方法论
研究框架、选股思路、思维方式 · 共 668 条 · 滚到底自动加载更多
-
呼吁先把稀土供应链补齐，不要本末倒置。
我们能不能……先把稀土供应链搞定，再做别的？ 为什么我们能花几十亿美元在迈阿密的玻璃塔楼上？ 却不能补贴我们最重要的 AI、机器人和太空上游稀土供应链…… 而这些链条完全依赖中国 / 俄罗斯？ 我们连一些最关键瓶颈的国内大规模加工都没有，比如从人形机器人机体到 AI 应用所需的铟 / 锗 / 镓。 只挑几只像 $MP 到 $USAR 这样的票然后说“我们做了点事”，远远不够。 稀土瓶颈是中国给美国埋的一个定时炸弹。 美国的优先级完全搞反了。
英文原文
Can we please… just secure our rare earths supply chains first before we do this? How are we able to spend billions on glass towers in Miami? But not subsidize all our most important AI, Robotics, and Space rare earth upstream supply chains… That are entirely dependent on China/Russia? We literally have no domestic processing at scale for some of the most vital chokepoints from Humanoids bodies to indium/germanium/gallium for AI applications. Picking a few like $MP to $USAR and saying “we did something” is not enough. The Rare Earths chokepoint is a ticking time bomb that China set over the US. America has its prioritizes completely wrong
-
主张与其烧昂贵导弹，不如更多投入定向能武器。
或者……与其把几十亿美元花在“更便宜的导弹”上。 毕竟现在用 300 到 400 万美元的爱国者导弹去打便宜无人机，根本不奏效。 我们是不是该更多研究并部署像 $LASR 和 HPM 这样的定向能武器？ 用 HEL（高能激光）的话： 它就是一束光……砰砰。每发 3.5 美元。 用 HPM（高功率微波）的话——它是一道能量锥，用来打无人机蜂群。 也许每次脉冲 0.05 美元左右？弹药基本等于无限。 虽然 $LMT 和 $RTX 也在做这些，但感觉我们只是一直在买昂贵导弹去给它们送钱。 如果把原本花在导弹上的数十亿美元，转去资助这类无限弹药的新技术…… 也许早就能把定向能武器做得更成熟了（比如解决驻留时间、天气变化、射程、功率这些问题）。 在伊朗这种延长冲突里，用几十亿美元的导弹去打便宜无人机，显然不可持续。
英文原文
Or... instead of spending billions on "cheaper missiles". Since blowing $3-4M Patriots to down cheap drones isn't working. We start to do more research and deploy Energy Directed Weapons like $LASR and HPM? With HEL (High Energy Lasers): It's a beam of light... pew pew. $3.50 per shot. With HPM (High Powered Microwaves) - It's a cone of energy for drone swarms. Maybe ~$0.05 per burst? Ammo is basically free and infinite. Even though $LMT and $RTX are developing these too... it's like we just keep buying expensive missiles to line their pockets at this point. More funding around this infinite ammo new tech, instead used for all those missiles... Probably could have made energy weapons better by now (eg. fixing problems with dwell time, weather changes, range, power). Firing billions of dollars of missiles at cheap drones clearly is not sustainable for extended conflicts in Iran.
-
提醒市场很残酷，不要在地缘风险下过度加杠杆。
这市场太残酷了。 如果你的股票名字里没有 Win，比如某只晶圆代工…… 那大概率宏观因素会比个股基本面更重要，比如 $MU 和 $META。 只是提醒一下，这时候不要上杠杆，也不要不负责任地过度加仓。 尤其是如果有限地面入侵随时可能开始……这可能意味着冲突延长和供应链进一步受扰。
英文原文
This market is brutal. If your stock doesn’t have Win in its name like a certain foundry… More likely than not macro > individual stock fundamentals from $MU and $META. Just a good reminder not to margin or irresponsibly overleverage during this time. Especially as a limited ground invasion might begin anytime… this might foreshadow extended conflicts and potential supply chain disruption.
-
认为稀土对国家安全至关重要，媒体不该煽动公众反对。
是的，$MP 对国家安全至关重要。中国再次把稀土武器化来对付我们。 FT 和其他新闻媒体去煽动美国民众……这真是蠢到不行。 美国政府花钱去保障我们的供应链，让我们不再依赖俄罗斯和中国，这有什么问题吗？ 他们到底是不是傻？
英文原文
Yes $MP is paramount to national security. Again China has weaponized Rare Earths against us. It’s incredibly stupid for FT and other news outlets to go and get rile up the US population… At the US government spending to secure our supply chains??? So we don’t rely on Russia and China? Are they all stupid?
-
批评 FT 对稀土投资的负面标题，认为这是正确的政策方向。
这是我看过 FT 最离谱的一条标题。 “美国在稀土交易中押注数十亿美元于未经验证的公司” 废话。 它们之所以“未经验证”，不就是因为我们什么都没有吗？ $USAR 到 $MP 都极其重要。 因为美国在 AI、机器人到太空所需的上游产能 / 炼厂上几乎什么都不拥有。我们依赖从加拿大到中国的其他国家。 这大概是特朗普政府最好的国内政策动作：资助这些没有盈利的项目。 目的就是确保美国供应链主权，而不是继续依赖俄罗斯和中国。 FT 这么写，感觉就是在故意激美国民众…… 他们明明是在通过措辞，抹黑那些真正能帮助美国独立的伟大努力。
英文原文
This is the most egregious headline I’ve read from FT. “US BETS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON UNPROVEN GROUPS IN RARE EARTHS DEALS” No sht. Maybe they’re “unproven” since we have nothing?? $USAR to $MP are incredibly important. Since US rare earths supply is the #1 national security priority right now. The United States owns almost none of the upstream capacity/refineries for AI, Robotics, to Space, as we rely on other countries from Canada to China. This is probably the best domestic policy move from the Trump administration to fund these unprofitable efforts. In order to secure US supply chain sovereignty instead of relying on Russia and China? It’s almost like FT is trying to make the US public mad… At genuinely great efforts to secure American’s independence by how they word these articles.
-
认为当前是选股而不是一起涨跌的市场。
@McLeary_77 总体上我对大盘是看空的。 不过现在确实是个选股市场。
英文原文
@McLeary_77 Overall I’m bearish on markets as a whole. However there will be clear individual winners. It’s a stock pickers market right now
-
认为中东局势如果持续升级，对市场长期不利。
现在大概正在进行美国 / 伊朗的幕后谈判，而特朗普很可能在找退场方案。 但如果局势继续升级（再延长 3 个月左右），而伊朗又通过中国 / 俄罗斯输送补给来扰乱全球能源市场。 我看不出这件事怎么可能在长期上是利多，除非市场过度反应。
英文原文
There’s probably backchannel negotiations right now with US/Iran and Trump is likely looking for an off ramp. But if escalation continues (extended ~3M) with Iran being by funneled supplies by China/Russia to disrupt the global energy markets. I can’t see how this could possibly be bullish long term unless markets overcorrect.
-
解释战争对供应链和能源危机的二阶影响被低估了。
你们严重低估了供应链和能源危机的二阶、三阶、四阶影响。 如果伊朗把阿联酋和中东大量油田炸掉并造成扰乱。 那边很多机构主要是在给美国私募、巨头公司等提供资金，他们可能不得不撤资，从 capex 支出到流动性都会引发大范围中断。 这还没算日本、韩国这些亚洲伙伴，它们在石油、LNG、能源等方面并没有美国那么自给自足。 全球经济现在是极度互联的。即便美国没事，供应链也不会没事。 而且你会在流动性、财报和股价上都看到这些影响。
英文原文
This is vastly underestimating second, third, fourth order effects of supply chains and the energy crisis. If Iran blows up a lot of oil fields in UAE and the Middle East and causes disruptions. Lot of institutions over there largely funding US private equities, megacap, and others may have to pull out funding, causing widescale disruptions from capex spend to liquidity. This is also ignoring Asian partners from Japan, KR, that is not as self-sustaining as the US is in regards to oil, LNG, energy, and others. The global economy is extremely interconnected now. Even if the US is fine, the supply chains won't be. And you'll see this showing up in both liquidity, earnings, and stock price.
-
指出 IREN 高管能增发稀释，拿 SNAP 作对照。
@DamienWong20 $IREN 的高管们其实可以用一种叫 SBC 的东西给自己发更多股份。 看看 $SNAP，员工每年能拿到 10 亿美元以上的奖励，而股价却一直在跌。
英文原文
@DamienWong20 There's something called SBC where $IREN executives can issue more shares to themselves. Take a look at $SNAP, the company awards employees $1B+ every year while stock prices keep dropping.
-
分享一个股票配置框架示例：分高增长股、moonshot、安全股、长期国家安全股四层配置
我个人不会仅投资一个行业以分散风险。我提到光子学如$AAOI是因为我认为它有最高的短期上涨空间。但像$NBIS这样的公司，正如Jensen准确所说的，会"照顾好你"的长期表现。也许可以找一些高增长long标的，例如：$ARM - 从新AI CPU获得5倍收入增长；$NBIS - 到第四季度实现7-9B ARR增长带来10倍收入增长；$AAOI - 从光收发器需求获得10倍收入增长；$MRVL - 从$MSFT Maia ASICs获得2-3倍收入增长。选择一两个moonshot：我提到$SIVE是我最喜欢的，但鉴于其规模小，我不会投入太多集中度。然后用一些"更安全的标的"进行杠铃配置：$AMZN长期看涨，即使通过机器人/AI削减运营成本，但其走势像蜗牛；$RDDT长期看涨，因为它利润极高且今天正在产生巨额自由现金流。也许还有一些"超长期玩家"具有深远的国家安全优势，例如：$INTC的"美国制造"；$AMKR的"美国制造"等。这只是一个虚构的例子。
英文原文
I would personally not just invest in one sector for diversification sake. I talk about photonics like $AAOI recently because I see it as highest short-term upside. But others like $NBIS as Jensen accurately said "will take care of you" long term. Maybe figure out high growth longs for example: $ARM - 5x revenue from new AI CPU $NBIS - 10x revenue to q4 $7-9B ARR ramp $AAOI - 10x revenue ramp from optical transceiver demand $MRVL - 2-3x revenue ramp from $MSFT Maia ASICs Pick one or two moonshots: I mentioned $SIVE as my favorite, but given it's small size, I wouldn't put too much concentration into them and then barbell with some "safer plays" $AMZN long term I'm bullish on even from robotics/AI cutting opex though it moves like a slug $RDDT long term I'm bullish on from on just because it's ridiculously high profit and generating massive FCF today. and maybe some "long, long term players" that have deep national security benefits eg: $INTC for Made in America $AMKR for Made in America, etc. Just a made up example.
-
强调公司不必增长太多，货币贬值和低流通股也能推高市值。
公司不需要增长那么多，美元只要贬值，百分比就会自己滚上去。 尤其是在政权更迭、目标是把国家债务通过通胀慢慢化掉的时候。 很多公司本身流通盘就很小（比如和 SoftBank 相关的公司，或者 SpaceX 相关标的），这也会把市值往上抬一点。 所以资金流入，并不等于市值就一定成比例扩张。
英文原文
Companies don't need to grow that much, dollar just needs to be devalued and % just compound. Esp. if there's an administration change and their goal is inflating away national debt. Lot of these companies trade off low float too (eg. Softbank related companies or with SpaceX and this just inflates MC a bit). So capital inflows doesn't really equate to MC expansion.
-
提出地缘冲突极端情景下的末日ETF配置组合及各自逻辑。
Serenity末日ETF： 25% | $FAZ 25% | $GUSH 20% | $LCID 做空 10% | $SQQQ 10% | $UVIX 10% | $NVDA 看跌期权 逻辑： $FAZ / 3倍做空金融股 - 私人市场流动性(Private Market liquidity)押注，中东资本如果所有油田被炸毁将撤离私人市场。 $GUSH / 2倍做多美国油气 - 全球原油价格可能飙升，美国生产商赚取创纪录利润。 $SQQQ / 3倍做空纳斯达克 - 谷歌、亚马逊、苹果、微软被迫抛售，如果流动性被抽走的话。 $LCID 做空 / 沙特阿拉伯公共投资基金(Public Investment Fund)持有60%股份。如果沙特遭受流动性冲击(Private Market liquidity shock)，Lucid也就完了。 $UVIX / 2倍做多波动率 - 如果发生黑天鹅事件，波动率就会上升。 $NVDA 看跌期权 - 作为$SPY最大权重股最后的防线。如果资本支出被削减，指数下跌时英伟达会跌得最惨。 只有在美国向伊朗派遣地面部队且伊朗炸毁周边一切的情况下，我才会看到这种情景。 让我们祈祷发生的是塔可星期二吧。
英文原文
The Serenity Doomsday ETF: 25% | $FAZ 25% | $GUSH 20%| $LCID Short 10% | $SQQQ 10% $UVIX 10% | $NVDA Puts Rationale: $FAZ / 3x short financial - Private Market liquidity play on Middle Eastern capital abandoning private markets if all their oil fields get blown apart. $GUSH / 2x Long US OIl and Gas - Global crude prices that will likely skyrocket, and American producers reap record windfall in profits. $SQQQ / 3x short Nasdaq - Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft forced selling if liquidity gets pulled. $LCID Short / 60% owned by Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund. If the Saudis suffer from liquidity shock, there goes Lucid. $UVIX/ 2x long volatility - If there's black swan events, volatility goes up. $NVDA Puts - Last bastion for the $SPY as largest weighting. If capex gets pulled, index sells off will Nvidia go down the hardest. I only see this scenario if US sends ground troops to Iran and Iran blows everything around it up. Let's pray for Taco Tuesday.
-
强调核心是 thesis 和结果，不是仓位美元金额或权威背书。
我不会公开 $RDDT 到 $CRCL 的仓位美元金额，因为那根本不重要。 真正重要的是核心论点 / 想法： 市场里的百分比结果会验证它们，而不是一个组合有多大、美元金额涨了多少（比如 1000 万美元里的 0.01%）。 我之前也对那些在 X 上被嘲笑只有 5000 美元或 25000 美元组合的小创作者说过同样的话。 他们的想法也应该被认真听，而不是看他们有多少钱。 这和我在发布 thesis 时，不会拿自己在 RISC-V 或 AI 实验室发论文的背景来背书是一个道理： 判断依据应该是核心想法。 不是权威。 那些没完没了的噪音最后也把我自己搞得有点受不了，所以我在发 $SIVE 的持仓数字时还是妥协了一次。 实质内容才是关键，我想这也正是我最近账号能涨这么多关注的主要原因。 我也鼓励别人把重心放在这一点上。
英文原文
I don’t post USD values of positions from $RDDT to $CRCL since they’re irrelevant. What matters are the core thesis/ideas: The % outcome in the market validates them, not the size of a portfolio and USD values going up a lot (like .01% of $10M). I’ve said this before as well to any small X content creator who gets made fun of because of a $5K port or $25K port. They should be listened to as well for their ideas, not how much money they have. It’s the same reason I don’t cite my background in RISC-V to publishing papers in AI Labs when I post a thesis: They’re based on the core idea. Not authority. All the endless noise ended up getting to my head so I gave in once posting $SIVE figures. Substance is what matters and I think that’s largely why my account got such a huge following recently. And I encourage others to focus on that as well.
-
认为在伊朗和特朗普不确定性下不该加杠杆，因为很多小票已有很低估值或卡住关键瓶颈。
@AdityaInvests90 不，我觉得伊朗冲突和特朗普这边的不确定性太大了；我宁愿不要在下跌路上加杠杆，以防它继续往下掉。 很多标的已经估值很低，或者虽然体量很小，但卡着关键瓶颈。 所以它们能跌的空间也很有限。
英文原文
@AdityaInvests90 No, Iran conflict and Trump have too much uncertainty, and I’d rather not leverage on the way down just in case it keeps dropping. Many names are at depressed valuations or hold critical chokepoints despite being so small. So there’s only so much they can drop.
-
说自己喜欢前面提到的所有名字，Win Semi 和 ARM 是最新加入的。
@RiskAdjustedMe 说实话，我喜欢我提到过的所有名字。Win Semi 和 $ARM 是其中最新加进来的。
英文原文
@RiskAdjustedMe Tbh I like all of the names I’ve mentioned. Win Semi and $ARM were the newest ones out of the bunch.
-
说自己通常会用约 1.4x 杠杆，现在因伊朗冲突已降到 0，但仍整体看多。
@AdityaInvests90 我通常会维持大约 1.4 倍杠杆。（只有在比如 $NBIS $70 那种仓位，或者年初税损收割的仓位上，才会把组合再加杠杆）。 现在因为伊朗冲突，我已经把杠杆降到 0 了，但整体上我还是看多。
英文原文
@AdityaInvests90 I typically sit on ~1.4x. (Only portfolio margined past 2 into stuff like $NBIS at $70 or tax harvested stuff at the beginning of the year). Now winded down to 0 due to Iran conflict but still long in general.
-
说自己在做金融科技业务，研究市场只是为了兴趣和验证 thesis。
@SalmanJ99750827 我现在自己在做一个 fintech，所以个人其实挺忙的。 我做这些更多只是当作业余爱好。 市场就像下棋：你对一个 thesis 有信念，然后看它最后会不会兑现，这个过程本身就挺有意思的。
英文原文
@SalmanJ99750827 I run my own fintech right now, so quite busy personally. I'm just doing this for fun on the side. Markets are like playing chess, you have conviction in a thesis. Then it's fun to see it play out or not.
-
吐槽 X 正在变成只看内幕卖出、不看基本面的 WSB。
@analyt1c 现在 X 越来越像 WallStreetBets 了：大家分析一家公司只看内幕卖出，却把这家公司每一个基本面都忽略掉。
英文原文
@analyt1c X is turning into WallStreetBets where you analyze a company based on insider sales while ignoring every single fundamental of the company.
-
认为内幕卖出本身是很大的噪音，不该被当成主线。
@ntcoffeee 我不知道我还要说多少次……但内幕卖出是任何股票里最大的噪音之一。
英文原文
@ntcoffeee I'm not sure how many times I need to say this... but insider selling is one of the biggest noise any stock can have.
-
解释不做跟单，是为了让别人自己建立 conviction。
我之所以没有设置跟单，是因为我不想让大家盲目跟随。 我分享的是那些一路上帮助我建立自己信念的想法。 如果别人能从中学到一点东西，最后也建立起自己的 conviction，那这才是最理想的方式。
英文原文
The reason I haven't set up copy-trading is because I don't want people to blindly follow. I share ideas that helped me build my own conviction along the way. And if people learn a thing or to and end up building their own conviction, then that's the ideal way to go about it.
-
概述自己的打法：先识别新兴赛道，再沿整条供应链做多，同时强调风控和透明。
如果你现在还不了解我的风格： 我会先识别即将起来的赛道（光子学、存储、无人机），然后沿着整条供应链去做多。 当然，我也不是每次都对。 $AVAV 和无人机板块是我今年除 $RDDT 外亏得最多的（不过 $OSS 最后涨了 60%+）。 我仍然从基本面上相信像 $AIRO、$LPTH 等公司长期都非常扎实。（$AIRO 现在仍然涨了大约 15%，但它曾经 70%+ 的涨幅大部分都没了，Draganfly 跌得更多。） 而且光看 $SNDK 这种超级周期，就会产生一种非常不现实的预期，觉得每个月都能涨 100%。 我在那个板块里识别的主要催化，是委内瑞拉入侵带来的隐蔽无人机 + 前沿防御合同 / 分包商需求。 我也预期后续会有资金继续流入这个板块。 不过，在格陵兰协议那一段，我提过自己已经开始降风险了（大多数防务承包商都跌了），但我还是保留了像 $AVAV 这种较小仓位。 SCAR 项目输给其他公司，比如 $AVAV，这也是个更大的意外，我亏得更多。 不幸的是，伊朗战争这次主要冲击的是像 L3 Harris、$NOC 这种更大的防务承包商，以及像 Anduril 这样的私营公司，还有一些定向能供应商，比如 $LASR。 所以无人机公司并没有多少顺风修复。 尽管如此，我确实知道怎么止损。 但我还是经常被人喷，说“看你今年早些时候喜欢过的 X 股票”。 在这件事上我很透明：$IREN 社区里某些高管，在他们的粉丝因为 $BKKT 或 $ASST 稀释后亏掉 90% 之后，会把所有帖子都删掉。 我挑的多数股票基本面都非常扎实，所以从最初 thesis 出来以后，它们要么守住了自己的价位。 而且我也会把风险等级 / 信念等级一起写出来（风险高的当然下行也更大）。 我比那些只会发热评的人更有 skin in the game。 所以如果我的 thesis 错了，我自己也会亏钱（这种例子还有很多，像 $AVAV 这种就是无穷无尽的亏损）。 但我会把所有东西都留着，让你们自己看事情最后怎么演变。
英文原文
If you don't know my style by now: I identify upcoming sectors (photonics, memory, drones), then go long on the entire supply chain. I'm not always right, though. $AVAV and the drone sectors were my biggest losses this year outside of $RDDT ( $OSS did end up 60%+ ). I still believe fundamentally companies like $AIRO, $LPTH and others are extremely solid long term. ( $AIRO is still up ~15%, but lost majority of it's 70%+ gains, Draganfly dropped way more) And there's very unrealistic expectations from looking at $SNDK supercycles that everything can go up 100% a month. The main catalyst I've identified around that sector was the Venezuela invasion's usage of hidden drone + edge defense contracts/subcontractors. And I expected there to be follow-up funding into the sector. However, I mentioned I de-risked around the Greenland deal (majority of defense contractors crashed) but kept smaller concentration in stuff like $AVAV. SCAR program loss to others like $AVAV was even a bigger surprise and I lost even more. Unfortunately, the War in Iran focused around larger defense contractors like L3 Harris, $NOC and private companies like Anduril, and some energy directed suppliers like $LASR. So there weren't many tailwind recoveries for drone companies. That being said, I do know how to cut losses. But I still get a lot of crap saying oh look at "X stock they've liked earlier in the year". I'm very transparent when it comes to these things: A certain executive in the $IREN community are known to delete all their posts after their followers lose 90% on $BKKT or $ASST post-dilution. Majority of my stocks I identify are extremely solid fundamentally so they either hold their level since my original thesis. And I post risk-levels / conviction-levels with them too (risky ones obviously have more downside). I have skin in the game compared to others that just post hot takes. So if my thesis is wrong, I lose money personally (there's ton of more fills like this, just endless losses on $AVAV). But I leave everything up so you can see how things play out.
-
说如果围绕 SIVE、MTSI、LITE 建立自己的 conviction，就会理解估值仍便宜。
@Berlinergy 没错。很多事情归根结底就是理解不够。 如果人们能围绕 $SIVE、$MTSI、$LITE 这些名字建立起自己的信念，看到 EML / CW 的瓶颈会有多严重。 那等你看到它们已经涨了 125%+ 的时候，你还是会觉得它们被低估了。
英文原文
@Berlinergy Exactly. Lot of things come just a lack of understanding. If people developed their own conviction around names like $SIVE, $MTSI, $LITE if they saw how severe the EML/CW bottleneck is going to be. Then when you see a 125%+ increase, you would still think it's undervalued.
-
说明自己在教散户如何通过识别 AI 架构变化来抢跑机构。
我在教散户如何通过识别 AI 架构变化来抢跑机构，用 $AXTI 以及其他名字做例子。 然后再去挑供应链里的赢家。 这类信息通常会比传统模式快很多被计价： $2 万美元以上的卖方研究报告 -> 机构用几周时间通过限价单 / 暗池慢慢买 -> 等散户知道时，股价已经涨了 1000% 以后。
英文原文
I’m teaching retail how to frontrun institutions by spotting architectural changes in AI with $AXTI and others. Then picking the winners in the supply chains. It tends to get priced in a lot faster than the traditional model of $20K+ sellside reports -> institutions load up over weeks with limit buys/dark pools -> retail finds out after it’s gone up 1000%
-
强调自己靠信息发现和机构验证提前抓到多只大涨股，并反问为何现在还被质疑。
我在想…… 无论是 $AXTI、$IQE 还是 $SIVE。 还有我做多的很多其他光子学赢家，比如 $LITE，过去几个月回报都是 100% 到 1000%。 那些酸的人什么时候才会承认…… 我的 thesis 其实就是对的。为什么还要贬低它？ 像 $TSEM 这种市值 200 亿美元以上的公司，不会在两周内涨 70%，除非机构验证了 thesis 并觉得它有说服力。 $AXTI 也是一样，除非机构觉得它有说服力，否则不会从 4.5 亿美元市值一路涨到 38.5 亿美元。 我只是比别人更早发现这些东西，并做信息整合 / 信息发现。 在这些案例里，散户明显先于机构行动，而且赚到了改变人生的收益。 如果 thesis 是错的，机构可以站在交易的另一边。可他们并没有这么做。 X 上所有人都在问下一个 1000% 在哪。 而当有人在 X 上免费发出多个想法， 在价格还没动之前就明确给出方向性交易， -> 然后它们像 $AXTI 一样真的涨了 10 倍： 得到的却是诽谤？ 也许你该想一想……是不是 thesis / idea 本来就是对的？
英文原文
I’m curious… With $AXTI, $IQE, or $SIVE. And the many other photonics winners I’ve longed like $LITE that returned 100-1000% over the past few months. When is it time for the salty folks out there to admit… That my thesis are just right after all. Instead of downplaying it? $20B+ companies like $TSEM don’t just move up 70% in 2 weeks, unless institutions validated the thesis and found it compelling. Same with $AXTI, it wouldn’t have ran from $450M MC to $3.85B MC unless institutions found it compelling. I just spot these before others do, and post information synthesis/discovery. In these cases, retail has clearly frontrun institutions and made life changing returns. If the thesis were wrong, institutions can take the other end of the trade. Which they don’t. Everyone on X keeps asking for the next 1000%. And when there’s someone out there on X that posts multiple (for free) ideas. Posts a clear directional trade before the price even moved. -> then they do ~10x like $AXTI: They’re met with slander instead? Ever stop to think… maybe the thesis/idea was right after all?
-
希望按订阅者数量做 discovery，便于在各赛道里找到高信号的人。
@nikitabier 能不能也像其他平台一样，按订阅者数量做 discovery？ 感觉那样会是个挺有趣的方式，能按不同板块找到高信号的人。
英文原文
@nikitabier Can you add discovery too based on subscriber count like other platforms? Feels like that would be fun way to find high signal folks based on each sector
-
劝别人不要 FOMO 买进机器人抓取帖子的人。
@omoliverm 对啊……请不要因为机器人在抓取我的帖子就 FOMO 买入。 这种公司更新已经有点离谱了。
英文原文
@omoliverm Yeah... Please don't fomo buy into the bots scrapping my posts. This is getting a little ridiculous for a company update.
-
说自己会之后再发 turboquant 的研究。
@SlumberMD 我今天正好在研究 turboquant，之后我会发一篇关于它的内容，问得很好。
英文原文
@SlumberMD i'll post something on turboquant, was researching it today, good question
-
明确表示不是推荐，若要买请自己尽调。
@Tanguy_mk1 绝对不是推荐这个。 如果你想买，请自己做尽调。
英文原文
@Tanguy_mk1 not recommending this at all. if you want to buy it, do your own DD
-
鼓励别人自己研究并独立做出最终判断。
@0xInitialAce 你愿意自己做研究真的很好，我也鼓励其他人都这么做。 最终判断还是得由你自己来做！
英文原文
@0xInitialAce That’s really good you’re doing your own research and I encourage everyone else to as well. Up to you to make the final call!
-
怀疑自己现在可能被机构基金经理跟单了。
@0xInitialAce 我现在大概真的已经有机构基金经理在 copy trade 我了，哈哈。
英文原文
@0xInitialAce I’m pretty sure I have institutional fund managers copy trading me now lol