Ben

@GrantCardone It seems we’re in about ~1995… keep partying

🚨 Are you concerned? US stock market most OVERVALUED in 50 years.

Let’s actually look at it: Cisco vs 2026 NVIDIA Cisco, March 2000: Market cap: $555 billion (most valuable company on Earth) PE ratio: ~200x ~10% of revenue came from vendor financing — Cisco was literally loaning customers the money to buy Cisco gear, then booking those loans as revenue Primary customers: debt-laden telecom carriers (WorldCom, Global Crossing, Qwest) and venture-funded dot-coms Buildout thesis: “if you build it, they will come” — capacity for traffic that didn’t exist yet NVIDIA, May 2026: Forward P/E: ~24x Trailing P/E: ~33x Revenue growth: 70%+ YoY, Q4 data center revenue $62B (+75% YoY) Primary customers: Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, Amazon — four of the most profitable enterprises ever built Q1 2026 hyperscaler capex: $112 billion in a single quarter 2026 hyperscaler capex commitment: ~$700 billion, projected to exceed $1 trillion in 2027 Buildout thesis: capacity for products with hundreds of millions of paying users today Cisco’s buildout was funded by IPO money and junk debt. The AI buildout is funded by hyperscaler operating cash flow. Cisco’s customers were borrowing from Cisco. NVIDIA’s customers generated $148 billion in operating cash flow last year (Amazon alone) and are still spending it faster than it comes in. Cisco built capacity for a future internet. NVDA is building capacity for products with hundreds of millions of paying users right now. The dot-com bubble was speculation about what might happen. The AI buildout is capex against what is happening. The bears will counter: “But hyperscalers issued $100B in bonds in 2026. Amazon’s FCF collapsed 95%. Meta paused buybacks and issued $55B in debt. This is leveraged buildout too.” Fair. That’s the actual conversation worth having. Not “NVDA is Cisco.” Because here’s the difference: when Cisco’s customers went bankrupt, the gear sat dark in the desert for a decade. When NVIDIA’s customers spend $700 billion, they’re filling capacity with products already generating revenue. ChatGPT didn’t take ten years to find users — it hit 100 million in two months. The risk isn’t that the demand doesn’t exist. The risk is that ROI on $700 billion of annual capex takes longer than Wall Street’s patience. That’s a real debate. “It’s just Cisco again” isn’t. You can argue valuations are stretched. Fine. That’s a real conversation. But NVDA is Cisco again — is a meme dressed up as macro.

@InsiderTrackers This madness needs to stop. Comparing the dot com bubble to 2026 and the AI buildout is not comparing apples to apples. They are totally different. Time will ultimately be the judge of who is right.

BREAKING: Michael Burry just compared Nvidia to the company that lost 90% of its value in the dot-com crash and took 25 years to recover. "I stand by my analysis. I am not claiming Nvidia is Enron. It is clearly Cisco." Here's the most recent warning from the investor who called the 2008 crash: Michael Burry built his reputation on one trade. He saw the housing market collapse before anyone else and bet against it. "The Big Short" made him famous. Now he's looking at Nvidia. And he says it looks like Cisco in March 2000. That comparison is not a casual insult. Cisco was the most valuable company in the world at the peak of the dot-com bubble. Its valuation crossed $500 billion. Then the bubble burst. The stock fell roughly 90% from its 2000 peak. Its market cap collapsed to about $60 billion by 2002. And it took roughly 25 years for the stock to climb back to where it started. An entire generation of investors waited a quarter century just to break even. That is the company Burry is comparing Nvidia to. Now here is the number that triggered the warning. In Nvidia's fiscal 2026 results, the company disclosed its purchase obligations. These are the commitments Nvidia makes to its suppliers to lock in future manufacturing capacity. A year ago, that figure sat at $16.1 billion. This year it jumped to $95.2 billion. Total supply obligations now sit at roughly $117 billion. Nvidia is committing $117 billion to build capacity for demand that has not arrived yet. Burry's argument is simple. A company does not lock in $117 billion in supplier commitments unless it is betting the demand keeps climbing. If that demand slows even slightly, Nvidia is holding billions in obligations it cannot unwind. And that is exactly what happened to Cisco. Cisco overcommitted to supplier capacity expecting roughly 50% annual growth. Then tech spending slowed. The inventory piled up. The stock cratered. Burry is not calling Nvidia a fraud. He is not saying it is the next Enron. He is saying it could be the market's Cisco. The single stock that becomes the symbol of an AI spending unwind that drags everything down with it. And the dot-com comparison carries weight because of what happened to the broader market. When that bubble burst, the Nasdaq 100 fell 77%. The S&P 500 dropped 49%. It was not just one stock. It was the whole market. Now here is the other side of the argument. Nvidia's supporters say the Cisco comparison is too simple. Because Cisco was riding hype. Nvidia is riding actual revenue. Nvidia reported fiscal 2026 revenue of $215.9 billion, up 65% year over year. Data center revenue alone hit roughly $193.7 billion, up 68%. Record quarterly data center revenue of $62.3 billion in the fourth quarter, up 75%. These are not promises. These are realized sales, booked and collected. The bulls argue that pricing power and margins this strong do not exist inside a pure bubble. In their view, Burry is warning about a future slowdown that has not shown up in a single quarterly report. So the debate splits into two clean halves. The bears say the $117 billion in commitments makes Nvidia dangerously sensitive to any demand slowdown. The bulls say the revenue is real, the growth is accelerating, and the buildout is justified by the orders already on the books. Both sides are looking at the same company. Both sides are looking at the same numbers. They just disagree on what those numbers mean. And there is a second force pulling at this market that has nothing to do with Nvidia's earnings. A wave of mega-IPOs is reportedly coming. SpaceX. OpenAI. Anthropic. Some estimates suggest the market may need to absorb close to $200 billion in fresh equity supply. That creates a quieter question underneath the Burry debate. Even if AI demand stays strong, capital is finite. When the next wave of private giants goes public, money has to come from somewhere. And the easiest place to pull it from is the stock that already tripled. The real test is not whether Burry is right or wrong today. It is whether demand growth, margins, and contract utilization keep matching the $117 billion that Nvidia and its entire ecosystem are committing right now. If the demand keeps climbing, the commitments look like foresight. If it stalls, they look like Cisco. The man who saw the last crash before anyone else just put a name on the risk. A company that was once worth over $500 billion, then lost 90%, then made its investors wait 25 years to get back to even. The numbers say Nvidia is booking record revenue. The same numbers say Nvidia is committing $117 billion to a future nobody can see. One of those facts ages well. The other one is the entire question.

@Polymarket Jony Ive should stop and never design another car - car's are apparently not his thing

NEW: Ferrari unveils the Luce, its first electric vehicle designed by Jony Ive.

@KobeissiLetter That is the most hideous car I have ever seen … it looks like a Chinese EV. Whoever designed that for Ferrari should be fired and Ferrari needs to take a hard look in the mirror.

BREAKING: Ferrari stock, $RACE, falls over -7% after revealing the design of its first electric vehicle.

@APompliano @enhanced_games best take so far

I am excited to watch the @enhanced_games tonight. There is something special about watching humans push the physical limits of humanity. Lance Armstrong on a bike. Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa hitting a ball. Marion Jones running on the track. Arnold Schwarzenegger hitting the gym. Each of these people were secretly trying to do something that no human had ever done before. Now we don't have to pretend anymore. The athletes can simply optimize their bodies in pursuit of the impossible. Whether any records get broken tonight or not, the idea's time has come.

@XRPJanet1 @saylor @Strategy The question has already been asked

At some point people need to ask the uncomfortable question:What happens if Bitcoin enters a long bear market while Strategy is buried under massive debt?Everyone praises leverage during the bull market.Nobody talks about the risk when liquidity disappears.Saylor looks like a genius right now.But leverage has destroyed a lot of “geniuses” in financial history too.

This week we bought bonds, not bitcoin. The ₿itVac is charging.

@DylanDittrich But isn't that true for every sports league .... the only difference is: they aren't selling jerseys, beer, hot dogs, or coca-cola...

This is — annoyingly — very smart from the Enhanced Games. Keep in mind: the competition is essentially a marketing vehicle for supplement products.

Lance Armstrong passed hundreds of drug tests across more than a decade of dominance. What ended his career wasn't the testing apparatus — it was a federal investigation, sworn testimony from former teammates, and eventually his own confession on national television. By then the titles were won, the sponsorships cashed, and the people who'd told the truth about him had already been sued into silence. The testing didn't catch him. That pattern isn't unique to him. BALCO, Marion Jones, the Russian state program, the East German system, large stretches of baseball's home run era — the through-line is that enhanced performance in professional sports tends to be discovered retroactively, often a decade or more after the fact, usually through legal proceedings rather than testing. We've been watching enhanced athletes for as long as we've been alive. What's new isn't the enhancement; it's the disclosure. That's what makes the Enhanced Games interesting to me, separate from whether anyone wants to watch it. For the first time, the protocols, the compounds, and the performance outcomes are all visible at once, in something resembling a controlled setting. Whatever you think of the ethics, that's a category of information we've genuinely never had before — and it's information that's hard to generate any other way without waiting for the next grand jury transcript. The more useful question it raises isn't "should this exist?" but "what does it expose about the leagues we already watch?" "We test for it" has been the universal answer for thirty years, and the historical record suggests it's closer to a marketing line than a description of reality. The Enhanced Games doesn't have to succeed as entertainment to matter — its existence alone forces every other league into a harder conversation. Once a transparent alternative is on the table, "trust us, our sport is clean" stops being a sufficient answer. The pressure to actually substantiate that claim — or to introduce more transparency themselves, or to reconsider what's permitted in the first place — travels back to the traditional leagues whether they welcome it or not. That's the part I find genuinely valuable, even for people who'd never tune in.

The enhanced games are a marketing gimmick. It’s not for “science” or “hypocrisy." It’s to market drugs to old guys in the bro world. They don't care about the athletes. They aren't offering anything new or intriguing. It's a sales pitch for peptides, TRT, and sketchy supplements. The athletes are to sell the product. And they've roped in people desperate enough to participate...mostly people who got busted and banned from actual sport...or need $$$. The whole thing is based on a false premise. First, they try to say, it's controlled/monitored so its safer. BS. The east German doping was controlled and monitored. When the incentive is to go as fast as you can to win a million dollars, it doesn't matter what some doctor on your staff warns to these athletes, they will push the freaking limit. And with that, any "science" you try to do is null and void. Because you have no clue what they're actually pushing...especially with a 1 million dollar prize. Which gets me to point 2... Second, anti doping works...not perfectly. But look at track, we've had world record holders and world champions who got busted and banned. Some of which are now in the enhanced games... But more so what it does...it prevents people from going way overboard. With testing, you can't be the East Germans anymore... You'll get busted. So even if there is doping, it's scaled down, which reduces long-term consequences a bit. Think of it like this, cyclists would turn their blood into sludge to get a boost...but they'd also risk dying by doing so. Anti doping prevents them from going that far. It's not anywhere perfect, but it works much better than the naysayers think. And at worst it minimizes a no-holds bar drug escapade. 3. Transparency and Choice When you make PEDS the baseline, you take away the choice. It's either risk longtime health or you have NO shot at the prize. Yes, some will argue that it's either take them or not in normal sport, but in most sports that's not the case. You can still win a track and field world title clean. I know folks who I feel very strongly have. You can still be top 10 in the world, I've coached folks who have done so clean. But when cheating is the default, there's no hope. You take away that choice. 4. The trickle down effect is real Youth sports are insane. You normalize folks taking HGH, testosterone, etc. for the shot at millions...and crazy parent will do that with no supervision. They'll get the drugs for themselves from the enhanced games then dose up their children. The more we normalize crazy, the more it pushes the incentives to make crazy normal. I get that's where all of our society seems to be headed. But we have a choice. We get to say what matters, what do we value. And the enhanced games is not it. The marketers don't have to win everything. We don't have to turn sport into a spectacle where you either have to take drugs that you potentially have to stay on for years or life just to compete. I've been in sport at the highest levels. I've seen the dirty underbelly in person. But this is not the way. It's not science. It's marketing. They've admitted the plan is to sell you peptides off this. It's the latest way for some tech bros who think they own the world to market and sell false hopes and dreams to the guy who feels a bit inadequate because he peaked at scoring 4 touchdowns in a game at Polk High. We're better than this nonsense.

The schedule is set. The athletes are ready. The future of sport begins in Las Vegas. From world-record pursuits in swimming to historic lifts in weightlifting, explosive speed on the track, and live artist performances throughout the night, the #EnhancedGames are built for one thing: pushing entertainment and human performance to the limit. May 24, 2026 | Don’t miss a minute of the action.

@Legendaryy $ENHA

How can I long the Enhanced Games? Never cared about the Olympics. Never cared about watching any sports event really. But something about the EG feels very honest and powerful. No hiding and trying to trick doping regulations and drawing arbitrary lines what you can and can’t do. Just figuring out what the human body is capable of.

Does the US want a strong dollar or a weak dollar… Depending on the answer determines what you think the market will do over the next 12-18 months.

@DeepValueBagger @Kark43748 Same could have been said about NVDA from 2000-2022.

@Kark43748 same, i started trimming then, and I no longer hold it. There's no point holding even an asset that goes sideway (in this case goes down). Better capital allocation.

Bitcoin lost the narrative. It's not a hedge, and it's not a reserve asset. You're exit liquidity for the OG.

@Kark43748 @DeepValueBagger You will regret it in 3 years…it just takes time. Impatience never rewarded anyone.

@DeepValueBagger I bailed on it in February of this year after holding for four years. Started seeing the daily price manipulation, watched my bitcoin lose half its value from October high, sold for a small profit and haven’t regretted it

@BRunner2040 @DeepValueBagger Agree ⬆️

@DeepValueBagger Man, for a guy with FU money and status you sure do think like the sheep. Mark Cuban said the same thing and you’re repeating it for likes?! Follow the rich moron and other rich morons shall join philosophy. 🤝 You don’t deserve the Peter Lynch icon.

@DeepValueBagger You’re not the first person to be bearish on Bitcoin 🥱 I’ll screenshot this tweet and repost during the next bull 🐂 run. Screen shot saved.

@rcwhiteley @Jason Not that much…

@drwoodle @Jason How much less tax would a flat tax generate?

I would tax folks under $75k at 1%, so they were still tossing in half a week's paycheck… and felt like they were part of the American process. … but Jeff is correct overall, let the bottom half of earners spend their money and crank the progressive taxation system one or two more turns Also, it wouldn’t hurt anyone to increase our federal minimum wage by a meager $1 a year for seven years — didn’t do any harm in Australia, the Nordics and New Zealand Much better proposals than @RoKhanna and @BernieSanders’ wealth seizure taxes

Larry Fink likes Bitcoin. Donald Trump likes Bitcoin. Kevin Warsh likes Bitcoin. Scott Bessent likes Bitcoin. Stan Druckenmiller likes Bitcoin. Paul Tudor Jones likes Bitcoin. Elon Musk likes Bitcoin. And you and your uncle Joe think you're smart for not liking it? Get real.

39 trillion reasons to buy bitcoin