· 方法论
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。
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.