6 ms·

Even if it drops to 1/2 its IPO price ($855B valuation) that still massively overpaying for it. What do they think is gonna come from this SpaceX + Twitter + X

Even if it drops to 1/2 its IPO price ($855B valuation) that still massively overpaying for it. What do they think is gonna come from this SpaceX + Twitter + XAi + Cursor amalgamation? Sexbot agents vibe coding on Mars?

wolvoleo 4mo ago
> Sexbot agents vibe coding on Mars? Now that I'd invest in :)
SilverElfin 4mo ago
Morningstar has the most conservative valuation as far as I know, at $780B https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/spacex-what-investors-need-know-about-its-enormous-upcoming-ipo https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/spacex-what-investors-nee...
rchaud 4mo ago
Pentagon contracts.
- lokar 4mo ago
  Until MAGA is out of power
  - rlt 4mo ago
    SpaceX is critical to national security and NASA. A new administration isn’t going to change that.
    - tastyface 4mo ago
      We simply cannot allow an unstable white nationalist who's deeply enmeshed in global far-right politics to be in singular control of a megacorp that's critical to national security. It's a far bigger risk than divesting from SpaceX and building or doing something else, if not outright nationalization. Any non-MAGA leader would find this pretty obvious.
- thereitgoes456 4mo ago
  So? It’ll never pay dividends..
- kingstnap 4mo ago
  If you add up GE Aerospace, RTX Corporation, The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics put together you get a market cap of about 1T btw.
  - rchaud 4mo ago
    Those companies aren't considered "tech" so their share prices observe the laws of gravity. A single tweet about xAI-powered nuclear drones launched from the moon or whatever would probably cause the stock to go up 50%. And pumping the stock is all that matters.
jimmygrapes 4mo ago
I know they broke up but I can't help but feel this is related: (Grimes - We Appreciate Power) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYG_4vJ4qNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYG_4vJ4qNA
paytonjjones 4mo ago
[dead]
mgh2 4mo ago
They are buying their time (6 months) before being included in the S&P500s, causing another inevitable surge in forced "demand".
- Ancalagon 4mo ago
  Nit: the phrase is “biding their time” FYI I agree with your statement overall.
  - lokar 4mo ago
    Or “buying time”
    - tialaramex 4mo ago
      "Buying time" is an ordinary phrase in English but, it doesn't make a lot of sense here because there'd be some activity SpaceX is doing to "buy time". If you're just waiting that doesn't "buy time".
      - lokar 4mo ago
        I think they just blended together in the posters mind
- opinion-is-bad 4mo ago
  It’ll be at least a year before they are eligible to join the S&P500. They also need to become profitable.
- helsinkiandrew 4mo ago
  In the next 6 months another 45%-50% of Space X stock is unlocked, increasing the amount of shares on the market ~10 fold. Although many will be long term believers who won’t sell. I can’t see how this couldn’t deflate the share price further
gymbeaux 4mo ago
The plan is simply for insiders to offload their bags (overvalued shares) to retail investors, like the folk who frequent the wallstreetbets subreddit and do all their “investing” on Robinhood. This speaks to the larger trend of the lower and middle class apparently giving up on any plans to retire- and it’s understandable as the federal minimum wage has never been so disconnected from the cost of living, plus inflation, plus the current job market being universally terrible (even for software engineers), et al. It’s worth noting that this is nothing new. I’m reminded of Virgin Galactic, another “space company” that was heavily speculated on. Predictably, insiders like Richard Branson himself sold a large number of shares (well into the millions of dollars) ahead of the inevitable “dump” where the share price fell around 75% in a matter of weeks. Virgin Galactic (SPCE) entered the Nasdaq via SPAC - Special Purpose Acquisition Group - essentially a company whose sole purpose is to acquire a private company, thereby effectively making the company public. Why wouldn’t Virgin Galactic just go public? Why go through a SPAC? The short answer is “to bypass regulations.” OpenInsider is an excellent website that makes it easy to see when insiders buy or sell a stock, and the most common pattern is insiders dumping their shares in overvalued companies. We saw it when Zoom and Crispr and a few others shot up several hundred percentage points during COVID. C-suite and board members made out like bandits. Those weren’t even SPACs, those were just companies that people were foolish enough to speculate on. Finally I want to bring attention to Robinhood, the stock trading platform that eliminated commission on trades from all brokerages - Schwab, Fidelity, Merrill Lynch, et al- by making it incredibly quick and easy (and free) to buy and sell stocks. They opened this Pandora’s Box, though I suppose it was bound to happen eventually- brokerages charged $7 per trade (sometimes more) and obviously for the college student who wants to throw $20 at Amazon stock… losing $7 in and then $7 again on the way out makes no sense. Now for anyone giving Robinhood the benefit of the doubt- their evil was (I think) absolutely confirmed when they unveiled a new feature- you can now trade OPTIONS with your retirement account. Options are essentially gambling, so to enable people to throw away their retirement on gambling is truly vile.
- OutOfHere 4mo ago
  Options is gambling only for the vast majority who're inexperienced with them or don't have a sound theory for them. I can trade them in my setup with over a 95% success rate, perhaps even 99%. Of course I am not going to type out my theory here. Such an overgeneralization ruined your otherwise reasonable comment. Always stop when you are winning.
darth_avocado 4mo ago
Don’t talk about fair valuations. Some people will say “who decides what anything is worth anyway”? Let people do what they want. If they lose their money they signed up for it.
- Grombobulous 4mo ago
  I think the bigger issue is that oligarchs have gotten so powerful that they can just write down the valuation they want and the market will just agree with it blindly. The issue isn’t that investors will lose their money, the issue is that in some cases like Tesla they never do. The oligarchs are propped up by their own power over the behavior or the market — a power which is disproportionally larger than the objective value their companies bring to the economy. SpaceX is a company with the same revenue as Dick’s Sporting Goods.
  - DoesntMatter22 4mo ago
    I don't get the complaint about Tesla. It's profitable, has little debt and 40 billion in the bank. What sort of "Power over the behavior of the market" do they exert? Like they can force people to buy their cars. Space X has the most sophisticated vehicle ever created by man. Dicks does not. If you are only looking at revenue then sure, but that would be silly, you have to look at what the potential in a company is not it's current revenue, if not then looking at Blockbuster in 2008 would seem like a great investment compared to Netflix which didn't have much revenue.
    - Hikikomori 4mo ago
      Did their potential go up or down when their CEO started heiling?
      - slumberlust 4mo ago
        Considering that led to turning the white house lawn into a car sales lot, I'd bet it went up.
      - 4mo ago
BobbyTables2 4mo ago
That’s at least something to look forward to!
justanotherjoe 4mo ago
Something like the plan in the anime Jormungand maybe? (https://jormungand.fandom.com/wiki/Jormungand https://jormungand.fandom.com/wiki/Jormungand)
qq66 4mo ago
One theory is that Elon Musk ends up being able to build AI datacenters faster and more cost effectively than anyone else, which seems plausible given the success of Tesla Gigafactories.
- dgellow 4mo ago
  That doesn’t justify the valuation in any way
- roryirvine 4mo ago
  Datacentres are close to being a commodity, though. There's some stuff you can do with Combined Cooling & Power or other cogeneration schemes, and potential for cost-cutting: removing fire protection, doing without redundant power, reducing security, that sort of thing. But that's all fairly marginal in the grand scheme of things. The more experimental stuff like running with extreme temperature gradients, extensive liquid cooling, or maybe using CO2 or He instead of air is certainly worth trying out, but unlikely to make much of a difference either. SpaceX are claiming that they're making a big profit on their deals with Anthropic and OpenAI but that seems to assume that the cost of the compute is zero. I'm not a forensic accountant, so maybe it's okay to have written the value of that down already, but it's not a trick they'll be able to pull off more than once. Really, the best thing you can say about them is that they've got a big pile of money so can finance capital expenditure cheaply. That gives them an edge of a few percentage points over the likes of Equinix (worth $14.2bn), but not much more than that.
- tpm 4mo ago
  A few Chinese companies build both batteries and cars faster and more cost effectively than anyone else including Tesla though.
  - zulux 4mo ago
    something is going on with those Chinese companies if the equivalent Toyota costs twice as much to produce. It could be close-to-free labor, subsidies, or a myriad other things... but it's something.
bwhiting2356 4mo ago
what's the point of being vertically integrated if they're just going to rent out their compute (https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/ai-startup-reflection-signs-computing-power-deal-with-spacex-2026-06-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/ai-startup-re...). This signals to me they don't have an internal use for it
- reverius42 4mo ago
  You could say the same about AWS circa 2011 though.
  - thewhitetulip 4mo ago
    AWS did not need to buy excess inventory from Amazon because the sales were down They also didn't need to buy another company lead by Bezos because ot was going cost him very much if certain conditions are met
  - spwa4 4mo ago
    It's the reverse. The purpose of AWS was in 2011 was financial internal Amazon use. They had never invested in proper communication between the (many) parts of the Amazon webstore so everything was ad-hoc (like it still is in essentially every other company). If the website talked to an (internal) payment provider, that was one protocol. Another internal payment provider? Different protocol. Mail customers? SMTP (and not transactional like now, unless your website code implemented the transactional part). That's what the first version of AWS was like. A standard set of interfaces. (you offer compute to the company? You implement these methods. You offer payment? You implement these methods. You offer ... etc) They hadn't (yet) settled on a single RPC method but that's what it was. Then, as a financial innovation they started offering as many as possible to outside parties so they could use that money to pay for buildouts without loans, and a tax rebate on top. That's how AWS came to be. It had quite a few uses: it would simplify the amazon website, but most of all: it would allow for financial innovation in hosting the website (people still don't understand that when using AWS they what they are fundamentally doing is give Amazon better interest rates on loans to build datacenter hosting for their other activities. People still don't understand that the core of Amazon is not selling, is not AWS, it is financial innovation). It was very much not a company selling to itself because it couldn't find outside buyers. It was a company selling to outsiders screaming to buy their internal products so the internal products would essentially be built for free and Uncle Sam would even provide tax rebates for building them (think about it: without AWS, Amazon datacenters are for internal use and tax is due on the equipment. With AWS Amazon datacenters are built to rent out and you can deduct any spend on building them ... smart, no?) (that's also how Google cloud came to be, with very different emphasis and timeline)

wolvoleo 4mo ago

> Sexbot agents vibe coding on Mars? Now that I'd invest in :)

SilverElfin 4mo ago

Morningstar has the most conservative valuation as far as I know, at $780B https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/spacex-what-investors-need-know-about-its-enormous-upcoming-ipo https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/spacex-what-investors-nee...

rchaud 4mo ago

Pentagon contracts.

lokar 4mo ago
Until MAGA is out of power
- rlt 4mo ago
  SpaceX is critical to national security and NASA. A new administration isn’t going to change that.
  - tastyface 4mo ago
    We simply cannot allow an unstable white nationalist who's deeply enmeshed in global far-right politics to be in singular control of a megacorp that's critical to national security. It's a far bigger risk than divesting from SpaceX and building or doing something else, if not outright nationalization. Any non-MAGA leader would find this pretty obvious.
thereitgoes456 4mo ago
So? It’ll never pay dividends..
kingstnap 4mo ago
If you add up GE Aerospace, RTX Corporation, The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics put together you get a market cap of about 1T btw.
- rchaud 4mo ago
  Those companies aren't considered "tech" so their share prices observe the laws of gravity. A single tweet about xAI-powered nuclear drones launched from the moon or whatever would probably cause the stock to go up 50%. And pumping the stock is all that matters.

jimmygrapes 4mo ago

I know they broke up but I can't help but feel this is related: (Grimes - We Appreciate Power) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYG_4vJ4qNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYG_4vJ4qNA

paytonjjones 4mo ago

[dead]

mgh2 4mo ago

They are buying their time (6 months) before being included in the S&P500s, causing another inevitable surge in forced "demand".

Ancalagon 4mo ago
Nit: the phrase is “biding their time” FYI I agree with your statement overall.
- lokar 4mo ago
  Or “buying time”
  - tialaramex 4mo ago
    "Buying time" is an ordinary phrase in English but, it doesn't make a lot of sense here because there'd be some activity SpaceX is doing to "buy time". If you're just waiting that doesn't "buy time".
    - lokar 4mo ago
      I think they just blended together in the posters mind
opinion-is-bad 4mo ago
It’ll be at least a year before they are eligible to join the S&P500. They also need to become profitable.
helsinkiandrew 4mo ago
In the next 6 months another 45%-50% of Space X stock is unlocked, increasing the amount of shares on the market ~10 fold. Although many will be long term believers who won’t sell. I can’t see how this couldn’t deflate the share price further

gymbeaux 4mo ago

The plan is simply for insiders to offload their bags (overvalued shares) to retail investors, like the folk who frequent the wallstreetbets subreddit and do all their “investing” on Robinhood. This speaks to the larger trend of the lower and middle class apparently giving up on any plans to retire- and it’s understandable as the federal minimum wage has never been so disconnected from the cost of living, plus inflation, plus the current job market being universally terrible (even for software engineers), et al. It’s worth noting that this is nothing new. I’m reminded of Virgin Galactic, another “space company” that was heavily speculated on. Predictably, insiders like Richard Branson himself sold a large number of shares (well into the millions of dollars) ahead of the inevitable “dump” where the share price fell around 75% in a matter of weeks. Virgin Galactic (SPCE) entered the Nasdaq via SPAC - Special Purpose Acquisition Group - essentially a company whose sole purpose is to acquire a private company, thereby effectively making the company public. Why wouldn’t Virgin Galactic just go public? Why go through a SPAC? The short answer is “to bypass regulations.” OpenInsider is an excellent website that makes it easy to see when insiders buy or sell a stock, and the most common pattern is insiders dumping their shares in overvalued companies. We saw it when Zoom and Crispr and a few others shot up several hundred percentage points during COVID. C-suite and board members made out like bandits. Those weren’t even SPACs, those were just companies that people were foolish enough to speculate on. Finally I want to bring attention to Robinhood, the stock trading platform that eliminated commission on trades from all brokerages - Schwab, Fidelity, Merrill Lynch, et al- by making it incredibly quick and easy (and free) to buy and sell stocks. They opened this Pandora’s Box, though I suppose it was bound to happen eventually- brokerages charged $7 per trade (sometimes more) and obviously for the college student who wants to throw $20 at Amazon stock… losing $7 in and then $7 again on the way out makes no sense. Now for anyone giving Robinhood the benefit of the doubt- their evil was (I think) absolutely confirmed when they unveiled a new feature- you can now trade OPTIONS with your retirement account. Options are essentially gambling, so to enable people to throw away their retirement on gambling is truly vile.

OutOfHere 4mo ago
Options is gambling only for the vast majority who're inexperienced with them or don't have a sound theory for them. I can trade them in my setup with over a 95% success rate, perhaps even 99%. Of course I am not going to type out my theory here. Such an overgeneralization ruined your otherwise reasonable comment. Always stop when you are winning.

darth_avocado 4mo ago

Don’t talk about fair valuations. Some people will say “who decides what anything is worth anyway”? Let people do what they want. If they lose their money they signed up for it.

Grombobulous 4mo ago
I think the bigger issue is that oligarchs have gotten so powerful that they can just write down the valuation they want and the market will just agree with it blindly. The issue isn’t that investors will lose their money, the issue is that in some cases like Tesla they never do. The oligarchs are propped up by their own power over the behavior or the market — a power which is disproportionally larger than the objective value their companies bring to the economy. SpaceX is a company with the same revenue as Dick’s Sporting Goods.
- DoesntMatter22 4mo ago
  I don't get the complaint about Tesla. It's profitable, has little debt and 40 billion in the bank. What sort of "Power over the behavior of the market" do they exert? Like they can force people to buy their cars. Space X has the most sophisticated vehicle ever created by man. Dicks does not. If you are only looking at revenue then sure, but that would be silly, you have to look at what the potential in a company is not it's current revenue, if not then looking at Blockbuster in 2008 would seem like a great investment compared to Netflix which didn't have much revenue.
  - Hikikomori 4mo ago
    Did their potential go up or down when their CEO started heiling?
    - slumberlust 4mo ago
      Considering that led to turning the white house lawn into a car sales lot, I'd bet it went up.
    - 4mo ago

BobbyTables2 4mo ago

That’s at least something to look forward to!

justanotherjoe 4mo ago

Something like the plan in the anime Jormungand maybe? (https://jormungand.fandom.com/wiki/Jormungand https://jormungand.fandom.com/wiki/Jormungand)

qq66 4mo ago

One theory is that Elon Musk ends up being able to build AI datacenters faster and more cost effectively than anyone else, which seems plausible given the success of Tesla Gigafactories.

dgellow 4mo ago
That doesn’t justify the valuation in any way
roryirvine 4mo ago
Datacentres are close to being a commodity, though. There's some stuff you can do with Combined Cooling & Power or other cogeneration schemes, and potential for cost-cutting: removing fire protection, doing without redundant power, reducing security, that sort of thing. But that's all fairly marginal in the grand scheme of things. The more experimental stuff like running with extreme temperature gradients, extensive liquid cooling, or maybe using CO2 or He instead of air is certainly worth trying out, but unlikely to make much of a difference either. SpaceX are claiming that they're making a big profit on their deals with Anthropic and OpenAI but that seems to assume that the cost of the compute is zero. I'm not a forensic accountant, so maybe it's okay to have written the value of that down already, but it's not a trick they'll be able to pull off more than once. Really, the best thing you can say about them is that they've got a big pile of money so can finance capital expenditure cheaply. That gives them an edge of a few percentage points over the likes of Equinix (worth $14.2bn), but not much more than that.
tpm 4mo ago
A few Chinese companies build both batteries and cars faster and more cost effectively than anyone else including Tesla though.
- zulux 4mo ago
  something is going on with those Chinese companies if the equivalent Toyota costs twice as much to produce. It could be close-to-free labor, subsidies, or a myriad other things... but it's something.

bwhiting2356 4mo ago

what's the point of being vertically integrated if they're just going to rent out their compute (https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/ai-startup-reflection-signs-computing-power-deal-with-spacex-2026-06-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/ai-startup-re...). This signals to me they don't have an internal use for it

reverius42 4mo ago
You could say the same about AWS circa 2011 though.
- thewhitetulip 4mo ago
  AWS did not need to buy excess inventory from Amazon because the sales were down They also didn't need to buy another company lead by Bezos because ot was going cost him very much if certain conditions are met
- spwa4 4mo ago
  It's the reverse. The purpose of AWS was in 2011 was financial internal Amazon use. They had never invested in proper communication between the (many) parts of the Amazon webstore so everything was ad-hoc (like it still is in essentially every other company). If the website talked to an (internal) payment provider, that was one protocol. Another internal payment provider? Different protocol. Mail customers? SMTP (and not transactional like now, unless your website code implemented the transactional part). That's what the first version of AWS was like. A standard set of interfaces. (you offer compute to the company? You implement these methods. You offer payment? You implement these methods. You offer ... etc) They hadn't (yet) settled on a single RPC method but that's what it was. Then, as a financial innovation they started offering as many as possible to outside parties so they could use that money to pay for buildouts without loans, and a tax rebate on top. That's how AWS came to be. It had quite a few uses: it would simplify the amazon website, but most of all: it would allow for financial innovation in hosting the website (people still don't understand that when using AWS they what they are fundamentally doing is give Amazon better interest rates on loans to build datacenter hosting for their other activities. People still don't understand that the core of Amazon is not selling, is not AWS, it is financial innovation). It was very much not a company selling to itself because it couldn't find outside buyers. It was a company selling to outsiders screaming to buy their internal products so the internal products would essentially be built for free and Uncle Sam would even provide tax rebates for building them (think about it: without AWS, Amazon datacenters are for internal use and tax is due on the equipment. With AWS Amazon datacenters are built to rent out and you can deduct any spend on building them ... smart, no?) (that's also how Google cloud came to be, with very different emphasis and timeline)