate $BITF. With $CRWV there's short term upside because sell-off was way too much to the $60s. But medium-long term they have way too much debt interest. While $NBIS and $IREN funds through convertibles or little interest cutting into margins every quarter, Coreweave pays over $1.2B+ in annual debt expense interest. OpenAI also makes up 1/3th of their total backlog, so while they have some defensible hyperscalers ( $META, $MSFT) + $NVDA backstop, building out for OpenAI like $ORCL, presents considerable risk given their lack of revenue + Gemini $GOOGL competition. So they are F tier despite being a highly rated full-stack offering due to absurd debt interest cutting into margins + large concentration of backlog from OpenAI (contract uncertainty) that don't affect diversified full-stack offerings like $NBIS.
-
作者将DGXX评为D级，指出其营收无锚定租户且执行风险高，但现金充裕，区别于其他同行。
我确实做了评级，将 $DGXX 评为 D 级。最初我像对待 $CLSK 一样将其归为 U 级，但在进一步研究后忘记将其移除。 如果我没错的话，$DGXX 的 $65m 营收是无保障的，不像 $CIFR 之于 $GOOGL 或 $CORZ 之于 $CRWV 那样有锚定租户(anchor tenant)。 此外，由于它是微盘股(microcap)且在高性能计算(HPC)领域历史较短，其业务转型(pivot)的执行风险(execution risk)也更高。他们已通过 $100M 的自动取款机(ATM)增发进行了稀释，因此至少与未来需要大幅稀释的 $SLNH 相比，目前的稀释程度较低。但它更具投机性，类似于新加入的 $WLAC（WLAC 拥有 FluidStack 合作伙伴关系，因此存在 $GOOGL 兜底(backstop)的潜力）。 他们还有 $92M 的流动资产且无不良债务，考虑到其市值规模，这绝对是一笔巨款（但像其他公司一样，这些资金将用于建设），不过执行风险已反映在评级中。 这并不意味着它是一只坏股票，我也因高潜在上行空间而持有 $WLAC 并将其归为 D 级。只是想区分该板块内各公司在合同可见度(contract visibility)和执行方面的细微差别。
英文原文
I did, rated $DGXX D tier. Originally put it in U like $CLSK, but forgot to edit them out when I looked into them further. Correct me if I'm wrong but $DGXX $65m revenue is unsecured, there's no anchor tenant like $CIFR is to $GOOGL or $CORZ is to $CRWV. There's also more execution risk on pivot, just due to the fact it's a microcap company + little history in HPC. They've already diluted with a $100M ATM, so there's less dilution now at least compared to $SLNH, which will need to dilute heavily in the future. But it's more speculative along the lines of $WLAC (WLAC has fluidstack partnership so potential of $GOOGL backstop) that was added in. They also have $92M in liquid assets with no bad debt, which is absolutely huge given their marketcap size (but like others, that will be spent on the buildout), but execution risk is priced in to the Tier. Doesn't mean it's a bad stock, I own $WLAC because of high potential upside too and put it in D tier. Just wanted to distinguish between the nuances between companies in the sector (contract visibility + execution).
-
基于财报与宏观因素，发布Neocloud板块个股梯队排名及评估框架。
Neocloud（新云）板块梯队排名。 Q3财报后+市场板块回调： [S] 级：$NBIS [A] 级：$CIFR, $WULF, $IREN [B] 级：$GLXY, $CORZ [C] 级：$APLD, $CLSK [D] 级：$WLAC, $DGDX, $WYFI [F] 级：$CRWV*, $SLNH [U] 级：$GRRR, $MARA, $DGDX, $CLSK, $BITF, $HIVE, $RIOT ** 从左到右依次排名。 *：短期价格下跌创造了诱人的入场点（例如 $CRWV），但中期（12个月）吸引力仍然有限。 **：不确定，决定不评级（但在梯队图中列为F级）。一些纯矿企尚未完全转型为HPC（高性能计算）+ 合同不确定性太大。 很多人询问财报后的更新，这些只是基于以下加权评估的个人想法： a. 合同可见性和收入确定性 b. 对宏观收紧和信贷条件的韧性 c. 资产负债表强度和利润率概况 d. HPC建设风险（产能执行和编排） e. 收入增长轨迹（1-2年视野） f. 当前市值相对于收入增长和基础设施价值的比率 整个Neocloud板块都很有吸引力，但截至Q3，某些公司的非对称回报显然高于其他公司。
英文原文
The Neocloud Sector Tierlist. Post Q3 earnings + Market Sector Drop: [S] Tier: $NBIS [A] Tier: $CIFR, $WULF, $IREN [B] Tier: $GLXY, $CORZ [C] Tier: $APLD, $CLSK [D] Tier: $WLAC, $DGDX, $WYFI [F] Tier, $CRWV*, $SLNH [U] Tier: $GRRR, $MARA, $DGDX, $CLSK, $BITF, $HIVE, $RIOT ** Ranked in order from left to right. * : Short-term pricing drops created compelling entries (e.g., $CRWV), but med-term (12m) attractiveness remains limited. **: Uncertain, decided not to rate them (but put them in tierlist photo as F). Some pure miners haven't fully pivot into HPC yet + too much contract uncertainty. Lot of people asked about updates post earnings, these are just personal thoughts based on weighted assessments of: a. Contract visibility and revenue certainty b. Resilience to macro tightening and credit conditions c. Balance sheet strength and margin profile d. HPC buildout risk (capacity execution and orchestration) e. Revenue growth trajectory (1–2 year horizon) f. Current market capitalization relative to revenue ramp and infrastructure value The whole Neocloud sector is compelling but some have clearly higher asymmetrical return over others as of Q3.
-
MSTR 大概率不被清算，Saylor 或选择让股价跌破 NAV 并放缓购币。
TLDR 如果你好奇研究结论： $MSTR 可能不会被清算。不太可能比特币在 2029 年（下一次减半）需要支付利息时仍低于他的成本均价。即使面临 MSCI 流出，Saylor 可能不会出售他购买的比特币，而是让 MicroStrategy 跌破净资产值（NAV）就像 Grayscale 那样，并放缓购买速度。 其他国库策略标的并非如此。
英文原文
TLDR if you were curious on the findings: $MSTR prob not going to get liquidated. Unlikely Bitcoin remains underneath his cost average (next halving) by 2029 when interest needs to be paid. Even with MSCI outflows, Saylor probably not going to sell Bitcoin he bought and just let Microstrategy fall under nav like grayscale + slow down purchases. Other treasury plays not the same
-
博主正研究MSTR清算场景，稍后回复。
@CB3409 我稍后会去研究一下，我现在正在研究 $MSTR 的清算场景。
英文原文
@CB3409 I'll look into it in a bit, I'm researching $MSTR liquidation scenarios right now
-
承认短期回撤，强调选股能力与避免高位追涨的重要性。
@soulbiri1 是的，我也亏损不少。即使是最好的投资者，短期内也会出现这样的回撤（Drawdown），但如果他们懂得如何挑选个股，且不在此类价位做多 $RGTI $OKLO 这类股票，长期来看应该能跑赢市场。
英文原文
@soulbiri1 Yep I’m down a lot too, even the best investors have drawdowns like these short term but should outperform longer term if they know how to pick individual stocks + not long $RGTI $OKLO type stocks at these levels.
-
抛售源于算法而非基本面，明日未平仓合约量巨大。
是的，我也在试图找出原因，并得出了类似的结论。我在权衡美联储量化宽松(QE)与全球货币紧缩以及日元套利交易的影响。除此之外，这并不足以引发日内算法抛售。感觉人们正在寻找像《华尔街日报》“人们担心AI泡沫”这类标题式的解释，但现实是抛售是由算法驱动的。明天的未平仓合约量巨大。
英文原文
Yeah I was trying to figure out the reason and came to this likely conclusion too. Was trying to weigh effects fed quantitative easing vs global monetary tightening vs yen carry trade. That aside it doesnt really warrant the intraday algorithmic selloff. Feels like people are looking for an explanation like WSJ: “people fear ai bubble” type headlines but in reality selloff was algorithmic. Open interest for tomorrow is massive.
-
博主调侃在NBIS上因恐慌操作而亏损，自嘲得到反向祝福。
@foogleman1234 别担心，我们在 $NBIS 上省下了钱。我刚才有点恐慌，但我们得到了反向的 @jimcramer 的“祝福”。https://t.co/99NoI9EDfc
英文原文
@foogleman1234 Don't worry, we've saved on $NBIS. I was panicking for a bit but we got the blessing from the inverse @jimcramer. https://t.co/99NoI9EDfc
-
博主赞同另一位用户关于某事的准确描述。
@zhou_zay 哈哈，描述得很准确
英文原文
@zhou_zay lol accurate description
-
博主感叹Reddit用户巨额亏损，认为这是疯狂的市场底部反转信号。
今天到底发生了什么？ 看起来像是市场见底了，当Reddit用户损失六位数的毕生积蓄并陷入债务时。 这是我见证过的最疯狂且出人意料的市场反转之一。 https://t.co/vCahK6WhTI
英文原文
What... just happened today? Looks like a market bottom when users from Reddit lose 6 figures in life savings then go into debt. One of the most crazy and unexpected market reversals I've witnessed. https://t.co/vCahK6WhTI
-
期权到期引发波动，短期看算法，中长期看基本面。
明天有很多期权到期（如果你看 $NBIS 到 $META 等）。未平仓合约链(open interest chains)将被清洗。我想说从周一开始到1-2月，或者12月初会有复苏，但由于这是由算法驱动的，基本面没有太多实质性内容，不确定伟大的算法之神(algo gods)短期内会怎么做。中长期基本面更重要。
英文原文
lot of option expiration tomorrow (if you look at $NBIS to $META, etc). and open interest chains will get flushed. I want to say starting Monday into Jan-Feb, or maybe recovery in early December but since it's algorithmic driven with nothing too material to fundamentals, not sure what the great algo gods will do short term. Medium-long term fundamentals matter more.
-
NBIS 遭算法抛售大跌，作者认为基本面未变，跌幅不合理。
是的，全市场的反转让我措手不及。$NBIS 毫无理由地从 103 美元跌至 84 美元。Citadel 的 Rubner 表示，尽管 $NVDA 财报大幅超预期，但这纯粹是为了“去风险”目的的算法抛售。恰好明天有大量未平仓合约到期。撇开期权流向不谈，我认为因 25 个基点（bps）就出现 40% 的抛售是不合理的。“担心 AI 泡沫”或 25 个基点并不会如此根本性地改变基本面。
英文原文
Yeah market wide reversal caught me by surprise. $NBIS ended up dropping from $103 to $84 for little reason. Rubner from Citadel was saying it was a purely algorithmic selloff despite $NVDA massive earnings beat for "derisking" purposes. Just so happens tons and tons of open interest expiring tomorrow. Option flow aside, don't think a 40% selloff is warranted for 25bps. "Fearing an AI bubble" or 25 BPS doesn't change fundamentals that instrumentally.
-
质疑Circle $400估值过高，指出其利息收入需与Coinbase分成。
关于 $CRCL - 人们忽略了它与 $COIN 共享 50% 的利息收入，而 Coinbase 在其平台上独享这部分收入的 100%。 如果 Circle 股价达到 $400，其市值将达到 920 亿美元，这超过了 Coinbase（690 亿美元）。而 Coinbase 还有交易所交易收入、ETF 托管收入等。 我同意 $150 的估值，但 $400 太牵强了，除非 $USDT 突然消失。
英文原文
So for $CRCL - people are missing it's 50% interest revenue sharing with $COIN and Coinbase has 100% of that revenue split on its platform. Circle at $400 would be a $92B marketcap which is more than Coinbase ($69B). And Coinbase has exchange trading revenue, ETF custody revenue, etc. I'd agree with $150 but $400 is a stretch lol unless $USDT suddenly disappeared.
-
CIFR获谷歌8.3亿长约，风险降低，看好下月股价破22美元。
天哪，$CIFR 刚刚通过 Fluidstack 与 $GOOGL 签署了一份价值 8.3 亿美元、为期 10 年的合同。下个月股价更可能突破 22 美元以上，而非低于 10 美元。长期超大规模云服务商（Hyperscaler）的收入可见性很高，因此风险已大幅降低。唯一的缺点是，与全栈产品（Full-stack offerings）相比，其收入爬坡速度较慢，且由于资产负债表上持有比特币，受到 BTC 价格拖累。
英文原文
bruh, $CIFR just signed a $830m 10y contract with $GOOGL through Fluidstack. More likely $22+ next month than sub $10. Long-term hyperscaler revenue visibility, so it's pretty de-risked. Just slower revenue ramp compared to full-stack offerings + BTC price drag since it holds Bitcoin on its balance sheet.
-
分析VRT受益于AI基建电力瓶颈，认为其将跑赢大盘，NVT风险回报更优。
哈哈，关于股票代码的评论太多了，无法一一回复。关于 $VRT，它是数据中心建设的高贝塔敞口。Q3 营收 26 亿美元，同比增长 29%，指引 FY 中值为 102 亿美元。整体利润率增长，例如 Q3 调整后营业利润增长 43% 至 5.96 亿美元。后者可能表明，由于电力基础设施组件严重短缺和电网容量限制，其拥有类似内存行业的定价权。 $NVT 在当前市值下（24.5 倍 EV/EBITDA，对比 33 倍）可能具有更好的风险调整后回报。但除此之外，能源并非我的专业领域，因此我无法像对 neoclouds 或金融科技那样提供详细细致的观点。 不过，我可以说 Vertiv 在 AI 基础设施建设和电力供应约束的背景下，凭借其角色（例如与 nvda 合作的冷却和 800vdc 电力），方向上应该会跑赢大盘。
英文原文
lol there's a lot of ticker comments, can't respond to every one. So for $VRT it's a high beta exposure to DC buildout, from Q3 earnings $2.6B revenue 29% y/y, guided FY $10.2B midpoint, overall margins grew eg. adjusted operating profit increased 43% to $596 million in Q3. The latter probably indicates better pricing power like memory sector from a severe shortage of power infrastructure components and grid capacity limitations. $NVT might be better risk-adjusted return at current marketcaps (24.5x EV/EBITDA), vs. 33x. But that aside, energy not my field of expertise so I can't give detailed nuanced opinions like neoclouds or fintech. However, I can probably say Vertiv directionally should be outperform due to backdrop of AI infra buildout + power supply constraints and it's role (eg. cooling, 800vdc power that they're doing with nvda)
-
批评对方跳过量化论点进行人身攻击，强调讨论应基于实质内容。
我一直专注于量化论点，甚至写了一份回复来帮助你们理解产能比较的细微差别+在回复中包含了$IREN 的看好论点。但跳过所有内容然后进行人身攻击，比如“操纵读者以拉升股价”来否定一个论点，对于讨论来说毫无实质意义。
英文原文
I've been focusing on quantitative points and even wrote out a response to help you understand capacity comparison nuances + included an $IREN favored argument in the reply. But just skipping over everything then going into personal attacks like "gaslight readers to pump" to dismiss a point has no substance for a discussion.