全部推文
共 6448 条 · 第 189 / 215 页 · 滚到底自动加载更多
-
LTC因政府停摆致ETF延期，但作者认为其支付效用高且被低估。
哈哈，$LTC 原本打算作为短线交易，Litecoin ETF 获批概率高达 95%，计划是在获批确认时卖出，并可能布局新的国库相关标的。结果政府停摆一个月，导致 ETF 延期。运气确实不太好。但从基本面来看，我认为由于其在支付领域的高实用性相对于低市值，该资产被低估了。
英文原文
lol $LTC supposed to be a shorter play, Litecoin ETF gets approved 95% chance, then just sell into approval acceptance and possibly new treasury plays. Then government gets shut down for a month so ETFs get delayed. Yeah not the best luck. Fundamentally I think the asset is undervalued because of its high utility in payments still vs. low market cap.
-
回顾NBIS反弹，分析TGT分红前策略及LTC受政府停摆影响的ETF进展。
我最近一直在发关于 $NBIS 的帖子，因为那30%的跌幅，导致我有一阵子忘了聊其他股票！跌到 $94 时的上行空间简直惊人，即使你没抓到真正的底部。 我之前提到的 $LTC 到 $TGT 的短期催化剂帖子依然有效，因为有人问起。 $TGT 11月12日的分红催化剂，我个人会持有，但由于它已经在28%-32%的隐含波动率下上涨了8%+，考虑到财报日(ER)是11月19日，再持有两周或稍微减仓我都觉得没问题。随你决定。 对于 $LTC 和其他股票，策略仍在进行中，只需等待政府停摆结束以及ETF获批。 我只是没料到政府停摆会持续一个月，所以ETF被延迟了。
英文原文
I've been posting about $NBIS recently because of the 30% drop that I forgot to talk about other stocks for awhile! Upside on the drop to $94 was insane, even if you didn't catch the true bottom. Near term catalyst posts that I mentioned still stands for $LTC to $TGT since others ask about it. $TGT Nov 12th dividend catalyst, I'd personally hold but since it already went up 8%+ on 28%-32% IV, I don't see many issues holding another 2 weeks since ER is Nov 19th or just trimming some. Up to you. For $LTC and others, the play is still ongoing, just need to wait for government shutdown to finish and for the ETF to be approved. I just did not expect a 1 month government shutdown so ETFs got delayed.
-
展示Neocloud板块个股一个月涨幅，重申看好并集中持仓NBIS。
Neocloud（新云）的投资逻辑经受住了时间的考验。 一个月后： $CRWV 120.34 → 135.64 (+12.7%) $NBIS 107.70 → 126.49 (+17.5%) $WULF 10.63 → 13.69 (+28.8%) $IREN 41.68 → 64.69 (+55.2%) $CIFR 11.47 → 20.70 (+80.4%) $BITF 2.54 → 4.51 (+77.6%) $WYFI 22.83 → 36.52 (+59.9%) $GRRR 19.90 → 16.95 (−14.8%) $SLNH 2.75 → 2.81 (+2.2%) $RIOT 17.69 → 23.01 (+30.1%) $MARA 16.13 → 19.61 (+21.6%) $CLSK 12.96 → 20.21 (+56.0%) $HUT 33.16 → 49.95 (+50.6%) 这仅仅是史上最大规模AI数据中心建设浪潮的开始，金融圈(X)上的所有人现在入场都还为时过早。 我对整个Neocloud板块非常看好，但个人因$NBIS具有最高的非对称回报潜力而集中持仓。
英文原文
The Neocloud thesis aged well. 1 month later: $CRWV 120.34 → 135.64 (+12.7%) $NBIS 107.70 → 126.49 (+17.5%) $WULF 10.63 → 13.69 (+28.8%) $IREN 41.68 → 64.69 (+55.2%) $CIFR 11.47 → 20.70 (+80.4%) $BITF 2.54 → 4.51 (+77.6%) $WYFI 22.83 → 36.52 (+59.9%) $GRRR 19.90 → 16.95 (−14.8%) $SLNH 2.75 → 2.81 (+2.2%) $RIOT 17.69 → 23.01 (+30.1%) $MARA 16.13 → 19.61 (+21.6%) $CLSK 12.96 → 20.21 (+56.0%) $HUT 33.16 → 49.95 (+50.6%) This is only the beginning of the largest AI data center buildout in history and everyone on finx is still early. I'm very bullish on the Neocloud sector across the board, but personally have concentration in $NBIS due to the highest asymmetrical return.
-
建议趁市值停滞、基本面改善时重新买入$HIMS。
@DeepValueBagger 过去几个季度，$HIMS 的市值基本没有波动，而基本面却在改善。因此我会利用这个时机重新买入。它从 40 多美元涨到 63 美元的次数我已经数不清了。
英文原文
@DeepValueBagger It's been a few quarters where $HIMS market cap hasn't really moved while fundamentals improved. So I'd use this as a buying time to get back in. The amount of times it swung from $40s -> $63 I lost count.
-
博主发帖后，NBIS等股票出现罕见反向波动。
@RJCcapital 短期股价意义不大，但看到通常低贝塔值（且与矿企正相关）的 $NBIS 在我发帖后首次反向波动，这很有趣。 $NBIS: +7.71% $CIFR: -1.21% $BITF: -2.21% $IREN: +2.35% $WULF: +0.08%
英文原文
@RJCcapital Short term stock price don't mean much but it is pretty interesting seeing $NBIS that's usually lower beta (and miners that go up in correlation) start to move in reverse for the first time after my post $NBIS: +7.71% $CIFR: -1.21% $BITF: - 2.21% $IREN: +2.35% $WULF: +.08%
-
反驳IREN支持者，指出其拥有模式虚高毛利，NBIS租赁模式调整后利润率更优。
所以当讨论转向人身攻击时，可能意味着你的论点站不住脚。 大喊“我赢了”、“被喷了”、“闭嘴”，并进行诸如“财务文盲”之类的人身攻击以乞求 $IREN 受众的点赞，在关心实质内容的独立思考者看来并不光彩。 但既然你并非善意讨论，我就此收尾：你曲解了成本结构，且未对利润率进行标准化处理。 仅看你的陈述：“$IREN 支付的折旧微乎其微，几乎不影响利润率。”然后将其与财报数据（2025财年 -1.81亿美元）对比，一切不言自明。 但我再次把这段话放这里供你重读： “计入费用确认、折旧摊销(D&A)及其他 overhead 后，$IREN 的利润率可能降至60%以下。 $IREN 拥有数据中心，将巨额基础设施成本（服务器、机架、设施）计入资产负债表，随后通过折旧摊销(D&A)计入运营支出(OpEx)，从而虚高了92%的毛利率数字。 $NBIS 租赁容量，因此同样的成本作为租金、电力和带宽出现在销售成本(COGS)中，完全成本约为71.2%，但正如你所说，部分基础设施计入了运营支出。 $NBIS 的20-F文件指出：‘销售成本主要包括数据中心设施的运营和托管成本，以及数据中心内的电力、公用事业和维护成本……’ 如果你将 $IREN 的季度折旧摊销（约7520万美元）和基础设施 overhead 重新分配到销售成本中，$NBIS 以更高的完全加载利润率表现更优。"
英文原文
So when a discussion shifts to personal attacks, it probably means your thesis is not holding up. Screaming "I WIN", "GET ROASTED", "SHUT YOU UP" and going into personal attacks like "financially illiterate" to beg for $IREN audience likes doesn't look too good to independent thinkers who care about substance. But just to close it out since you're not discussing in good faith, you're misrepresenting the cost structure and not normalizing margins. Just looking at your statements like "The depreciation $IREN pays is so minuscule that it hardly impacts margins at all." and then just comparing it to the financial reports like (-$181M FY 2025) says it all. But I'll just drop this here again for you to re-read: "With expense recognition and with D&A and other overhead, $IREN margins can drop below 60%. For $IREN owning datacenters pushes massive infrastructure costs (servers, racks, facilities) into the balance sheet and later into OpEx (via D&A), inflating that 92% gross margin number. $NBIS leases capacity, so those same costs appear in COGS, as rent, power, and bandwidth to a fuller cst 71.2%., but as you mentioned some infra goes into opex. NBIS’s 20-F:" Cost of revenues primarily consists of costs of operation and co-location of data center facilities, the electricity, utility and maintenance costs in data centers…” If you reallocate IREN’s quarterly D&A (~$75.2 M), infra overhead into cost of revenue, $NBIS outperforms with a more fully loaded margin."
-
指出比较IREN与NBIS毛利率需标准化，调整后NBIS表现更优。
你在尝试比较两个结构上截然不同的事物时误解了数据，且未对毛利率进行标准化处理。尽管遭受人身攻击，我仍在回复，因为这会误导他人。考虑到费用确认、折旧与摊销(D&A)及其他 overhead，$IREN 的利润率可能降至 60% 以下。$IREN 拥有数据中心，将大量基础设施成本（服务器、机架、设施）计入资产负债表，随后通过 D&A 计入运营支出(OpEx)，从而虚高了 92% 的毛利率数字。$NBIS 租赁容量，因此同样的成本作为租金、电力和带宽出现在销售成本(COGS)中，完全成本约为 71.2%，但正如你所说，部分基础设施计入了运营支出。$NBIS 的 20-F 文件指出：“收入成本主要包括数据中心设施的运营和托管成本，以及数据中心内的电力、公用事业和维护成本……”如果你将 $IREN 的季度 D&A（约 7520 万美元）和基础设施 overhead 重新分配到收入成本中，$NBIS 在更全面的利润率下表现更优。这是基于你的数据，尽管他们此前有过非公认会计准则(non-GAAP)分部披露。因此，声称 $IREN 93% 的毛利率并与 $NBIS 71% 的毛利率进行比较是没有意义的，因为必须对毛利率进行标准化处理。
英文原文
You're misunderstanding the data while trying to compare two structurally different things as gross profit before normalizing it. Reason I'm still replying despite personal attacks now is because this is misleading other people. With expense recognition and with D&A and other overhead, $IREN margins can drop below 60%. For $IREN owning datacenters pushes massive infrastructure costs (servers, racks, facilities) into the balance sheet and later into OpEx (via D&A), inflating that 92% gross margin number. $NBIS leases capacity, so those same costs appear in COGS, as rent, power, and bandwidth to a fuller cst 71.2%., but as you mentioned some infra goes into opex. NBIS’s 20-F: “Cost of revenues primarily consists of costs of operation and co-location of data center facilities, the electricity, utility and maintenance costs in data centers…” If you reallocate IREN’s quarterly D&A (~$75.2 M), infra overhead into cost of revenue, $NBIS outperforms with a more fully loaded margin. This is going off your data, even though they've had nongaap segment disclosures before. So trying to claim $IREN 93% gross margins and then comparing it to $NBIS 71% doesnt make sense, when you have to normalize gross margins.
-
看好新云板块，认为NBIS因软件栈具备最佳风险收益比。
我对新云（Neoclouds）持看涨态度，包括 $IREN。查看我的发帖历史，我曾持有包括 $WULF、$CIFR 等在内的各种头寸。我唯一的观点是，$NBIS 因其软件栈（Software Stack）而拥有最高的非对称回报（风险最低，上行空间最大）。 https://t.co/TnUqmvvFdd
英文原文
I'm bullish on Neoclouds, including $IREN. If you look at my post history, I've had positions in everything including $WULF, $CIFR, etc. The only point I've made was $NBIS has the highest asymmetrical return (lowest risk, highest upside) because of its software stack. https://t.co/TnUqmvvFdd
-
博主怒斥对方混淆财务指标并人身攻击，批评其逻辑荒谬。
我从未见过有人试图将差异巨大的非公认会计准则(Non-GAAP)和公认会计准则(GAAP)利润率混为一谈，然后进行人身攻击作为论据。当我表示不知道如何回应你的另一条评论时，是因为我从未见过如此愚蠢的回应，让我真的无言以对。我很乐意回应其他定量论点，但当你说“我的年初至今(YTD)表现比你好，所以离开这个平台”，然后开始谈论社会主义政权时，连$IREN的持有者都不知道该说什么。
英文原文
I’ve never seen someone try and conflate non-GAAP and GAAP margins when they’re so vastly different, then go into personal attacks as an argument. When I said I didn’t know how to respond to your other comment, it’s because I haven’t seen a response so dumb I’m genuinely at a loss. I’m happy to respond to other quantitative arguments but when you try and say “my YTD is better than yours so quit this platform” then go talking about socialist regimes, even $IREN holders wouldn’t know what to say
-
指出IREN财报中GAAP与非GAAP利润率的混淆，但肯定其基建优势。
@moninvestor @Agrippa_Inv 提醒一下，包括发帖人在内的许多人，在查看 $IREN 时经常混淆公认会计准则(GAAP)与非公认会计准则(non-GAAP)。这在计算利润率时会产生巨大差异。 但从根本上说，关于产能/基础设施优势的一些观点仍然成立。 https://t.co/ZxIh6kBs7Y
英文原文
@moninvestor @Agrippa_Inv Just a heads up, a lot people, including the poster, confuse GAAP vs nonGAAP when looking at $IREN. It makes a huge difference when accounting for margins. But fundamentally, some points points still hold around capacity/infrastructure advantages. https://t.co/ZxIh6kBs7Y
-
澄清对IREN散户的误解，肯定其关于电力基础设施的观点。
@Agrippa_Inv 我也不是在嘲笑 $IREN 散户在讨论利润率时混淆公认会计准则(GAAP)与非公认会计准则(non-GAAP)，并为此专门发帖。如果你不做季度财务报告，这确实很难，但其中关于基础设施/电力的观点是有效的。
英文原文
@Agrippa_Inv Also not trying to make fun of $IREN retail for confusing GAAP vs non-GAAP when talking about margins then making a whole post surroudning that. It's genuinely difficult if you don't do quarterly financial reports, but there's valid points on there about infrastructure/power.
-
反驳IREN论点，指出NBIS全栈软件优势带来长期更高利润率。
观点很棒！但是…… 你的论点基于对公认会计准则(GAAP)与非公认会计准则(non-GAAP)的误解……这可能会让非会计专业人士和 X 上的其他人感到困惑。 在对比硬件部门利润与全栈 AWS 利润率时，$IREN 报告的是非公认会计准则(non-GAAP)，而 $NBIS 报告的是公认会计准则(GAAP)。 92% 是一个非公认会计准则(non-GAAP)的硬件特定利润指标，它系统地排除了折旧、数据中心 overhead、网络费用、支持等。硬件利润率通常仅通过从收入中扣除直接电力成本来计算，忽略了真实公认会计准则(GAAP) 销售成本(COGS) 的组成部分。在报告时，销售成本(COGS) 的遗漏和会计原则很重要（例如，为什么加密公司如 $MSTR 的数字与像 ASU 2023-08 这样的加密报告如此不同，因此你不能将收入与加密持仓与 Robinhood 进行比较）。 与此同时，$NBIS 71.2% 的毛利率是公认会计准则(GAAP)，并将托管费用(colocation fees) 作为 29% 收入成本的一部分。因此，当你查看 EBIT 利润率以获得全貌时，$NBIS (~30%) 要高得多，因为全栈驱动了盈利能力。当 $IREN 扩展到 5 亿美元 ARR 目标时，他们被迫纳入现实的折旧、数据中心成本、网络费用和运营。如果以一致的会计标准对两者进行标准化，$NBIS 的全栈模型在真实利润率 spread 上已经高出 15-25 个百分点。 你说超大规模客户自带 Type-1 堆栈是对的。但是……我再次对其他 $IREN 帖子说过这一点，它们一直在回避这个点。 再说一次，Nebius 的 Type-2 层不是面向客户的功能，而是优化内部运营支出(OPEX)。如果企业自带 Type 1 (K8s/Ray)，Nebius 的内部编排(Type 2) 仍然能提升其自身的利润率。这是运营支出(OPEX) 护城河，它不是客户使用的，而是关于你运行集群的效率。把它想象成 AWS 的 Nitro 虚拟机监控程序，但核心在于 AWS 如何驱动 >80% 的利用率和最小的人工运营。Nebius 的内部控制平面自动化了混合 SKU 的 GPU 调度、遥测和固件生命周期。每增加一个百分点的利用率，毛利率就扩张约 1-1.5 个百分点。Nebius 的内部编排降低了其运营成本基础并提高了利用率，无论客户是否自带堆栈，所以这不是非此即彼的关系。 长期的利用率效率和自动化复利增长快于廉价电力/容量，$NBIS 的全栈在长期驱动更高的利润率，而其他方面临利润率压缩的恶性竞争。随着 $NBIS 扩展，其软件熟练度的增量成本趋近于零，结构性地推动利润率更高。相反，$IREN 的依赖模式意味着随着扩展，许可费（如果你采用你的数字，为收入的 3-8%）加上必要的、未量化的站点可靠性工程师(SRE) 运营成本将成为盈利能力的永久拖累，阻止公司实现 $NBIS 的结构性利润率上限。外包 Type 2 解决方案的许可成本很低，如你的 3-8% 数字，但当被视为 overhead 时，“20-30%” 的数字非常相关。 回到 GAAP-non-GAAP，一旦 $IREN 在规模上被迫确认完整的公认会计准则(GAAP) 成本，与 $NBIS 相比不可避免的 15-30 个百分点的利润率差异将会显现。我同意你，短期的容量和基础设施是今天的一大优势，这就是为什么我仍然看好转型的加密货币矿工如 $IREN、$WULF、$CIFR，但在执行期间的软件护城河，在将收入转化为利润的长期来看，将大大优于裸金属基础设施（这还假设 $NBIS 无法扩展基础设施，而他们是可以的）。 $IREN 当前的优势是物理集成和廉价容量，它是资本支出(capex) 密集型的，并受制于电力市场收紧。$NBIS 的优势是运营支出(OPEX) 杠杆。$NBIS 更高的利润率是几年后基于全栈 AWS 式利润率的必然经济结果，而当其他人竞相触底时，利润率差异不会崩溃，而是随着规模扩大而扩大。 廉价电力赢得下一个季度，高效的编排成为下一个 AWS。
英文原文
Great points! But... You did base your thesis off misunderstanding gaap vs. non-gaap... which could be confusing to non-accountants and other people on X. $IREN reported non-GAAP and $NBIS GAAP when you look at hardware-segment profit to full-stack AWS margins. The 92% percent was non-GAAP, hardware-specific profit metric that systematically excludes depreciation, data-center overhead, network expenses, support, etc. Hardware Profit Margin is typically calculated solely by deducting direct electricity costs from revenue, ignoring the components of true COGS GAAP. And when you do reporting, COGS omissions and accounting principles matter (eg. why crypto firms have like $MSTR wildly different numbers from crypto reporting like ASU 2023-08, so you don’t compare revenue with crypto holdings to Robinhood). Meanwhile $NBIS 71.2% gross margins was GAAP and includes colocation fees as part of 29% cost of revenue. So when you look into EBIT margins for the full picture, $NBIS (~30%) is vastly higher because full stack drives profitability. When $IREN scales to the $500M ARR target, they’re forced to incorporate realistic deprecation, data center costs, network expenses, and operations. If you normalize both under consistent accounting, $NBIS’s full-stack model already operates 15–25 points higher in true margin spread. You’re right that hyperscale clients bring their own Type-1 stack. BUT... I’ve said this again to other $IREN posts that keep side-stepping this point. Once again, Nebius’s Type-2 layer isn't for customer-facing features, it’s optimizing internal OPEX. If enterprises bring their own Type 1 (K8s/Ray), Nebius's internal orchestration (Type 2) still drives its own margins up. That's OPEX moat, it's not what customers use, it's about how efficiently you run the fleet. Think of it like AWS’s Nitro hypervisor but central to how AWS drives >80% utilization and minimal human ops. Nebius’s in-house control plane automates GPU scheduling, telemetry, and firmware lifecycles across mixed SKUs. Every percentage point of utilization is ~1-1.5 points of gross margin expansion. Nebius's in-house orchestration lowers their operating cost base and increases utilization, regardless of whether customers bring their own stack, so it’s not quite one or the other. Long-term utilization efficiency and automation compound faster than cheap power/capacity and $NBIS full stack drives higher margins long term, while others face margin compression on a race to the ground. As $NBIS scales, the incremental cost of their software proficiency approaches zero, structurally driving margins higher. Conversely, $IREN's dependency model means that as they scale, the licensing fees (3–8% of revenue if you we go with your figure) plus the necessary, unquantified SRE operational costs will remain a permanent drag on profitability, preventing the firm from achieving $NBIS's structural margin ceiling longer on. Licensing costs for outsourced Type 2 solutions are low like your 3-8% figure, but the "20–30%" figure is highly relevant when viewed as overhead. .Going back to GAAP-non-gaap, once $IREN is forced to recognize full GAAP costs at scale, the inevitable 15–30 point margin delta against $NBIS will materialize. I’d agree with you that short-term capacity and infrastructure is a great advantage today, which is why I’m still bullish crypto miners pivoting like $IREN, $WULF, $CIFR, but the software moat during execution, would vastly outperform bare mental infrastructure in the longer term when it comes to converting revenue to profit (and this is pretending $NBIS can’t scale up infra, which they can). $IREN current advantage is physical integration and cheap capacity, it’s capex-heavy, and subject to power-market tightening. $NBIS advantage is OPEX leverage. $NBIS higher margins is an economic inevitability in a years time when rooted in full stack AWS-like margins, while margin delta isn't collapsing as others race to the bottom, it's widening as scale hits. Cheap power wins next quarter, efficient orchestration becomes the next AWS.
-
博主澄清其AI、半导体及金融背景，强调论点应独立于身份。
我本不打算回复，但鉴于其他评论试图用“年初至今(YTD)表现”这种诉诸权威的方式来否定我的论点。我曾是AI领域的研究科学家，在《自然》等期刊发表过几篇论文。我在半导体领域也拥有专利。我现在经营一家金融科技(fintech)公司，所以很擅长数据计算。顺便提一下 @mithrilcompute，前几天我和他们的CEO喝咖啡聊过，所以与业内人士的日常交流也很有帮助。这三个不同领域的背景有助于我理解数据中心(data center)领域。如果你看过我的其他评论，我会始终承认自己缺乏领域知识，并避免给出方向性观点。此外，论点应独立成立，而非基于发言人的身份。
英文原文
I wasn’t going to reply to this but just because other comments tried appealing to authority like YTD performance to invalidate the thesis. I was a research scientist in AI with a few published papers in journals like Nature. I also have patents in the semiconductor space. I now run a fintech company, so im decent with number crunching. Just a quick shoutout to @mithrilcompute, talked with their CEO the other day over coffee, so just daily chats with people in the space help a lot too. So all three different domains helps a bit with understanding data center space. If you read my other comments, I’ll always acknowledge if I don’t have domain knowledge and refrain from giving directional posts. Also arguments should stand on their own, not based on who it came from.
-
博主回应网友的人身攻击，指出其论证逻辑混乱且无效。
@FransBakker9812 我都不知道该说什么了 lol，建议你还是适可而止，免得让自己看起来更蠢。像“你今年至今的表现不如我”这种诉诸权威(appeal to authority)的论调，接着又说“你没有事实依据”，然后进行人身攻击，这并不能帮助你的观点。
英文原文
@FransBakker9812 I don’t even know what to say anymore lol, probably just stop before you make yourself look worse Arguments from authority like “you underperformed me YTD”, followed by “you have no facts”, then going into personal attacks doesn’t help your case
-
因软件护城河优势，Nebius具最高上行空间，仍看多矿企HPC转型。
这是关于高性能计算(HPC)而非比特币挖矿…… 再次总结一下，核心观点是：由于中间件的存在，矿企的利润率将永远低于 $NBIS。 而摆脱对 $CRWV 等中间件的依赖是一个极高的护城河（关注 $ORCL）。 如果深入看数据，软件栈的价值 > 算力容量，因为软件收入转化为利润的效率远高于高营收但低利润的模式（如 ORCL）。 这就是为什么 Nebius 拥有最高的非对称上行空间。我仍然看多所有从事 HPC 的加密货币矿企。
英文原文
This is about HPC not bitcoin mining… Just to summarize again, the point was miner margins will always be less than $NBIS because of middleware. And how the transition off of middleware like $CRWV is an incredibly high moat (looking at $ORCL). And if we go into the numbers, software stack > capacity due to how revenue translates more into profit vs. high revenue and no profit (ORCL) That’s why Nebius has highest asymmetrical upside. I’m still bullish every crypto miner HPC
-
Nebius结构模型优于IREN，利润率更具可持续性
@FransBakker9812 此外，考虑到这可能是一次性季度表现，我在利润率估算上更为保守。即使经过正常化调整，Nebius 的结构化模型（全栈+编排+摊销）仍指向比使用中间件的矿企如 $IREN 更可持续的高利润率。
英文原文
@FransBakker9812 Also I’ve been more conservative with margin estimates in case it’s a one-off quarter. Even adjusting for normalization, Nebius’s structural model (full-stack + orchestration + amortization) still points to sustainably higher margins than miners like IREN using middleware
-
反驳NBIS利润率误解，指出软件优势才是高毛利关键。
那是不对的，$NBIS 的利润率包含了托管费(colocation fees)，且成本已反映在29%的营收成本(cost of revenue)中。 $IREN 也拥有站点，但这并未使其相比 $NBIS 获得显著的利润率优势。你没读到的是，软件（编排、利用率）以及无收入分成（Fluidstack、Poolside）才是推动更高利润率的关键。 声称聪明人不再权衡容量与利润率之间的取舍，是我见过最愚蠢的观点，恭喜。
英文原文
That’s not true, $NBIS margins include colo fees and the costs are reflected in the 29% cost of revenue. $IREN owns the sites too, but it doesn’t give much of a margin advantage over $NBIS. Thing you didn’t read was software (orchestration, utilization) and no revenue margin cut (fluidstack, poolside), drives higher margins. Saying intelligent people stopped comparing tradeoffs between capacity and margins is the dumbest take I’ve seen so far, congrats.
-
澄清$IREN因依赖中间件导致利润率受限，非真正全栈。
并非如此，即使在云服务商(CSP)模式下，他们仍使用Poolside等中间件（CIFR和WULF使用Fluidstack）。我想你可能误解了我的意思。 $IREN的利润率结构将受到限制，因为中间件会侵蚀来自编排、调度、客户分配等环节的利润。 虽然这比托管型主机(MW Hosting)更好，但它不像Nebius那样是真正的全栈架构，因此利润率会有上限。
英文原文
Not really, even under csp, they still use middleware like poolside (CIFR WULF use fluidstack). Think you’re misundestanding what I’m trying to say Margin profile will be limited with $IREN because middleware cuts into margins from orchestration, scheduling, customer allocation, etc. While it’s better than mw hosting, is not a true full stack like nebius and margins will cap out
-
澄清加密货币挖矿利润率与HPC转型的区别。
@YungAds_ 我认为你混淆了加密货币挖矿利润率与高性能计算(HPC)转型。
英文原文
@YungAds_ I think you’re confusing crypto mining margins with HPC pivot
-
澄清Nebius核心优势在于软件栈提升运营效率与利润率。
@JarronJackson4 @DeepValueBagger 我之前回复过 @jiahanjimliu，但这并非关于他们如何通过编排(Orchestration)或全栈(Full Stack)（例如超大规模云服务商(Hyperscalers)）来获取更多客户，你误解了其中的经济学逻辑。关键在于 Nebius 的软件栈如何推动更高效的运营支出(OPEX)并提升利润率。
英文原文
@JarronJackson4 @DeepValueBagger I replied this to @jiahanjimliu earlier but it’s not about capturing more customers with how they do orchestration or full stack (eg. hyper scalers) and you’re misunderstanding the economics It’s about how Nebius’s software stack drives more efficient OPEX and increases margins.
-
对比IREN与NBIS模式，指出矿工自建HPC堆栈难敌全栈合作优势。
$IREN 在加密货币挖矿方面拥有良好的利润率和高吉瓦(GW)容量，但这并不能直接转化为高性能计算(HPC)优势。 与此同时，他们正采取 $CIFR 和 $WULF 的路径，通过中间件编排将业务导向超大规模云服务商，但这会在长期内大幅压缩利润率。 $NBIS 直接与 $MSFT 进行全栈合作，实际上可以随着时间的推移提高其毛利率。 大家都指向 $CRWV 作为小型转型的案例，但最近我们学到的残酷现实是，如果许多矿工试图建立自己的编排和堆栈，他们很可能会失败。 $ORCL 是软件护城河的完美例子：如果一个市值 8000 亿美元的超大规模云服务商都感到困难，那么一个市值 40 亿美元的比特币矿工，或者像 $SLNH 这样市值 1 亿美元的微盘股，又该如何转型呢？ 如果他们选择直接转型，许多人在估算比特币矿工基本面时参考 $CRWV 将吉瓦(GW)转化为收入/利润的方式，但实际回报在执行过程中可能会令人失望。 Nebius 从一开始就是第一名，甚至在 GPU 利用率上超越了 $CRWV（根据其最新的白皮书），其全栈带来的长期盈利能力将在财报中胜过投机。
英文原文
$IREN has good margins for crypto mining and large GW capacity but that doesn’t translate directly into HPC. They’re going the $CIFR $WULF route in the meantime with middleware orchestration funneling to hyper scalers but that cuts into margins a lot in the long run. $NBIS is direct to $MSFT full stack and can actually increase their gross margins over time. Everyone points to $CRWV as the example to minor pivots but the harsh reality as we learned recently is that if many miners try building their own orchestration and stack, they will likely fail. $ORCL is the perfect example of the software moat where if a $800B hyperscaler has trouble how would a $4B bitcoin miner pivot, or a $100m microcap like $SLNH do it. If they go direct, a lot of people estimating bitcoin miner fundamentals use $CRWV in terms of translating GW to revenue/profit, but the actual returns will likely be underwhelming during the execution. Nebius is #1 from the very start, even beating out $CRWV (from their most recent whitepaper with gpu utilization) and long term profitability from full stack will shine when it comes to earnings vs speculation.
-
看好Neoclouds板块，认为利润率比容量更重要，首选NBIS。
谢谢，只是想补充一下，我对从 $IREN 到 $CIFR 的整个 Neoclouds 板块依然看好。短期内，由于围绕算力容量(capacity)的叙事，可能会有更高的上行空间，但我预计在执行和财报季到来时，市场会更关注利润率(margins)。就纯粹的不对称上行潜力而言，$NBIS 是显而易见的赢家，因为其运营侧拥有毛利率护城河（如果不是因为利息债务，$CRWV 也会名列前茅）。我在帖子中添加了一些定量数据，展示为何利润率 > 容量和/或中间件(middleware)。
英文原文
Thanks, just wanted to add I'm still bullish on Neoclouds across the board from $IREN to $CIFR. Short term there might be higher upside due to narratives around capacity but I'd expect markets to care about margins more when it comes time to execution + earning reports. In terms of raw asymmetrical upside, $NBIS is the obvious winner due to gross margin moat on their operational side ( $CRWV would have been up there if it weren't for interest debt). And I added some quantitative data in the post showing why margins > capacity and/or middleware.
-
估值逻辑转向利润率，$NBIS 运营优势显著且上行空间大
我想指出一个新的估值逻辑正在转变：从对电力容量的炒作转向利润率，这源于 $NBIS 最近的白皮书、$ORCL 的利润率泄露以及其他信息。人们只是假设吉瓦(GW)等于矿工(miners)的利润，但在未来的盈利能力和执行力方面，当矿工发现利润率低于预期时，我认为针对矿工的投机情绪会大幅消退。我只是想做一个核心运营层面的对比，在这方面 $NBIS 显然脱颖而出。此外，正如你提到的，他们还拥有很好的子公司+超大规模公司(hyperscaling companies)投资组合，我未将其纳入计算，但这将带来更高的上行空间。
英文原文
Just wanted to point out a new valuation thesis shifting from power capacity hype to margins due to new information from $NBIS recent whitepaper, $ORCL margin leak, and others. People just assume GW = profit with miners, but in terms of profitability and execution in the future, I'd expect the speculation to die down hard with miners when they find out margins are lower than expected. I just wanted to do the core operational side comparison, which $NBIS clearly stands out on top. On top of that, as you mentioned, they also have a great portfolio of subsidaries + hyperscaling companies too that I didn't add in that would lead to a higher upside.
-
作者认为NBIS全栈软件优势带来高毛利，优于IREN等矿企，故重仓NBIS。
为了解决关于新云（Neocloud）的争论： $NBIS > $IREN 及其他。 基于 $ORCL 的报告、NBIS 白皮书、$CRWV 的收购案以及其他因素， 我决定将数百万资金整合进 Nebius，并清仓像 $CIFR 这样的矿企。 📏 毛利率 > 吉瓦（GW）产能 以下是数学逻辑及原因： 此前，由远期收入支撑的新云板块（例如 $NBIS 与 $MSFT 的 190 亿美元交易）经历了巨大的投机性上涨。 然而，由于原始 GW 产能（如 $IREN）和廉价能源，加密货币矿企近期上涨了 500%+。 然而，人们忽略的是，产能虽能带来更高的收入，但如果不可盈利（例如 $ORCL 14% 的毛利率），这些收入毫无意义。 随着更多关于 $ORCL 建设失败、$NBIS 白皮书等的信息公布，我们得知如果经济模型无法转化，电力和产能意义不大。 而 $NBIS 拥有一切优势。 1. 毛利率差距：全栈 vs 中间件 像 $IREN 和 $CIFR 这样的矿企必须依赖编排合作伙伴（Fluidstack、Poolside 等）来变现其 GPU。这意味着要放弃 20-30% 的收入（~来自深度研究的私人估算），并承担 GPU 折旧、电力和运维成本。结果是？ 在 $3-4/小时 的 GPU 定价和 ~80% 利用率下，IREN/CIFR 的毛利率 = ~44-52% 在 $5-6/小时 和 90% 利用率下，毛利率可能达到 ~55-60%，但这已是天花板。 与此同时，Nebius 通过拥有编排层并分摊 4 年成本，目前获得 70-75% 的毛利率（上一季度为 71.2%，可能为 60-70%，近期白皮书声称更高的 GPU 利用率可能使其更高）。 随着规模和利用率的提高，这一差距会复利扩大。 矿企每赚一美元都要分出一部分，而 Nebius 的毛利率随时间增加。 2. 软件是护城河，Oracle 证明了这一点 即使 $ORCL 这样市值 8000 亿美元的超大规模云服务商，也无法盈利地构建 GPU 编排，其 AI 租赁平台报告约 14% 的毛利率，并在此过程中亏损约 1 亿美元。 如果 Oracle 都无法执行，指望市值 1 亿美元的小型矿企如 $SLNH 从头构建超大规模云级别的编排系统只是痴人说梦。 像 Fluidstack 这样的平台是必要的桥梁，但代价高昂：毛利率压缩、收入流失和平台依赖。 Nebius？它已经完成了最难的部分。其内部编排软件、GPU 利用率，没有中间商赚差价。 3. 电力 vs 毛利率计算 单张 H100 功耗约 0.7-0.84 kW。即使在 $0.10/kWh 的电价下，每张 GPU 每小时的电费仅为 $0.07-0.08。当 GPU 以 $4-6/小时 出租时，这仅占收入的 1-2%。 真正影响大局的是什么？利用率： 50% -> 85% 的正常运行时间 = 每张 GPU 收入增加 70% 这是数百个基点的毛利率波动，远超与矿企相比的“廉价电力”优势。 软件利用率/编排是护城河，其重要性比廉价电力高 30-70 倍。而且 $NBIS 也不缺廉价电力 lol。 4. 矿企中的 CRWV 例外 大家都指向 $CRWV 作为矿企转型的案例，但 Coreweave 实际上花了数年时间，并进行了数十亿美元的软件收购。 即使现在，报道显示其利用率仍落后于 Nebius。如果矿企认为他们能复制 CRWV，祝他们好运。 我预计 $NBIS 在明年的财报中，当执行与投机面临检验时，将大幅跑赢。 🧩 非对称性 Nebius 毛利率：70-75%（全栈，4 年折旧） IREN/CIFR 现实毛利率：40-60%（中间件，2-3 年折旧） 毛利率差额：15-30 个百分点 执行风险：Nebius = 0（已在执行）；IREN/CIFR = 高 Nebius 不是电力博弈。它是软件毛利率博弈，带有硬件上行空间。对于 $IREN 等，你是在猜测它能否像 $CRWV 那样成功。 人们不断说“软件不是护城河，看看 $CRWV 对 $IREN 未来 HPC 毛利率的影响”，但如果 $ORCL 这样最大的超大规模云服务商之一都卡在 14% 的毛利率。那么我们怎么指望这些小加密货币矿企能搞定 Coreweave。 就非对称性更新而言，$NBIS 是明确的赢家。就原始潜在上行空间而言，如果 $IREN 能像变魔术一样搞定 $CRWV 并在此方面击败 $ORCL，那我确实会认输。 软件全栈是一个巨大的护城河，人们严重低估了它。对于 $NBIS，他们可以只是即插即用，随着时间推移扩大规模，拥有行业内最高的毛利率。 $NBIS 就是真正的非对称回报的样子。
英文原文
To settle the Neocloud debate: $NBIS > $IREN + others. Based on the $ORCL report, NBIS whitepaper, $CRWV acquisitions, and other factors, I decided to consolidate millions into Nebius and sell off miners like $CIFR. 📏 Gross Margins > GW capacity Here's the math + why: We've had a huge speculative run across the board on Neoclouds backed by forward revenue (eg. 19B $MSFT deal with $NBIS). However, crypto miners have recently gone up 500%+ due to raw GW capacity like $IREN and cheap energy. However, what people miss out on is capacity leads to much higher revenue but that revenue means nothing if it's not profitable (eg. $ORCL 14% gross margins). Now that more information has come out regarding $ORCL's buildout failure, $NBIS's whitepaper, and others, we know power and capacity mean little if the economics don’t translate. And $NBIS has everything. 1. The Margin Gap: Full Stack vs. Middleware Miners like $IREN and $CIFR must rely on orchestration partners (Fluidstack, Poolside, etc.) to monetize their GPUs. That means giving up 20–30% of revenue (~private estimates from deep research), plus absorbing GPU depreciation, power, and O&M. The result? At $3–4/hr GPU pricing and ~80% utilization, IREN/CIFR margin = ~44–52% At $5–6/hr and 90% utilization, margin could reach ~55–60%, but that’s the ceiling Meanwhile, Nebius earns 70–75% today by owning the orchestration layer and amortizing over 4 years (71.2% from previous Q, likely 60-70%, possibly higher from recent whitepaper claiming higher GPU utilizations). This gap compounds as scale and utilization rise. Miners give away a piece of every dollar they earn while Nebius INCREASES gross margins over time. 2. Software Is the Moat and Oracle Proved It Even $ORCL, an $800B hyperscaler, failed at building GPU orchestration profitably, reporting ~14% gross margins on their AI rental platform and losing ~$100M in the process. If Oracle can’t execute, expecting $100M marketcap small miners like $SLNH to build hyperscaler-grade orchestration from scratch is wishful thinking. Platforms like Fluidstack are essential bridges, but they come at a cost: margin compression, revenue leakage, and platform dependency. Nebius? It already did the hard part. Its in-house orchestration software, GPU utilization, with no middlemen taking a cut. 3. Power vs. Margin Calculations A single H100 uses ~0.7–0.84 kW. Even at $0.10/kWh, power is just $0.07–0.08 per GPU-hour. When GPUs rent at $4–6/hr, that’s 1–2% of revenue. What actually moves the needle? Utilization: 50% -> 85% uptime = +70% revenue per GPU That’s a multi-hundred bps margin swing, far outweighing any "cheap power" comparison with miners. Software utilization/orchestration is a moat and matters ~30–70 TIMES more than cheap power. And it's not like $NBIS doesn't have cheap power either lol. 4. The CRWV Exception to Miners Everyone points to $CRWV as miners pivot but Coreweave literally spent YEARS to do this, along with billions in software acquisitions. And even now, reports suggest their utilization trails Nebius. If miners think they’ll replicate CRWV, good luck. I'd expect in NBIS to strong outperform in next year's earnings reports when it comes time for execution vs. speculation. 🧩 The Asymmetry Nebius GM: 70–75% (full-stack, 4yr depreciation) IREN/CIFR realistic GM: 40–60% (middleware, 2–3yr depreciation) Gross margin delta: 15–30 points Execution risk: Nebius = 0 (already doing it); IREN/CIFR = high Nebius isn’t a power play. It’s a software margins play, with hardware upside. With $IREN and others, you're guessing if it can pull off a $CRWV. People keep saying "software it not a moat, and look at $CRWV for $IREN future HPC margins", but if $ORCL one of the largest hyperscalers is stuck at 14% gross margins. Then how do we expect these small crypto miners to pull off a Coreweave. In terms of ASYMMETRICAL UPDATE, $NBIS is the clear favorite out of anything. In terms of raw potential upside if $IREN manages to pull a $CRWV out a hat and beats out $ORCL in this, sure I'd concede. Software full stack is a HUGE moat that people vastly, vastly underestimate. With $NBIS, they can just let it plug and play scale up over time with the highest gross margins in industry. $NBIS is what true asymmetric return looks like.
-
博主用动漫角色类比WLAC的个性发展。
@soulbiri1 Hinata 是个好例子，但我会说 $WLAC 在个性发展上更像 Nami。https://t.co/jwAT8SpKiG
英文原文
@soulbiri1 Hinata is a good example but I’d say $WLAC is more like Nami in personality development. https://t.co/jwAT8SpKiG
-
对比NBIS与IREN，认为前者如传奇纲手，后者如小樱般最终显得无用。
@soulbiri1 $NBIS 就像传说中的纲手(DD Tsunade)四处行走并最终成为火影。$IREN 则像某些主角如小樱(Sakura)，起初人们羡慕其力量，但随着时间推移，在与拥有全套配置的人相比时，人们终将意识到这种力量是无用的。
英文原文
@soulbiri1 $NBIS is like DD Tsunade walking around becoming hokage like a legend. $IREN is some main character like Sakura with power that people admire at first but will come to realize is useless as time goes on when you compare it to someone with the full package.
-
对比NBIS与转型矿企，强调软件全栈与护城河决定高毛利优势。
我在其他评论中提到 $CRWV，将其作为加密货币矿工转向高性能计算(HPC)所追求的金标准范例。 即便如此，在 $CRWV 花费数十亿美元收购软件并耗时多年构建之后，$NBIS 的 GPU 利用率依然更高。 人们对 $IREN 和其他转型中的加密货币矿工抱有过于乐观的看法，而 $ORCL 的毛利率实际上仅为 14%。$CRWV 花费数十亿美元和数年时间构建软件，人们却期望像 $SLNH 这样市值仅 1.4 亿美元的小盘股能有效转型并实现良好的毛利率。 产能带来更高的潜在收入，但如果毛利率微薄则意义不大。全栈+软件编排+客户多元化才是护城河，也是 $NBIS 在毛利率方面可能胜出的原因。 （另外我不看好 $CRWV，因为其坏账侵蚀了利润。$NBIS 的 40%+ 价外可转换票据结构才是正确路径）
英文原文
I mention $CRWV in the other comments as the gold standard example crypto miners pivoting to HPC aim for. Even then $NBIS has higher GPU utilization after CRWV spends billions on software acquisition and years to build it out. People have too much rose-tinted lens on $IREN and other crypto miners pivoting when $ORCL literally had 14% gross margins. Again CRWV spend billions and years on their software buildout and people expect some $140m micro cap like $SLNH to effectively pivot into good margins Capacity leads to higher potential revenue but it doesn’t mean much if their margins are small. Full stack + software orchestration + customer diversity is the moat and why $NBIS will likely come out on top in terms of margins. (Also didn’t like $CRWV since their bad debt eats into margins too. $NBIS convertible note structure 40%+ OTM is the way to go)
-
提醒市场通常提前两周半将事件预期计入价格。
@basanthgowda @DeepValueBagger 我并不是在建议采取任何行动，只是发出一个警告信息。 但通常情况下，市场会在事件发生前约两周半开始更多地将其计入价格（priced in）。
英文原文
@basanthgowda @DeepValueBagger I’m not saying to do anything, just giving a warning message. But generally it starts getting priced in more 2 1/2 weekish before the event
-
演示极度保守的估值方法，通过大幅折价计算持仓净值。
$58.8亿（现金）+ $26.8亿（投资组合公司股权，但我认为被低估了）+ 实物资产：约$20亿 = 105.6亿。 然后你对实物资产/投资组合股权打约6折，因为公司交易价格并不真的与净资产值(NAV) 1:1挂钩 = 持仓价值28.08亿 然后对现金打一些折扣，但幅度小得多，因为现金就是现金 = $58.8亿中的约43亿 28 + 43 = ~71（在极度保守的一端）
英文原文
$5.88B (cash) + $2.68B (equity in portfolio companies, but undervalued it) + Physical Assets: ~$2B = 10.56B. Then you slash ~40% off physical assets/portfolio equity because companies don't really trade 1:1 with NAV = 2.808B in holdings Then discount some cash but a lot less since cash is just cash = 4.3b-ish of $5.88B 2.8 + 4.3 = ~7.1 (on the hyper conservative end)
-
卖出HPC挖矿股转投NBIS，因后者利润率更高。
不，直到本周我都几乎持有了所有新云(Neocloud)股票。但在周五卖出了高性能计算(HPC)挖矿概念股，因为整合了更多新信息，例如 $ORCL 的建设失败、$NBIS 两天前发布的新白皮书、$CRWV 最近的收购案，以及对利润率计算的更多洞察。 但我会把资金转入 $NBIS。 人们对 HPC 挖矿商转型过于乐观，而 $ORCL 该板块利润率仅为 14%，且大家只盯着 Coreweave 看。 算力有助于扩大营收规模，但如果无法实现像 Nebius 那样的高利润率，这就没那么重要了。
英文原文
No, I held almost every Neocloud up until this week. But ended up selling HPC miners Friday after consolidating more information that came out eg. $ORCL buildout failing, $NBIS new whitepaper 2 days ago, $CRWV recent acquisitions, more insights into margin calculations. But I'll put that into $NBIS. People are too bullish on HPC miner pivots when $ORCL had 14% for that segment and they just look at Coreweave. Capacity helps scale revenue, but it wouldn't matter as much if they can't achieve high margins that Nebius will produce