Bull Meechum

@AndrewCurran_ @preskill @Alan_Baratz @Quantum_Murray @trevorlanting @Sylvushka Been saying this for some time: QBTS does NOT have a demand problem. QBTS DOES have a monetization problem. Per audited 10k( i have hard copies) a measly $10/ problem submitted = insanely profitable

@TFTC21 @reardencode Wrong bro QBTS optimization is both problem and solution Hope that helps ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10715… dwavequantum.com/blockchain/

None of the three evidentiary standards for a real quantum threat have been met. "Anybody can FUD anything about Bitcoin. If we make changes based on claims and not evidence, Bitcoin is vulnerable to the most obvious of attacks." - @reardencode

@nic_carter Nope. Read the fine print. GOOGL pivot to neutral atom is acknowledgement Willow 4 i/o lines per qubit won’t scale. QBTS optimization is problem AND solution TODAY Shor unnecessary ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10715… dwavequantum.com/blockchain/

My latest: My Takeaways from Google’s and Oratomic’s Quantum Resource Estimate papers murmurationstwo.substack.com/p/my-takeaways…

@pmarca Yes. The NVDA led classical gpu mafia is being broken in real time. The power of the shiny jacket is waning

Almost everything you think you know about the history of technology and capitalism was warped by communist/luddite propaganda of the era. That's happening this time too.

@Etherealize_io Read the neutral atom fine print. Shor isn’t needed. QBTS optimization is both problem & solution TODAY ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10715… dwavequantum.com/blockchain/

@genejchan @pmarca is a @anduriltech investor Anduril/Davidson/QBTS washingtontimes.com/news/2026/mar/…

Quantum hitting mainstream again for the next 1000% rally $IONQ $QBTS $INFQ

@Joseph_Kearney @nic_carter @SimplyBitcoin Agree Shor not necessary QBTS optimization is both “problem” and solution TODAY Read neutral atom fine print ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10715… dwavequantum.com/blockchain/

Embarrassing at best. Some of the biggest names in quantum computing explicitly say this is an issue. And you get a group of amateurs to come on your show and say it's not a issue. Then you just make up how physics works 😂. I said it last time you posted this shit. Zero probability, scientifically is absolute certainty, are these "physicists" willing to personally guarantee that there is a "ZERO" risk.

@charleswangb @pmarca Not exactly. GOOGL pivot to neutral atom is acknowledgement Willow 4 i/o lines per qubit was never going to scale. QBTS optimization is both “problem” & solution TODAY Shor isn’t needed. Read fine print ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10715… dwavequantum.com/blockchain/

@pmarca Neutral atoms are the “frontier model” of quantum computing

And quantum computing is going to work. It's all happening.

@pmarca @anduriltech The QBTS CEO @Alan_Baratz had better stop running publicly traded QBTS like a non profit research lab & change rev model to a “per problem submitted minimum charge” $10?$100?$1000? Insanely profitable

@pmarca Aren’t you an @anduriltech investor? Anduril/Davidson/ QBTS washingtontimes.com/news/2026/mar/…

@mreiffy “Now we can break it” is far from accurate

Google is basically saying: “We’ve cut the quantum resources needed to break Bitcoin’s encryption by 20x. We can now break it. We can prove it. We’re just not going to tell you how. We’ve slowed down research to give crypto a chance. You have until 2029 to figure out a solution. Good luck.”

@AndrewCurran_ @preskill @Alan_Baratz @Quantum_Murray @trevorlanting @Sylvushka Answer is YES! By refusing to implement a revenue model that would achieve instant, insane profitability, QBTS grossly negligent mgmt caused QBTS to get removed from the Vanguard indexes. Causing Vanguard to dump 38 mil+ shares in 2026

@AndrewCurran_ @preskill @Alan_Baratz @Quantum_Murray @trevorlanting @Sylvushka ? For mgmt: if QBTS had changed the revenue model long ago when I first brought this up, would CRSP have kicked QBTS out of the Vanguard Indexes causing them to sell 11% or 38+mil shares ? Mgmt is SOLEY responsible for QBTS being down 50% ytd

Scott Aaronson on his blog talking about Shor's, quantum, and crypto: 'When I got an early heads-up about these results—especially the Google team’s choice to "publish" via a zero-knowledge proof—I thought of Frisch and Peierls, calculating how much U-235 was needed for a chain reaction in 1940, but not publishing it, even though the latest results on nuclear fission had been openly published just the year prior. Will we, in quantum computing, also soon cross that threshold? But I got strong pushback on that analogy from the cryptography and cybersecurity people who I most respect. They said: we have decades of experience with this, and the answer is that you publish. And, they said, if publishing causes people still using quantum-vulnerable systems to crap their pants … well, maybe that’s what needs to happen right now.'

@olivez Yes. Read the fine print. This is more GOOGL acknowledging Willow 4 i/o lines/qubit will never scale. So pivot to neutral atom. Shor not needed. QBTS optimization is both problem & solution TODAY ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10715… dwavequantum.com/blockchain/

Most folks are not looking at the physical qubits assumptions, which are 99.9% fidelities for all ops (including 2 qubits gate & readout) at scale. Nobody has done that with cold atoms even at small scale. So, with 20K or 100K atoms, they got some work on their plate for a while!

@AndrewCurran_ @preskill @Alan_Baratz @Quantum_Murray @trevorlanting @Sylvushka @CitronResearch @KerrisdaleCap @Cat_States BTW: this in no way exonerates the scummy HF’s spreading known lies abt the QBTS tech while trading on material non public info

@Alan_Baratz Certainly the Phd CEO and CFO know the current revenue model does NOT maximize shareholder value AND that the fix is infinitely simple. Their gross negligence has cost shareholders dearly

Publicly traded QBTS CEO @Alan_Baratz runs the company like a non profit research lab: giving away this amazing technology essentially for free. At shareholders expense.

@investing_law I have a very interesting case for you QBTS mgmt gross negligence Massive losses. Insider selling.