方法论
研究框架、选股思路、思维方式 · 共 623 条 · 第 4 / 13 页
-
这是卡点，不是短缺
这些是横跨多年超级周期的卡点，不是瓶颈。 $AXTI、$SNDK 符合瓶颈的定义。 但像玻璃核心或者 DFB 激光这类东西，应该能穿越 2028 年，而这就是光子学或先进封装架构变化带来的下一轮量产爬坡的开始。
英文原文
These are chokepoints over multiple year supercycles not bottlenecks. $AXTI, $SNDK fit the definition of a bottleneck. But stuff like glass core or dfb lasers should scale past 2028 and this is the beginning of the next volume ramp from architectural shifts in photonics or advanced packaging.
-
别盲目跟单
我真心佩服有一位朋友靠 copy trade 一路做到管理对冲基金。 但请不要盲目复制我谈到的东西，比如 $AXTI 或 $LPK。 这也是我一直没做 copy-trading app、也不告诉大家我什么时候卖出的主要原因。 我只是想在自己的旅程里，免费持续发布有趣的想法 / 研究。 目标是帮助你们把复杂信息整合起来，建立自己的 thesis / conviction。 不过，我还是很乐意免费分享我的想法。
英文原文
I’m genuinely impressed one of you copy traded your way into managing a hedge fund. But please don’t blindly copy stuff I talk about like $AXTI or $LPK. That’s the main reason I haven’t done copy-trading apps or tell people when I sell. I just want to publish interesting thoughts / research for free as I go along my journey. With the goal of helping you all synthesize complex information to build your own thesis/conviction. Happy to help share my thoughts for free though.
-
不要只看 meme 标签
就在一个月前，记者和媒体还在淡化我对 $SOI 和 $RPI 的 thesis。 他们引用我的 WSB 标签，把它说成是“注定要崩的 meme 股”，却没有分析底层 thesis。 结果这两只都涨了 100%，而且把涨幅守住了。 $SIVE 现在也是同样的情况。 我从来不靠权威说话……但既然他们想走这条路： 我就很好奇……他们的叙事里为什么总把我在 Nature 之类的地方发表过、被引用上千次的基础 AI 论文背景漏掉？ 又或者为什么今天 X 上那些看多 $SIVE 的分析师里，有些人是 UC Berkeley 的 Ph.D.，而且本身就在光子学领域发文？ 反而总是英语系或非技术背景的毕业生跑去媒体上，对 CPO 超大规模云厂商认证周期和供应链映射发表最强硬的意见。 我总觉得机构最不喜欢的，就是散户投资者在 X 上真的懂自己在说什么。 一个 thesis 应该靠本身的价值生死，而不是发言人是什么权威。
英文原文
Just 1 month ago, journalists and media tried downplaying my $SOI and $RPI thesis. As “meme stocks that were set to crash” citing my WSB tag without analyzing the underlying thesis. They’re both up 100% and held their gains. Same is happening to companies like $SIVE. I never argue from authority… but since they’re going that route: I’m curious why… in their narratives they just leave out the fact I published fundamental AI papers in places like Nature with thousands of citations? Other the fact other analysts on X positive about $SIVE today have Ph.Ds from places like UC Berkeley and publish in the photonics space? It’s always the English or non-technical graduates that go out in the media and have the strongest opinion about CPO hyperscaler qualification cycles and supply chain mapping. It just feels like institutions hate it when a retail investors on X know what they’re talking about. A thesis should live and die based on merit, not the authority of who is comes from.
-
AEHR 被重新定价
我说过了，$AEHR 正在起飞。 当你把市值做到一定程度，基本上就是机构在主导价格了。 如果你找到一家很多超大规模云厂商都在用的公司……它被重估几乎是注定的？
英文原文
Told ya. $AEHR is cooking. Once you reach a certain point with MC it’s mostly institutions driving price. If you find a name that a ton of hyperscalers use… it’s feels bound to get repriced? https://t.co/AHqpgbqHJK
-
批评仅看图表的技术分析谬误，强调基本面比K线更重要。
谢谢，我只是厌倦了人们在图表上画线，或者说'已经涨了200%，所以可能不会再涨了'。这可能是投资领域最大的谬误之一，尤其是欧洲当地人可能很难理解这一点。基本面相、market expansion、revenue acceleration、客户，比图表上的数字重要得多。
英文原文
Thanks, I'm just so tired of people drawing lines on a chart or saying "it's gone up 200%, so it probably can't go up more". This is probably one of the greatest fallacies in investing, especially one European locals might have a hard time understanding. Fundamentals, market expansion, revenue acceleration, customers, are much more important than numbers on a chart.
-
光子学是可扩张性的解法
@dontbuytops 光子学就是解决可扩展性的办法。 如果我们说的是像 EML / DFB 这种光子的大规模生产，那确实有瓶颈。 这也是我看多 $SIVE 的原因之一——他们从一开始就不会自己烧太多 capex 去处理这些问题。
英文原文
@dontbuytops Photonics is the solution to scalability. If we’re talking about mass production of photonics like EML/DFB stuff, there’s bottlenecks for sure. Which is why I’m long the entire supply chain from substrates to foundries to osats .
-
两周内多数持仓股大涨，长期逻辑不变，短期入场点决定10-20%收益差异。
哇，大部分这30只我喜欢的股票两周内都涨了很多（给新来的朋友们做个回顾）顺便说一下，我对它们任何一只的长期看法都没有改变，从$MRVL、$AMD、$ARM到其他的。短期入场点位是会变的，比如从$AAOI到$AEHR，而这些点位差异会产生+10-20%的不同。我在做新布局时，分析中会花很多精力在"未被发掘"的标的上，比如Riber或$SIVE或$RPI或$IQE->等待它演绎出来。但去年关于$LITE或$NBIS或$AXTI的论点还是一样的。我不需要反复发布相同的论点，因为它已经不是新东西了。但它们之所以不再是新的，是因为市场已经验证了这些论点，正在因此对股票进行实时重新定价。
英文原文
Wow, majority of these 30 stocks I’ve liked are up a lot in just two weeks (just a recap to new folks) By the way, my long term opinion doesn’t change on any of them from $MRVL, $AMD, $ARM and others. Short term entry points do though with names like $AAOI to $AEHR. And they make the difference between +10-20%. I focus a lot about the “undiscovered” ones like Riber or $SIVE or $RPI or $IQE in analysis when I make a new entry -> wait for it to play out. But the same thesis around $LITE or $NBIS or $AXTI from last year is still the same. And I don’t need to post that same thesis multiple times, since it’s not new anymore. But the reason they’re not new is because markets have validated the thesis and are repricing the stocks live because of them.
-
上涨时更应坚持
@amandaong23 对，我觉得美国前一阵刚经历过一次小崩盘。 我一直都认为，如果一只股票在那种调整期还能上涨，那它在后面正面宏观环境里大概率会涨得更多。
英文原文
@amandaong23 We literally just had a mini crash two weeks ago. I’ve always maintained that if a stock is up during that correction period, it will probably be up a ton more during a friendlier macro climate.
-
自建模型和数据管线
@PacificPal00 我最后还是自己搭了自定义模型和数据管线。 Frontier 模型半数时间都很烂，爱胡编，除非你做的是更基础的事。
英文原文
@PacificPal00 I ended up just building my own custom model and data pipelines. The frontier models suck and hallucinate half the time unless you’re doing something more basic
-
这是基于已确认协议的映射
@crux_capital_ 这就是基于已确认协议做的供应链映射。 $GOOGL 不会在新闻稿里突然跑出来说它的上游基板供应商是 $AXTI。 我在上面的说法里会用“很可能”这样的词，哪怕对第一轮量产周期来说几乎已经是板上钉钉。
英文原文
@crux_capital_ It’s supply chain mapping off confirmed agreements. $GOOGL won’t go out and randomly say in a press releases their upstream substrate provider is $AXTI. I use words like likely in my statements above even though it’s near certain for the first production cycles
-
认证周期不能短线拆解
@crux_capital_ 如果你觉得能在很短时间内把 $POET 从 Celestial 2028 的量产爬坡里设计掉，那你就是没理解认证周期。 $SIVE 和 $POET 也是一样，但我预计这些关系大多会随着时间变成多来源结构。
英文原文
@crux_capital_ That’s misunderstanding qualification cycles if you think they can design out $POET in a short timeframe for celestial 2028 volume ramp. Same with $SIVE and $POET but I expect most relationships to be multi source over time
-
就是供应链映射
@crux_capital_ 这是供应链映射。 https://t.co/loBcX9iRNp
英文原文
@crux_capital_ It’s supply chain mapping https://t.co/loBcX9iRNp
-
市场更爱确证型证据
@Gubloinvestor 我的意思是，谁都可以通过 AlChip、Marvell 之类把它映射到 Amazon，或者映射到 Microsoft，对吧？ 但市场有时候更喜欢一些更具体的“证据”，比如来自 $AMZN 的 photonic fabric 采购协议，而它又能映射回 $SIVE。
英文原文
@Gubloinvestor I mean anyone can just map it to Amazon through AlChip, Marvell, etc? Or Microsoft? But sometimes markets like more concrete“proof” like photonic fabric purchase agreements from $AMZN that maps to $SIVE
-
批评加密圈忘了区块链原本的用途。
这感觉就像……对冲基金 / VC 突然忘了区块链本来是干什么的？ 他们居然把数字资产变成了： 代币融资 -> 散户退出流动性，循环往复。 现在，没人再在乎“治理币”或 gas 代币了，因为那只是印钞后的更大傻瓜理论。 区块链最初的意义，是尽可能减少中间商，也顺带把费用降下来。 尽管如此： 1. 3 天 ACH 通道还在……虽然我们已经有 0 成本的支付通道。 2. 巨额 interchange 还在……虽然我们已经有 0 成本的支付通道。 3. 数字资产“信用卡”只是给 Visa/Mastercard 又包了一层更磨损的外壳。 4. 储蓄账户利率还是 0.3%，而现在法律还在试图堵住和稳定币相关的收益。 数字资产原本想做到的事，除了稳定币之外，几乎都没实现。 也许你们只是盲目追下一家 $HOOD / Hyperliquid（代币化、链上股票），或者盲目跟着 Ethereum，所以表现才会这么差。 重点不是靠代币价格上涨赚钱，再把 meme 币的癫狂变现。 而是要去资助真正有颠覆性的项目，比如 Bridge（稳定币出金/入金、interchange）之类。 这个圈子里绝大多数人毫无 alpha，因为他们都忘了它最初到底是为了什么。
英文原文
It's like... Hedge Funds/VCs suddenly forgot what blockchain was ever supposed to do? They somehow turned digital assets into: Token raise -> retail exit liquidity on repeat. Now, nobody cares anymore about "governance or gas" tokens since it's greater fools theory from printed money. The original point of blockchain is removing as many middlemen as possible, and as a byproduct, the fees. Despite all of this: 1. 3 Day ACH rails are still around... Even though we have payment rails for 0 cents. 2. Massive interchange is still around... despite having payment rails at 0 cents... 3. Digital Asset "Credit Cards" are just more friction-add wrappers around Visa/Mastercard. 4. Yields are still .3% in checking accounts and now laws are trying to bank stablecoin related yields. Very little that digital assets set out to do actually got accomplished, aside from Stablecoins? Maybe you all have bad performance by just blindly following the next L2 exchange token or blindly into Ethereum. It's not about making money from token prices going up + monetizing degeneracy from meme coins. It's to be funding any legitimate disruptors, like the next $HOOD/Hyperliquid (Tokenization, on-chain equities), Bridge (stablecoin off-ramps/intercharge), etc. 0 alpha from the vast majority of folks in that space, because everyone there lost vision on what it was originally supposed to do.
-
说这些名字大概率还会继续冲，自己是在抢跑机构。
@Lee_Trades 我提到的这些名字大概率还会继续往上冲。 三位数回报看起来很多……但那不是因为我个人在追 10 倍。 这更像是在一个超级周期最早期抢在机构前面。
英文原文
@Lee_Trades All of the names I’ve mentioned are likely to keep on running. The triple digit return looks like a lot… but it’s not cause I’m personally chasing 10x. This is what it feels like to frontrun institutions at the very beginning of a supercycle
-
建议写 16 个名字的 thesis 并高集中做多。
@UntappedAlpha 给 16 个单独名字各写一篇 thesis 帖。 高集中度做多。 4 个月里让它们都涨 100-1000%+？其实很简单，说真的。
英文原文
@UntappedAlpha Write a thesis post on 16 individual names. Go long on them with high concentration. The have them all return 100-1000%+ in 4 months? Pretty simple tbh
-
股票市场是正和游戏，可从AI瓶颈中获利而非投资传统公司
随时哈哈..我不认为大多数人已经意识到股票是正和(Positive Sum)游戏，每个人都能从中受益。我也不认为他们意识到你可以从AI瓶颈中获利，而不是做多像$PYPL或$CRM这样的传统公司。
英文原文
@pennycheck Anytime lol.. I don't think majority of people realize yet stocks are positive sum, where everyone benefits. Also don't think they realize you can make profit off AI bottlenecks, instead of going long on traditional companies like $PYPL or $CRM.
-
区分自己与 Roaring Kitty 的做法。
当然尊重 Roaring Kitty，但他买 meme 股是为了逼空机构。 而我做的是指出那些基本面扎实、无论我是否发声都会继续上涨的公司。 而且我会先把它们分享给散户。
英文原文
All respect for Roaring Kitty but he buys memestocks to short squeeze institutions. What I do is point out fundamentally sound companies that would keep going up with or without me. And I point them out to retail first. FOR FREE. Instead of selling to institutions for $20k/article so they can frontrun retail investors.
-
作者解释其研究方法论：提前发现被低估的小盘股，在机构买入前将信息分享给散户
不。这种扯淡的思维模式该停止了。 我的做法是在这些股票实现100-500%+回报之前，先向散户指出它们。 美国机构如Point72或Apollo最终会把它们买下来的。 1. $IQE上涨是因为它们坐拥全球最大的InP反应器隐性代工产能，当时市值仅1亿欧元，而Landmark等公司交易在38亿美元。 它们还是$LITE的供应商，而光子学/epiwafer需求今年爆发了。 2. $SIVE上涨是因为它们与$JBL和O-Net签订了新协议。 但当我首次建仓时，它们还鲜为人知——作为$MRVL CPO项目的激光供应商。 如果我没有引起关注，像$AVGO这样的美国机构很可能会像高通收购Alphawave那样，直接收购这家公司——在openlight那边发生的事情。 那样的话瑞典散户投资者就得不到任何上涨收益了。 3. $ALRIB上涨是因为它们的财报将市盈率压低至远期26倍，尽管在MBE领域与$VECO保持双头垄断地位。 加上新的SiPH设备，以及$IQE和QD Laser（量子点）都是它们的客户。 这是我十年来最原始的信息发现——原来$MSFT Quantum是它们的买家。 你不会看到直接的超大规模云厂商前沿量子计算项目依赖一家市值不到10亿美元的公司。 4. $SOI上涨208%是因为它在硅光子学和CPO用的SOI基材上拥有不为人知的垄断地位。 这更多是信息整合加上在它们传统业务周期底部买入的时机把握。 5. $RPI上涨是因为财报和AI硬件使用量。 我只是第一个指出它的人。 我预测营收增长55%，而分析师预测14%。它们实际做到了58%。 我只是给了散户在机构有机会发现并定价之前买入的机会。 即使我不发我的分析报告，这只股票也会基于纯基本面上涨——作为一家无晶圆厂公司，你不可能用5亿美元市值做出5.11亿美元营收。 我只是给散户在机构之前获得信息发现的所有机会。 这与那些机构告诉你买指数基金或已经涨了1500%的股票——让你当退出流动性的完全不同的模式。
英文原文
No. This type of BS mindset needs to stop. What I do is point them out to retail first before the 100-500%+ returns. US institutions like Point72 or Apollo would have bought them out eventually. 1. $IQE went up because they're sitting on the most latent merchant capacity in the world for InP reactors back at a 100M euro marketcap. While companies like Landmark were trading at $3.8B. They were also the supplier to $LITE, and photonics/epiwafer demand took off this year. 2. $SIVE went up because they had new deals with $JBL and O-Net. But they were already unknown as the laser supplier to $MRVL's CPO program when I first went long. American institutions like $AVGO would have likely just bought the company directly like what Qualcomm did with Alphawave over in the openlight side of things if I didn't bring attention to it. Then Swedish retail investors wouldn't get any of the upside. 3. $ALRIB went up because their earnings sent their P/E down to fwd 26, despite holding a duopoly in the MBE category with $VECO. This combined with new SiPH equipment, as well as $IQE + QD Laser (for quantum dot) being their customers. This was combined from raw information discovery of the decade that $MSFT Quantum was their buyer. You don't see direct hyperscaler frontier programs in quantum computing dependant on some <$1B MC company. 4. $SOI is up 208% because it has an unknown monopoly over SOI substrates for silicon photonics and CPO. This was more information synthesis combined with timing the bottom of their legacy cycle. 5. $RPI went up because of earnings and AI hardware usage. I was just the very first person to point it out. I projected 55% revenue growth compared to 14% from analysts. They did 58%. I just gave retail the chance to buy it before institutions. The stock would have gone up off of pure fundamentals without me posting my thesis because you don't do $511m in revenue off a $500m MC as a fabless company. I'm just giving retail the all the information discovery before institutions have a chance to find it and price it in. This is a completely different model than the same institutions telling you to buy index funds or stocks that already went up 1500% so you're exit liquidity.
-
说明公司增长对整个经济是正和的。
但这对他们整个经济来说是正和效应啊，而且会把整个本地人口都带起来？ 如果公司拿到更多资金，他们就能雇更多本地人做研发，capex 还会继续向上游供应商传导（而这些供应商也会受益于融资）。 然后如果利润更多，交的税也更多…… 那就会有更多钱流进社会福利项目或者基础设施。 我真的不理解，公司增长本来就是正和的，它们不是在吸当地人的血来建立财富。 这又不是 $SNAP。
英文原文
It’s a positive sum effect for their entire economy though and brings up the whole local population together? If companies have more funding, they can hire more locals for R&D, the capex goes upstream to all their suppliers (who also benefit from funding). Then more taxes are paid if they make more profits… So more money goes into social welfare programs or infrastructure. I genuinely don’t understand, company growth is positive sum, they’re not leeching off the population to build wealth. This isn’t $SNAP.
-
抱怨别人限制自己分享免费 DD。
@thetakill 哥们，我就不能分享一点免费的思路型 DD，而不被人告诉我应该发什么吗。
英文原文
@thetakill Bro can I just share a free thought process DD without someone telling me what I should post
-
说对高税的办法就是赚得更多。
@miraclemaster07 对，税确实高。不过我的理念就是把短期资本利得税赚回来。 如果你赚了 20 倍，又被征 50% 的税，你最后还是能赚到原始投入的 10 倍。 如果你一直拿着同一笔多头，而它只涨 20%，那反而更差。
英文原文
@miraclemaster07 Yeah unfortunately taxes are high. But my philosophy is just outearn short term capital gains tax. If you make 20 times and get taxed 50% you still make 10 times your original investment. If you stay in the same long and it just goes up 20% that's worse.
-
说自己不搞高价门槛，因为觉得市场里就能赚回来。
@SosaKayser666 我很清楚很多人甚至愿意每月付 30 美元。 但我还是把最低价定在 1 美元，因为我相信我的想法足够好，我完全可以靠市场里的收益赚回来。 而且我不认同把信息 / 标的搞成门槛。
英文原文
@SosaKayser666 I’m well aware a lot of people would even pay $30/month. But I charge $1 as bare minimum since I believe my ideas are good enough that I can make all my returns in the market. And I don’t believe in gatekeeping information/names.
-
说自己是在尽力帮助散户，分享信息发现。
我是真的在尽力帮散户投资者！ 股票是正和游戏，所以我相信最好的帮助方式就是把信息发现 / 综合整理分享出来。 是啊……很多收费给自己选股的人，半数时候根本不知道自己在说什么。
英文原文
I’m genuinely trying my best to help out retail investors! Stocks are positive sum so I do believe the best benefit is just distributing any information discovery/synthesis. Yeah… lot of the people charging money for their picks don’t know what they’re talking about half the time.
-
认可对方关于数据源的纠正。
@iamfabian 谢谢，如果真是这样，这就是一个重要的纠正，我会再深入看看。 Digitimes 通常算是比较靠谱的来源。 https://t.co/yDUu8XFWtF
英文原文
@iamfabian Thanks this is an important correction then if true, will look into it more. Digitimes is typically one of the more reputable sources https://t.co/yDUu8XFWtF
-
说会做一个长期 CPO 受益者 ETF。
@aiden1969 @afasano23 对，我很快会做一个长期 1 年期、只包含纯 CPO 受益者的 ETF，然后发出来。 只是研究真的很耗时间。
英文原文
@aiden1969 @afasano23 Yeah I’ll make a long term 1Y ETF on pure play CPO beneficiaries soon and post it It just takes a ton of time for research
-
认为 2026 下半年是向更纯粹 CPO 名字轮动的好时点。
在那个会远远持续到 2028 年以后的光子超级周期里？不是。 不过这个板块里，确实可能会在一些名字之间轮动，比如从 pluggables 轮到更多 CPO 名字…… 2026 上半年到下半年，可能是转向更多纯玩法名字的不错轮动时点，因为放量会在下半年后段到来。
英文原文
During the optical supercycle that lasts way past 2028+? No. There’s likely going to be rotations in certain names in the sector eg. Pluggables into more CPO names though… 2026 h1 into h2 is probably a decent rotation timing to more pure play names coming up since volume ramp latter part h2
-
说这是一个用小预算扰动 AI 建设的教育演练。
@BrokeBoyCap 这只是一个教育性演练，看看如何用“柠檬水摊预算”去扰动整个 AI buildout。 不是看多建议，也不是什么投资推荐。
英文原文
@BrokeBoyCap This is just an educational exercise on how one might disrupt the entire AI buildout with a lemonade stand budget. Not a long recommendation or anything.
-
说自己只是分享思路。
我只是一路分享我的思考过程而已！ 只是越来越烦那些 2000 多美元的付费课程把大家割得很惨。或者散户被机构和做市商割得很惨。 股票是正和游戏，如果这些 ticker 付费墙卖家真的相信自己的分析……他们其实应该直接在市场里赚钱，而不是试图为此收费，对吧？
英文原文
I’m just sharing my thought process along the way! Just got frustrating seeing everyone shafted by $2K+ paywalled courses. Or retail shafted by institutions and MMs. Stocks are positive sum, and if these ticker paywall sellers actually believed in their analysis… they would just make money in the markets rather than trying to charge for it?
-
说光子和瓶颈的 TAM 预估都被低估了。
@Blinklebloop 光子和各种瓶颈的 TAM 预测都大错特错。 就像分析师说 $AXTI 的 InP 衬底 TAM 只有 1.25 亿美元一样。
英文原文
@Blinklebloop TAM projections are all way off for photonics and chokepoints/bottlenecks. The equivalent of analysts saying $AXTI InP substrate TAM is $125m.
-
说自己帮助散户跑赢机构是目标。
@itsavgsizeok 很高兴听到！帮助散户投资者跑赢机构就是我的目标，哈哈。
英文原文
@itsavgsizeok Glad to hear it! Helping retail investors beat institutions is my goal lol
-
说机构做 DD 往往要几周，散户可以立即抢跑。
@tomhou101 对，他们通常要花几周做尽调，才会买入流通盘的几个百分点。散户则可以立刻抢跑他们。
英文原文
@tomhou101 Yeah they usually take a few weeks of DD to buy a few percent of the float. Retail can frontrun them immediately.
-
说如果单位量超出预期，估值会更高。
@Liudas 我是在展示基础模型：如果它们的单位出货量打到上限（比如 400 万台而不是 350 万台），估值就会到 20。 而我确实预期下一轮架构“超级周期”会把很多预测都甩开，就像现在 $LITE 及其供应链正在发生的那样。
英文原文
@Liudas Was showing baseline modeling, if they hit upper bounds of unit projections (eg. ~4m units instead of 3.5), it hits 20. And I do expect the next architectural "supercycle" to blow away a lot of projections like what's happening with $LITE and their supply chain rn.
-
说自己在原文 thesis 里尽量简化给散户。
@Yolo365247isme @DynamicMoats 我会在原始 thesis 帖里尽量把事情讲得简单一点，这样散户投资者就不会看到太多这类细节。
英文原文
@Yolo365247isme @DynamicMoats I try to make things simpler for retail investors in the original thesis post so I don't include a lot of stuff like this.
-
说法案不会被通过得太理想，散户得看清现实。
大概不会，JP Morgan、$SOFI 和大银行游说太强了。 我只是把这项法案到底会做什么，讲给散户听，免得他们吃亏。 里面确实有一些好内容，比如用美国国债做 1:1 储备之类的（看看 Tether）。 但随后又塞进了银行想要的收益条款……然后政客就对散户继续疯狂洗脑，试图让他们相信这对行业有利。 可实际上，一旦这法案通过，你大概率再也拿不到储蓄的真实利率，而且很多流动性也会被抽干。
英文原文
Probably not, can't beat JP Morgan, $SOFI, and big bank lobbying. I'm just giving the unfortunate truth to retail investors about what the bill actually does. There's some good parts about 1:1 reserve with US treasuries, and such (looking at you Tether). But then they throw in clauses with yields that banks want... Then politicians just straight gaslight retail, trying to convince them it's positive for the industry. But in reality, once this is passed, you'll likely never get true interest rates on your savings and a lot of liquidity will be wiped out.
-
直接把 Clarity Act 说成银行游说法案。
把话说清楚：Clarity Act 是一部银行游说法案。 JPM 和其他机构游说双方，想控制数字资产 / $CRCL 稳定币。 $COIN 大概率会把整个行业卖掉，因为他们拿到了有条件的银行牌照批准。 但实际上，这等于禁止收益竞争： -> 银行可以继续给 .3% 利率的活期账户。 而不是把 4.3% 的国债收益发给用户，然后自己拿走那 4% 的差价。 -> 他们掌握了入金 / 出金通道和稳定币的卡点。 -> 禁止任何非银行机构提供类似服务，比如通过持有稳定币给出 4.3% 收益的新创公司。 他们的理由？ 1. “安全”。这些机构本身就是部分准备金模式，真遇上银行挤兑，和 1:1 抵押代币比起来更扛不住。 2. “那你就去当银行吧”。但他们却在背后偷偷游说，阻止任何新的竞争性公司真正拿到银行牌照。 如果你想看这个政府底下的事情到底是怎么运作的： 就看看现在发生了什么。 任何真正帮到散户的东西，最后大概率都会被禁。
英文原文
Let's get this straight: The Clarity Act is a bank lobbyist bill. Where JPM and others lobbied both sides to get control over digital assets / $CRCL stablecoins. $COIN is probably going to sell out the industry because they got their conditional banking charter approved. But effectively, this bans competition in yields: -> So banks can continue offering .3% interest checking accs. Instead of handing out 4.3% treasury yields and keep the 4% difference. -> Hands them chokepoints over on/off-ramps and stablecoins. -> Bans any non-banks from offerings, like startups giving out 4.3% yields by holding stablecoins. Their claim? 1. “Safety”. These are the same institutions that operate on fractional reserve models and would GG on a bank run vs. 1-1 collateralized tokens. 2. “Just become a bank”. While they secretly lobby behind the scenes to prevent any new competitive firm from becoming a bank. If you want to see how it's things are doing under this administration: Just look at how things are going. Any genuinely helpful to retail are just going to get banned.
-
认为市场比大家想的更有韧性。
市场比人们想象得更有韧性。 当然，局势升级是令人担忧的，但现在做空的人太多了（这反而会火上浇油），而且指数年内还是下跌的。 OpenAI 已经筹了 1220 亿美元以上的 capex 支出，所以我还是会保持多头（最近主要的传染恐慌，其实和他们无法履行合同义务有关）。
英文原文
Markets are more resilient than people think. Obviously escalation is concerning, but there's too many people short right now (which adds fuel to the fire) and indexes are still down YTD. OpenAI raised $122B+ for capex spend, so I'd remain long (main contagion fears recently were related to them not being able to fulfill contract obligations)
-
说要解除封锁，就得封锁封锁。
@zephyr_z9 要解除封锁，你就必须先封锁封锁本身。
英文原文
@zephyr_z9 To unblock the blockade, you must blockade the blockade.
-
说未来会有很多更便宜甚至开源的会计/创业工具。
@b00gersburner @pocimont 我也在用 QuickBooks，不过未来会出现很多创业公司竞争者（而且更便宜，甚至免费 / 开源），大家可以用 Claude vibe coding 自己搭出来。 所以这可能会来自多个方向的颠覆。
英文原文
@b00gersburner @pocimont I use quickbooks as well, but there's going to be a lot of upcoming startup competitors (and cheaper or even free/open source) that people can spin up vibe coding with Claude. So it's possibly disruption from multiple fronts.
-
认为 Intuit 会受 Claude 轻度冲击，而部分软件会受益于 AI 降本。
这个问题比较微妙。我确实认为像 $INTU 这样的公司会因为 Claude 以及其他工具帮你做税务和报税而受到一点冲击，而且这并不是一个很好的逆向抄底机会。 但反过来，像 $RDDT / $SNAP 这种软件名，可能会因为 AI 带来的费用下降而变得更赚钱（前提是 Evan 的老婆别再像 piggy back 一样一直用 Snapchat）。 颠覆是真实存在的，但也会有少数赢家。
英文原文
It's nuanced, I do think companies like $INTU are going to get slightly disrupted by Claude and others doing taxes + filing for you. And it's not a great contrarian buy-the-dip opportunity. On the flip side certain software names like $RDDT / $SNAP are likely going to end up more profitable with AI due to opex cuts (only if Evan's wife stopped using Snapchat like a piggy back). Disruption is real, but there's a few winners.
-
提到美军封锁霍尔木兹海峡，并想到 VIRT。
美国海军要封锁任何试图进出霍尔木兹海峡的船只。 我不太确定这里的计划是什么？ 不管怎样，我完全忘了去买像 $VIRT 这种做市商的看涨期权。 因为在这种环境下，他们大概率会一边欢呼一边从更高波动率中获利……
英文原文
The US navy to blockade any ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz. Not quite sure what the game plan is here? Regardless, I completely forgot to take call options on market makers like $VIRT. Since they are probably cheering and profiting off of increased volatility in these environments…
-
说机构在高位买入说明 thesis 本身是成立的。
如果 thesis 本身不扎实，Point72 和其他机构就不会在历史高位买入。 每个人都想找下一个 10 倍股，而当我终于用 $AXTI 或 $IQE 这样的名字把它指出来时，很遗憾，总有人会拿市值或粉丝数来试图削弱原始 thesis。
英文原文
Point 72 and other institutions would not be buying at ATHs if the thesis were not fundamentally sound. Everyone wants to find the next 10x, and when I finally point it out with names like $AXTI or $IQE, it's unfortunate so many people try and undermine the original thesis by citing MC/follower count.
-
说新闻多半是表面动作，真正的信号要看别处。
你可能到处都能看到这种新闻： “美国和伊朗在巴基斯坦历史性和平会谈后未能达成协议” 公开谈判破裂本来就是预期内的，这样双方都能在表面上显得强硬。 任何真正的协议大概率都在背后渠道里完成（比如制裁放松）。 要跟踪这件事，像航班跟踪器（例如 Oman、Qatar）、Ghost Fleet 执法，或者保险承保人： 大概才是更好的信号，而不是主流媒体头条。 周日还是别过度反应，享受一下比较好。
英文原文
You might be seeing news everywhere: "US and Iran fail to reach agreement after historic peace talks in Pakistan" Deal falling through publicly is expected, so each side looks tough. Any actual deals are probably done through backchannels (eg. sanctions relief). To track this: stuff like flight trackers (eg. Oaman, Qatar), Ghost Fleet enforcement, or insurance underwriters: Are probably your best signals, rather than MSM headlines. Probably better to just enjoy your Sunday rather than overreact to headlines.
-
强调融资结构差异。
@nickthehodler 融资结构才是关键。 $NBIS 以更大的市值，稀释 20 亿美元去买 $NVDA 相关投资，或者用比当前行权价高 20%+ 的可转债。 这和 $IREN 把自己一半市值印出来，再卖到公开市场给散户，是结构上完全不同的。
英文原文
@nickthehodler Financing structure is what matters. $NBIS diluting $2B for an $NVDA investment off a much larger MC. Or convertible notes 20%+ above current strikes. Is structurally different than $IREN printing half their MC and selling that into the open market on retail shareholders.
-
说 6B ATM 的运作逻辑已经证明了一切。
@nickthehodler 这背后就是一个 60 亿美元 ATM 被打印出来并卖到公开市场的运作逻辑。 $NBIS 61%+ 的表现和 $IREN 年内 -8% 的差距已经证明了一切。
英文原文
@nickthehodler It's backed by the logic of how a $6,000,000,000 ATM that gets printed and sold into the open market works. The performance disparity between 61%+ with $NBIS and -8% YTD with $IREN is proof of it.
-
说没有融资就不可能变现 4GW+ 容量。
对，我真的不明白，他们在没有融资的情况下，根本不可能把 4GW+ 产能变现。 而他们却选择了 ATM，而不是像 $NBIS 那样用可转债 + $NVDA 投资。 大多数人都不理解稀释的结构机制，所以才会盲目地买进一个 60 亿美元、往公开市场狂印钱的机器。 如果他们当初听我的，大家的组合本来能从 $NBIS 涨 60%+，而不是被 $IREN 拖到 -8%+。
英文原文
Yeah, I genuinely don't understand, there's 0 chance they can monetize 4GW+ capacity without financing. And they chose ATMs over convertible notes + $NVDA investment like $NBIS. Majority of people don't understand structural mechanics of dilution, which is why they keep blindly buying into a $6B money printer sold into the open market. People's portfolios would have been up 60%+ from $NBIS instead of down -8%+ from $IREN if they listened.
-
建议先做税务收割，再长期持有真正能升值的资产。
@NieMehrKrieg 有时候，最好的做法就是先做税务收割，然后长期持有一个真的可能升值的资产。 现在的持有者，不过就是 $IREN 60 亿美元 ATM 的退出流动性而已。那个社区还会尽力鼓励别人跟着一起抱着不放。
英文原文
@NieMehrKrieg Sometimes it's best to just tax harvest and long an asset that might actually appreciate in value. Current holders are just exit liquidity for $IREN $6,000,000,000 ATM. And the community tries their best to encourage others to baghold with them.
-
说直接供货 hyperscaler 的公司通常不会低于 10 亿市值。
@fabiorbb 你自己去判断吧。我们就说，直接供货 hyperscaler 的公司，通常不会在前沿供应链里还低于 10 亿美元市值。
英文原文
@fabiorbb Up to you to figure out. Let’s just say companies that supply directly to hyperscalers usually don’t trade below $1B MC in frontier supply chains.
-
说信息发现会吸引注意力，不是发帖的人。
我有这么强吗？ 我觉得大概只是信息综合与发现而已。要是我发一篇关于一家纸巾公司 8 倍市盈率的帖子，没人会在意。 但当 $SIVE 是 $JBL 和 $MRVL 的光源，市值只有大约 4 亿美元…… 而且只交易像 $LWLG 这种更投机名字估值的四分之一…… 而其他像 $MTSI 或 $LITE 之类做 CW DFB 的公司市值都在几十亿美元时…… 最后吸引大家注意力的，是信息本身，而不是发信息的人。
英文原文
am i that powerful? pretty sure it's just information synthesis + discovery. If I posted about a napkin company trading at 8 p/e, nobody would care. When $SIVE is the light source for $JBL and $MRVL at ~400m... and trades at like 1/4th the valuation of something more speculative like $LWLG. while all the other CW DFB companies like $MTSI or $LITE are all in the tens of billions. Information ends up drawing people's attention, not the person.
-
批评只看技术图形的分析，强调基本面、催化和现金流建模。
那些收 500 美元一个月、只会画线的人，大概是我最烦的存在了……尤其是当他们还会在我的 thesis 帖子下面评论，比如 $AEHR 财报那种。 股价是由基本面和催化推动的。技术分析只是自我实现的占星术；如果 $AMZN 有一笔巨大的采购订单，没人会在乎技术面说的“超买”，真正重要的是把这会带来多少自由现金流，相对于市值要怎么建模。 $IREN 也是一样，居然还有人拿技术图去画它，而市场里明明有 60 亿美元的稀释，图表根本没把这部分算进去。
英文原文
Swiggly line drawers that charge $500 a month are possibly the greatest annoyance to me... Especially when they comment underneath my thesis posts like $AEHR earnings. Stocks move based on fundamentals and catalysts. TA is astrology self-fulfilling prophecies but if $AMZN has a massive purchase order, nobody cares about "overbought" based on TA it's about modeling in how much FCF that brings relative to MC. Same with anyone who tries drawing a TA for $IREN when there's literally $6,000,000,000 in dilution that a chart doesn't account for.