个股论点
围绕单一股票的投资逻辑与仓位表态 · 共 2378 条 · 滚到底自动加载更多
-
澄清Coreweave曾为矿企，质疑对方观点意图。
@NoNameBitcoiner $CRWV 在以太坊仍采用工作量证明(Proof of Work)机制时曾进行挖矿，因此 Coreweave 在转向高性能计算(HPC)之前是一家矿企。不太确定你想表达什么。
英文原文
@NoNameBitcoiner $CRWV mined Ethereum when they still did pow, so Coreweave was a miner before pivoting to hpc. Not quite sure where you're going with this.
-
指出$HOOD因路由至做市商导致成交差，卖期权时损失巨大。
@cmachdop 纯粹是执行问题。$HOOD 将订单路由给做市商(MMs)，因此你的成交质量更差。当你卖出期权时，这种影响会被放大，因为你在成交价上的损失高达数千美元，而节省的佣金却只有几美元。
英文原文
@cmachdop Purely execution. $HOOD routes orders through MMs so you get worse fill. This compounds a ton when you write options when you lose thousands off fill vs a few dollars in fees.
-
建议观望，认为NBIS相对未来潜力严重低估。
@DannyPhantomTT @soulbiri1 我个人会选择观望等待，我认为 $NBIS 相对于其未来潜力而言被严重低估。
英文原文
@DannyPhantomTT @soulbiri1 I’d personally wait it out, I think $NBIS is way undervalued relative to forward potential
-
看好Neocloud板块，但提示规模化执行风险并调整持仓。
@theBTCMiningGuy 所以我提出的观点是细微的，我仍然看好 $IREN、$WULF、$CIFR 等股票，并相信 Neocloud 板块将迅速扩张。只是指出在规模化过程中并非所有执行都会完美，存在现实的 downside risk（下行风险），我个人也调整了投资组合头寸。
英文原文
@theBTCMiningGuy So the point I made was nuanced, I’m still bullish on stocks like $IREN, $WULF, $CIFR and believe the Neocloud sector will expand rapidly. Just pointing out realistic downside risk in that not all execution will be pretty at scale and I personally changed portfolio positioning
-
看好$WULF，认为其95亿长期合资协议虽营收释放慢但规模可观。
@poemaran 没错！在我看来，$WULF 是这批公司中表现较好的之一，尤其是在刚刚宣布的 95 亿美元新合资企业(JV)之后。 我认为合同期限超过 25 年，因此营收增长(Revenue Ramp)可能真的非常缓慢（与 5 年期合同相比），但鉴于其市值(MC)，这一规模相当可观，是个好消息。
英文原文
@poemaran Yep! $WULF is one of the better ones out of the bunch imo, especially after the new JV that just got announced for $9.5B. It was over 25 years I think so revenue ramp likely really slow (compared to a 5Y deal) but just given the MC it’s really sizable and great news.
-
博主回应质疑，指出对方缺乏定量论据，仅以性格攻击和拖延回应。
@jarad1821 我很乐意现在就回应关于 $IREN 或 $NBIS 的任何观点。但到目前为止，你还没有给出任何定量论据供我反驳。你所做的只是以“过度自信”等性格特征为由说我的论点错误，然后默认“几年后再见”。
英文原文
@jarad1821 I'm happy to address any points about $IREN or $NBIS now. But so far you haven't given a single quantitative argument to respond to. All you've done was say my thesis is wrong because of character traits such as "overconfidence", then default to "come back in a few years"
-
回应质疑，要求对方就NBIS提出量化论点而非人身攻击。
@jarad1821 如果你想在这里提出关于 $NBIS 的量化论点，我很乐意回应。否则，通过“过度自信”和“自我归因”等人身攻击来否定投资逻辑是站不住脚的。
英文原文
@jarad1821 If you'd like to put up a quantitative argument about $NBIS here, I'm happy to respond. Otherwise, projection through personal attacks like "overconfidence" and "self attribution" to dismiss a thesis doesn't hold up.
-
指出$CRWV在百亿营收规模下利润率将因规模效应而改变。
@MEijkelenborg 你忽略了规模效应。你可以展示在季度营收2000万美元或1.05亿美元时的利润率，但一旦产能建设达到如$CRWV所预期的季度营收10亿美元以上的规模，执行力和利润率都会发生变化。
英文原文
@MEijkelenborg You're missing at scale. You can show margins at $20m Q/revenue or $105M Q/revenue but execution and margins will change once you get to the projected scale based on capacity buildout like $1B+ Q/revenue what $CRWV has.
-
持有能源股中期看涨，并将矿工股利润轮动至NBIS。
是的，$FLNC、$SEI 和 $TE 都是数据中心建设扩张的受益者。除了其他持仓外，我在 T1 Energy 的看涨期权上目前亏损约 30%，这主要受其 7000 万美元稀释消息的影响，但由于这是一个不错的能源板块一篮子投资，我打算再持有一段时间。 近期许多新闻对能源板块来说也是极度看涨（omega bullish），因此我很乐意中期持有。 特别是考虑到特朗普在 Quantum、关键矿产以及可能是美国本土制造的能源如 $TE 中持有股份。 我个人刚刚将矿工股（miners）的利润转移，进行了向新云（neocloud）板块的轮动，买入 $NBIS，不涉及其他细分领域。
英文原文
Yeah so $FLNC, $SEI, $TE are beneficiaries of data center buildout. Aside from the others, I'm actually down right now ~30% on T1 Energy calls though after the $70M dilution news, but holding a bit longer since it's a decent segment basket for energy. Lot of the recent news is omega bullish too for energy so happy mid term hold. Especially with Trump taking stakes in Quantum, Critical Minerals, and possibly American made energy like $TE. I personally just moved profits from miners -> neocloud sector rotation into $NBIS, not other segments.
-
指出仅CRWV具备规模化现金流可见性，其他公司尚未实现。
@MEijkelenborg 你忽略了现金流可见性以及规模化效应。目前只有 $CRWV 在财报中体现了这一点，其他公司尚未实现规模化收入，且利润率也未显现。
英文原文
@MEijkelenborg You're missing cash-flow visibility and at scale. Only $CRWV has that show up in earnings right now, none of the companies have fully executed revenue at scale yet with margins showing up for it.
-
作者认为NBIS风险收益比优于IREN，但承认IREN具高投机潜力。
嗯，我仍然坚持认为 $NBIS 具有最高的非对称回报(asymmetrical return)，与 $IREN 相比，其下行风险更低，上行空间更大。这得益于其现有的超大规模客户(hyperscaler)合约、随客户同步扩张的子公司，以及拥有全栈(full-stack)能力的更高利润率业务。 另一方面，我同意 $IREN 因其产能和基础设施而具有极高的投机性上行空间。 我曾同时持有这两只股票，同时持有两者也没问题，但我认为在矿企股价上涨后，Nebius 的风险收益比(risk-reward)更好。 讨论这些观点很好！
英文原文
Hmm, I still maintain $NBIS has the highest asymmetrical return, with lower downside, high upside compared to $IREN with existing hyperscaler deals, subsidiaries scaling alongside them, and a higher margin business with full-stack. On the other hand, I'd agree $IREN has a high speculative upside due to capacity and infrastructure. I've owned both and it's fine have both, I just think risk-reward is better for Nebius after the runup on miners. It's good to discuss those points!
-
博主计划在当前价位重新买入$HIMS，并看好周一的连续竞价拍卖。
@jliljliljlil @DeepValueBagger 我目前没有任何 $HIMS 的头寸，我可能会在这个价位再次买入。 我在16%的跌幅时买入，在反弹4-5%时卖出，此后一直空仓。 但周一的连续竞价拍卖(CSP)听起来很有希望。
英文原文
@jliljliljlil @DeepValueBagger I dont have any $HIMS position right now, I'll probably buy in again at this level. I bought at that 16% drop, sold on a 4-5% recovery, and haven't had any positions since. But CSP for Monday sounds promising.
-
建议忽略可疑交易，聚焦微软等大客户合同及NBIS等核心标的。
@adenois @RJCcapital 是的，我可能错了，股价可能会随机拉出一根100%的大阳线，但下次还是应该相信我对那笔与某家东南亚随机公司达成的14亿美元交易的直觉判断。 关注超大规模云服务商（Hyperscaler）如 $MSFT 类型的合同，并专注于 $NBIS 及其同行要安全得多。
英文原文
@adenois @RJCcapital Yeah I could be wrong and the stock pulls a random 100% green candle but should just trust my gut about the $1.4B deal with a random SEA company next time. Lot safer to look at hyperscaler $MSFT type contracts and just focus on $NBIS and co.
-
博主表示对WLAC非常看好，此前因未关注SPAC而不知其存在。
@1995bearjew 我对 $WLAC 非常看好，只是在一个月前发布原始论点时还不知道它的存在，因为 SPAC（特殊目的收购公司）Neoclouds 当时并不在我的关注范围内。
英文原文
@1995bearjew I'm very bullish $WLAC, just didn't know it existed 1 month ago when I made the original thesis post since SPAC Neoclouds weren't really on my radar.
-
LTC因政府停摆致ETF延期，但作者认为其支付效用高且被低估。
哈哈，$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 $LTC and others, the play is still ongoing, just need to wait for government shutdown to finish and for the ETF to be approved. I just did not expect a 1 month government shutdown so ETFs got delayed.
-
建议趁市值停滞、基本面改善时重新买入$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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.