4 ms·

Which is still 10x what it is worth

by outside2344 4mo ago

MattDamonSpace 4mo ago
Based on what?
- dj_axl 4mo ago
  Revenue. (Or forecast revenue, take your pick.)
  - NooneAtAll3 4mo ago
    revenue has been "rockets - good. starlink - great. ai - big loss"
    - mrDmrTmrJ 4mo ago
      Why is "ai-big loss"? My understanding is that the S-1 showed a Q1 loss of xAI of $2.47 billion in Q1. But with the Anthropic Colossus-I rental agreement at $1.25B/month or $3.75B/quarter, xAI should now be net-neutral to cash-flow positive. If Colossus-II rents networked GB-200s, that could be up to +$47B/year at $9/hour/GB-200 for 555,000 GB-200s. For reference, current rental rates are $10-$27/hour for the same hardware. With Anthropic at a 55% month-over-month growth rate (implying a $150B/year run rate by August, or, more likely, sometime in late 2026), it seems very possible that xAI could be highly profitable as the only available compute resource. I'm not saying +$47B Colossus-II deal will happen, but even a small fraction of that remains highly material to xAI economics. xAI is likely already cashflow neutral. (Where am I wrong?)
      - novaleaf 4mo ago
        the xAi revenue comes from renting their infrastructure to their biggest competitor. Anthropic is going to IPO for aprox 1/2 the valuation, is profitable, and can cancel the contract with 90 days notice.
        mrDmrTmrJ 4mo ago
        Oh, I would far prefer to own Anthropic's stock than SpaceX's.
- Forgeties79 4mo ago
  Just make your point. You think it’s appropriately valued or undervalued, right?
  - megaloblasto 4mo ago
    Personally I think the valuation is detached from the company itself. In theory Tesla's valuation is too high, but it doesn't seem to be coming down any time soon. Plus there seems to be ways to manipulate stock prices when you control such a highly valued company, to the extent that the stock price reflects actions taken in the stock market more than the underlying assets and balance sheets.
    - jfyi 4mo ago
      [dead]
jbverschoor 4mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- MattDamonSpace 4mo ago
  Idk… The original “revenue thesis” was that SpaceX, with landing orbital rocket boosters, can undercut all competitors and essentially have a monopoly on payload-to-orbit, and that their lower prices would massive increase the market. Seems a fine business. But then a couple years ago they say “actually with this brand new technological edge we can spin up a monopoly on an entirely NEW industry, Space Internet” and within a short timeframe they’ve got billions in revenue off this entirely new service. It’s hard to predict the future but if Starlink is the last “new space industry” that spacex has borderline-exclusive access to, I’ll be shocked. The valuation is speculative, yes, but they have such an incredible cost advantage in a nascent space that id be hard pressed to bet against them. It’s reminiscent of everyone claiming Uber could never succeed, citing the size of the existing taxi market. TAM can change radically when costs move down orders of magnitude, in ways that are hard to predict.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - margalabargala 4mo ago
    I don't disagree, but how many anchors can you tie to a rocket ship before it fails to launch? I agree with everything you said about SpaceX's tech, but it's also been saddled with xAI and Twitter.
  - moate 4mo ago
    To be fair, a lot of us thought Uber would fail because governments would actually enforce regulations meant to protect consumers regarding what are taxis and laws around meant to protect workers regarding drivers' employment status, and it turns out "NAH, MONEY MACHINE GO BRRRR!" was the option they went with. I thin some of us were betting against a return to the bad old days of race to the bottom for labor, but the gig economy sure kicked the shit out of that hope. But it sure helps those "employment" numbers!

Which is still 10x what it is worth

MattDamonSpace 4mo ago

Based on what?

dj_axl 4mo ago
Revenue. (Or forecast revenue, take your pick.)
- NooneAtAll3 4mo ago
  revenue has been "rockets - good. starlink - great. ai - big loss"
  - mrDmrTmrJ 4mo ago
    Why is "ai-big loss"? My understanding is that the S-1 showed a Q1 loss of xAI of $2.47 billion in Q1. But with the Anthropic Colossus-I rental agreement at $1.25B/month or $3.75B/quarter, xAI should now be net-neutral to cash-flow positive. If Colossus-II rents networked GB-200s, that could be up to +$47B/year at $9/hour/GB-200 for 555,000 GB-200s. For reference, current rental rates are $10-$27/hour for the same hardware. With Anthropic at a 55% month-over-month growth rate (implying a $150B/year run rate by August, or, more likely, sometime in late 2026), it seems very possible that xAI could be highly profitable as the only available compute resource. I'm not saying +$47B Colossus-II deal will happen, but even a small fraction of that remains highly material to xAI economics. xAI is likely already cashflow neutral. (Where am I wrong?)
    - novaleaf 4mo ago
      the xAi revenue comes from renting their infrastructure to their biggest competitor. Anthropic is going to IPO for aprox 1/2 the valuation, is profitable, and can cancel the contract with 90 days notice.
      - mrDmrTmrJ 4mo ago
        Oh, I would far prefer to own Anthropic's stock than SpaceX's.
Forgeties79 4mo ago
Just make your point. You think it’s appropriately valued or undervalued, right?
- megaloblasto 4mo ago
  Personally I think the valuation is detached from the company itself. In theory Tesla's valuation is too high, but it doesn't seem to be coming down any time soon. Plus there seems to be ways to manipulate stock prices when you control such a highly valued company, to the extent that the stock price reflects actions taken in the stock market more than the underlying assets and balance sheets.
  - jfyi 4mo ago
    [dead]

jbverschoor 4mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
MattDamonSpace 4mo ago
Idk… The original “revenue thesis” was that SpaceX, with landing orbital rocket boosters, can undercut all competitors and essentially have a monopoly on payload-to-orbit, and that their lower prices would massive increase the market. Seems a fine business. But then a couple years ago they say “actually with this brand new technological edge we can spin up a monopoly on an entirely NEW industry, Space Internet” and within a short timeframe they’ve got billions in revenue off this entirely new service. It’s hard to predict the future but if Starlink is the last “new space industry” that spacex has borderline-exclusive access to, I’ll be shocked. The valuation is speculative, yes, but they have such an incredible cost advantage in a nascent space that id be hard pressed to bet against them. It’s reminiscent of everyone claiming Uber could never succeed, citing the size of the existing taxi market. TAM can change radically when costs move down orders of magnitude, in ways that are hard to predict.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- margalabargala 4mo ago
  I don't disagree, but how many anchors can you tie to a rocket ship before it fails to launch? I agree with everything you said about SpaceX's tech, but it's also been saddled with xAI and Twitter.
- moate 4mo ago
  To be fair, a lot of us thought Uber would fail because governments would actually enforce regulations meant to protect consumers regarding what are taxis and laws around meant to protect workers regarding drivers' employment status, and it turns out "NAH, MONEY MACHINE GO BRRRR!" was the option they went with. I thin some of us were betting against a return to the bad old days of race to the bottom for labor, but the gig economy sure kicked the shit out of that hope. But it sure helps those "employment" numbers!