Sword_emperor

@amitisinvesting sell chip and ai stock maybe, and moving to space stocks

SPACEX UPDATES: - Ticker will be $SPCX - IPO coming likely June 12th - Company is focused on expanding retail coverage to international brokerages, not just US based ones - Looking to raise $80B at around a $2T valuation Are you a buyer? I think many other names will be proxies and we are already seeing this with momentum in names like $RKLB. It’s going to be a historic IPO, question will be where the liquidity comes for it…

$ASTS THE FCC JUST TOLD YOU WHO THE REAL DIRECT-TO-DEVICE PLAYERS ARE Today’s FCC release was not subtle. The regulator explicitly framed America’s future in direct-to-device connectivity around only a handful of serious infrastructure players, and @AST_SpaceMobile was named directly alongside SpaceX in the agency’s own messaging. Read the language carefully. The FCC states it already approved AST’s “competitive 248-satellite D2D system” and tied that approval directly to America’s “global leadership in next-gen D2D offerings.” That is extraordinary regulatory positioning for a company many retail investors still treat like a speculative science project. Meanwhile, Brendan Carr is openly talking about a future with “at least three facilities-based providers” in D2D. Not dozens. Not unlimited competition. A small number of national-scale infrastructure winners. And AST is specifically being elevated into that conversation by the FCC Chairman himself. What casual investors are missing is that this FCC document effectively confirms several things simultaneously: • AST now has authorization for a 248-satellite commercial constellation in the United States. • The FCC repeatedly emphasizes “competition” because regulators do not want a single-player monopoly in space-based cellular broadband. • AST is integrated with AT&T, Verizon, and FirstNet using actual carrier spectrum and carrier core infrastructure. • The FCC is signaling long-term regulatory support for D2D as strategic national infrastructure. • The agency is creating clarity around exclusive-use spectrum rights and buildout expectations so companies can invest at massive scale. This is the part the market still does not fully grasp: AST is no longer being discussed as an experimental satellite company. The FCC is discussing it as part of the future architecture of American wireless infrastructure. That changes valuation frameworks completely. The government is openly talking about ubiquitous smartphone connectivity from space, rural coverage, public safety integration, competition policy, spectrum policy, and next generation industrial leadership. Those are trillion-dollar infrastructure themes, not niche themes. And look at the players orbiting this ecosystem now: AT&T. Verizon. FirstNet. Google relationships. Defense implications. National infrastructure implications. Potentially exclusive spectrum structures emerging around D2D. The FCC itself is now effectively validating that direct-to-device broadband from orbit is becoming a permanent layer of the communications stack. Retail still thinks this is a meme stock. The regulators are talking about national strategic infrastructure.

FCC Chairman just approved $40 billion in D2D spectrum deals. Named $ASTS and @SpaceX as the two companies leading America's D2D future. Everyone is debating if this is good or bad for ASTS. Simple version for retailers: @SpaceX bought their own highway -- 65 MHz of owned spectrum. ASTS rents lanes on AT&T and Verizon's highway -- 700/800 MHz already in every phone on Earth. Different models. Both work. SpaceX sells direct to consumers. ASTS sells through carriers. Like how wireless has both Verizon (retail) and American Tower (infrastructure). Both are $100B+ companies. What bears are missing: AT&T and Verizon don't want to depend on SpaceX -- a competing wireless network -- for satellite connectivity. They want an independent partner they control. That's why they're equity investors in $ASTS and NOT in SpaceX D2D. Also buried in today's news: AT&T acquired 50 MHz of new spectrum including 600 MHz low-band -- same family as the 700/800 MHz ASTS uses. A stronger AT&T = a stronger $ASTS . Now the valuation that should stop you scrolling: SpaceX paid ~$25-30B for 65 MHz of D2D spectrum. Just the spectrum. No satellites for it. No service until 2028. $ASTS entire market cap: ~$27B. For the same price as SpaceX paid for a piece of paper, you get: 6 satellites in orbit, 33 in production, 98.9 Mbps proven, 248-satellite FCC authorization, 60 carrier partners, $3.5B cash, 3,900 patents, three new government contracts, factory at scale, and a mid-June launch on Falcon 9. SpaceX paid $27B for future spectrum. $ASTS IS the future -- for $27B. The FCC just told you both will coexist. The valuation says one is mispriced. $ASTS

@JohnLoc18 you say want to rest 3-4 weeks, so why you stil update the market 🤔

IMPOSSIBLE, THE DAY I BECOME BULL AND IT’S RED $SPY

@JohnLoc18 why you still short

$SPY This is my positions so far, bought at 723-724. Have a good weekend everyone.

@KangManto123 jadi inget istilah roma kuno, biar rakyat ketergantungan dikasih, pemerintahnya bebas korupsi, dan rakyat gampang dikendalikan

WKWKWKW....

@KangManto123 baru juga goto dapet untung setelah puluhan tahun rugi, eh udah kena gebrakan lagi 🤣

WKWKWK...

@Ucityman30 so this transaction whale buy, not sale?

Volume is declining as price rises. Nothing else needs to be said.

@zanatul_91 @penduduk_lokal_ yang punya dapur sppg juga kebanyakan pejabat, gimana yaaa kira" 😂

BESOK SIDANG DI MK MENDENGARKAN KETERANGAN PRESIDEN DAN DPR. GUGATAN NO 55 TERHADAP MBG DALAM UU APBN 2026. Selasa, 14 April 2026. Pukul 10.30 WIB. MOHON DOANYA, @penduduk_lokal_ jangan lupa kacamata item. guys kalau mau kirim martabak dan kopi, bolehlah ke alamat MK. Satpamnya ramah-ramah kok.

@Bearlovesbull Burry still bear, because he have profile film big Short

🚨 $PLTR: THE MARKET IS PRICING SPEED, BUT VALUE LIVES IN CONTROL (Based on the previous feedbacks, I will make this simple and less technical.) RULE OF THUMB: Abundant intelligence increases the value of disciplined deployment. I've said many times that I admire Mr. Burry, and when I was a young adult in grad school, I looked into his strategies. I might strongly disagree with his views on Palantir or two other topics, but you can see the ocean of knowledge from his substack. (Lol, do I sound like marketing it? Read the free ones, though. ) HERE WE GO: Believe me, he is right to see that AI is being commercialized first through chat interfaces, models, APIs and copilots. That's where the money comes in the fastest. Selling intelligence is easier than selling change. Anthropic and OpenAI can quickly get a product in front of millions of people. $PLTR looks less commercial when you look at how quickly people are using it, how much buzz it has, or how widely it is used. Come on, we all know that. The mistake is assuming that all AI value accumulates at the model layer. IT NEVER DID. IT DOES NOT. IT NEVER WILL. As time goes on, value moves up to the layer that decides who can use the model, what data they can use, what permissions they need, what workflow they need to be in, how traceable they need to be, how much human override they need to have and what operational consequences they need to have. That's where $PLTR is. The model can tell you something. Palantir is trying to make an institution act on it safely and repeatedly. RULE 1: Fast adoption is being mispriced as durable value. Think of this. It's easy to demo a foundation model because intelligence is easy to read right away. Ask a question and you'll get an answer. Make an agent, write an email, summarize a file and make code. In 30 seconds, people get what the product is. Anthropic and OpenAI grew so quickly because of this. They sell cognitive surplus right away. Palantir sells something that is much harder to understand from the outside: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION. "Here is how your enterprise data, internal logic, users, approvals, constraints, exceptions and decisions are put together to make a system that can run parts of your business" It is also much closer to where long-term business value is made. RULE 2: APIs win experimentation. Platforms win budgets. I know Mr. Burry is putting $PLTR and Anthropic or OpenAI into the same AI category when he compares them. That's too rough. Anthropic and OpenAI are primarily monetizing cognitive capability while $PLTR is monetizing organizational execution. Those are not the same thing. A business can buy access to Claude or GPT and still not know how to connect those systems to procurement rules, logistics, targeting systems, hospital operations, manufacturing exceptions, audit trails, security boundaries, or decision rights that cross departments. That is actually the default state for most businesses. They are smart but don't have a way to carry out their plans. This is why Mr. Burry's "LLM will eat everything" thesis isn't complete. Raw intelligence and institutional usefulness are not the same thing. Mr. Burry is overweighting distribution and underweighting embeddedness. Distribution is important. It means a lot. It decides who gets mindshare, the chance to try new things, developer love, ecosystem gravity and short-term revenue growth. That is an advantage for Anthropic and OpenAI. No doubt. But embeddedness is what drives switching costs, pricing power and long-term revenue durability in enterprise software. When a system becomes part of how an organization makes decisions, the moat becomes dependent on the process, governance and internal workflows. That kind of entrenchment is very useful, but it takes longer to build and is harder to sell. The problem for $PLTR in business is that this strength is also a weakness. Its strength is that it sits near the center of decision-making. Its weakness is that getting there is painful. That is why Palantir does not commercialize like OpenAI or Anthropic. It's not like management is clueless or the product is bad. It is because the thing they are selling is inherently harder to standardize. They are not selling one general-purpose intelligence service. They are selling a way to make highly specific institutions operationally legible to themselves. So should Palantir become more commercialized like Anthropic or OpenAI? Yes, but only at the edges. Palantir needs to be easier to use, test and integrate, and it shouldn't depend so much on heavy deployment. It should make packaging easier, speed up time to value, give more developers access and make products that are more modular. To grow their businesses, every enterprise software company needs to make things easier. The criticism is fair in that case. Palantir's TAM is limited if it stays too custom and lighter, faster competitors can take the outer layers of the market. But no, it should not try to become “just another AI vendor.” That would be a strategic error. If $PLTR completely copies OpenAI or Anthropic, it will lose the one thing that makes it different. Palantir won't win by being the cheapest model, the most fun chat interface, or the most popular general-purpose developer API. That field is too crowded, too reliant on capital, too easy to copy and too open to quick changes in models. The model layer is very useful, but it also has a lot of risk of being replaced. The best model today will be the worst model tomorrow. Palantir should be above the models and make them useful in high-stakes institutions. So, $PLTR should not care about models and only care about workflows. The more models become commodities, the more we need a reliable orchestration layer that can connect different intelligences to real-world settings. RULE 3: Models get commoditized. Workflows get embedded. That is the irony few people miss. If model intelligence becomes widespread, the rare asset shifts from intelligence to institutional integration. When everyone has access to good models, the companies with the best raw model don't always win. The companies that help businesses turn model output into controlled, repeatable and auditable action are also the ones that win. I think Mr. Burry is making a mistake that a lot of people make in the public markets: mixing up what is easiest to make money with what is hardest to replace.

Why the hell is the president adding the stock symbol? Cmon man…. This is all soooooo embarrassing.

@NoLimitGains Four deadlines came and went. This is deadline number five. The only question is whether Tehran believes it this time.

@labeltrader1122 looks like double top

$spy 🔮 they are trying to get Jesus to come Back…

S&P 500: 100-Year Record Valuation I shared this 100-year SPX channel chart several months ago. Many laughed. Many claimed it was breaking out into a brand new bull market. Still laughing?

@nyxsephad @DarkWebInformer Lol, orang di negaramu memakan tai sapi 😂

‼️🇮🇱 A hacktivist group "INDOHAXSEC" (Indonesian Haxor Security) claims to have leaked data of more than 8.3 million Israeli residents, allegedly taken from general election results. The leak contains 1,618 files across 116 folders, totaling 2 GB (617 MB compressed). The group states the attack is a form of support for Palestine and Iran.

@_Shekhe @BRICSinfo @grok it is a real?

@BRICSinfo Americans have decided to Surrender to Iranians. Israel Must be flattened to end terrorism in Middle East.

JUST IN: 🇺🇸🇮🇷 US President Trump says the war with Iran could be over soon.

@f1_amit @chan2pa and why insider selling this stock by top price on november?

@chan2pa They share 3rd party testing, conservative estimates with us. Then why is yield question difficult to update shareholders on ? They used to provide some updates on weekly production rate. And now just say 8x, 25x etc. Should they not publish current & expected cell yield?

@BullRush__ what happen???

WTF, $QS is absolutely ripping +14% in pre-market! A return to $10 today could be possible two days before earnings.

@Paul44250784 @grok its true?

$QS 👀