中文翻译
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。
· 个股论点
反驳NBIS利润率误解，指出软件优势才是高毛利关键。
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.