· 个股论点

澄清对BITF、SLNH等股评级,讨论NBIS产能及SMCI、DGXX风险。

涉及标的:

中文翻译

所以我认为你是在回复我从未提出的观点。澄清一下:我没有对 $BITF 进行评级。如果你读了我的帖子,它属于未评级类别,所以我不会辩论它与 $WYFI 或 $SLNH 相比的位置。 至于 $SLNH,我们在任何观点上都没有分歧,我也将其列为 F 级,因为它是一只炒作股,其“2.8GW 产能”建设计划需要过度的债务/稀释。 你说关于 $NBIS “它与比特币挖矿的关联程度以及他们是否拥有电力”——我会把这当作口误,认为你是在用比特币挖矿指代 $CLSK,而你指的是 $NBIS 的产能。 $NBIS 在产能方面实现了与 $IREN 的近乎长期平价,后者被认为是行业中 GW 产能最高的玩家。所以我认为那部分是不正确的。 至于关于 $SMCI 作为可靠/值得信赖的合作伙伴的论点,我某种程度上不同意,但你确实改变了我的想法,认为 $DGXX 具有更低的运营和技术执行风险。 除此之外,那部分并不会真正改变排名,例如将其与 $APLD 并列,后者有 2 个超大规模云厂商合同(如果包括 $CRWV),但存在垃圾债券(收入可见性)的下行风险。 如果你想仅因市值带来的回报潜力而将其与 $CLSK 并列,我会同意。

英文原文

So I think you're replying to points I never made. Just to clarify: I didn't rate $BITF. If you read my post, it fell into the unrated category, so I'm not debating where it goes in comparison with $WYFI or $SLNH. As for $SLNH, we're not disagreeing on anything I put it as F tier as well since it's a hype stock that requires excessive debt/dilution on their "2.8GW capacity" buildout plans. You said for $NBIS "how attached it is to Bitcoin Mining and if they own their power" - I'll take that as a mispeak and that you were using Bitcoin mining in reference with $CLSK, and that you were referencing capacity for $NBIS +. $NBIS achieved near long-term parity with $IREN from the capacity side, which is associated as the highest GW capacity player in the industry. So I'd argue that part is incorrect. So as for $SMCI being a reliable/trustworthy partner argument, I sort of disagree, but you did change my mind regarding $DGXX having lower operational and technical execution risk. That aside, that part wouldn't really change rankings, eg. putting it the same as $APLD which has 2 hyperscaler contracts (if you include $CRWV) but downside from junk bonds (revenue visibility) If you wanted to put it on par with $CLSK just due to return potential from MC size, I'd give you that.

在 X 上查看原推 ↗