Junayed

Dumbest tweet of all time.

I mean, what those knowledgeable people building that can generate revenue or actually get people to use their product without needing ChatGPT or Gemini subscriptions? This kind of knowledge only sounds impressive when you listen, but in the real world, everything revolves around money. Even nonprofit organizations become profitable just to stay in business. As an investor and business analyst, one thing I want to say is that you should not invest in knowledgeable people rather than wait for the product they build to be widely bought and generate revenue. Thinking Machines Lab raised $2 billion at a $12 billion valuation in June 2025, largely because investors believed in Mira Murati and the team she assembled. They weren't investing in a product that millions of people were already using. They were investing in the experience, talent, and reputation of the people behind the company. Personally, I've always thought it's safer to invest in products that people actively use rather than betting on a team's potential alone. At the time, OpenAI was valued at around $300 billion and Anthropic at about $61.5 billion. If investors had put that same $2 billion into those companies instead, they would have been backing businesses with proven products, massive user adoption, and real revenue. Instead, they chose to invest in a vision and a group of talented people. That strategy can certainly work, but it also carries much more uncertainty. I could be wrong, but I don't see Thinking Machines Lab building something that OpenAI or Google are incapable of building themselves. In AI, talent matters, but distribution, data, infrastructure, and existing products matter just as much, if not more.

Here are the Top 5 Reasons to Avoid buying $Sive ~ Sivers Semiconductors AB ● ​Forensic restatements : PCAOB-aligned audit uplift forced retroactive corrections that severely widened 2024 and 2025 net losses, demonstrating poor earnings quality. ● ​Severe Dilutive Overhang : The SEK 4.77 strike price convertible loan guaranteed to dilute existing common equity holders, with up to 76.6 million potential dilutive shares. ●​ Insider Flight : Coordinated, aggressive liquidation of entire shareholdings by prominent long-serving board directors and founding investors. ● ​No High-Volume Manufacturing : Asset-light model completely reliant on WIN Semiconductors, exposing Sivers to severe yield and capacity vulnerabilities. ● ​Extreme Customer Concentration: Susceptible to massive revenue collapses, as demonstrated by the 97% decline in their legacy F100 health-sensing customer The crazy thing is that insiders are dumping shares on retail investors as much as they can.

SpaceX seeking a $1.75 trillion valuation looks disconnected from its actual business fundamentals. Based on my analysis, SpaceX's valuation will likely decline to the $200 billion to $500 billion range within the next 10 years. Just look at the revenue sources : ● Starlink : The strongest part of the business, but it's still a relatively expensive internet service primarily aimed at businesses, airlines, ships, remote locations, and governments. It's not a mass-market consumer product on the scale of the largest tech platforms. ● Rocket Launch Services : Impressive technology, but launch services remain a limited market. Even if SpaceX dominates launches, the total addressable market is not large enough on its own to justify a $1.75 trillion valuation. ● NASA Contracts : Important and prestigious, but government contracts are not the type of revenue stream that typically supports a valuation approaching $2 trillion. ● Defense & Government Contracts: Similar issue. Valuable business, but not large enough by itself to support a $1.75 trillion market cap. ● AI Business : AI is one of the most competitive industries in the world. Success is far from guaranteed, and there are already powerful incumbents and well-funded competitors. What exactly is the path to generating enough profits to justify a $1.75 trillion valuation?

Bitcoin