Ill bet all the decision makers wives have suddenly come into some nice island property recently though

Do you think it’s more or less likely that they will make the same change as the other benchmarks?

Are you actually optimistic?

If it does not matter, then don't change it.

> it doesn't really matter because the float will be tiny due to the 6 month lockup.

Not really: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/spacex-allow-early-...

> Do you have a source for the $30 million claim?

Index funds in total had about5 $7 trillion in 2021 [1].

[1] https://alexchinco.com/double-what-you-think-it-is.pdf

*trillion

The 12 largest companies in the USA together have that market cap, so probably not.

Also worth asking what SpaceXLAI's plan is to make money. $22.7T of their $28.5T Total Addressable Market is... Drumroll... Enterprise AI! That's the plan, that's what we are investing in: spacex and Tesla and Twitter are all side shows, to sell AI. That's what everyone's absurdly overpriced forced passive investment is going to. https://bsky.app/profile/segyges.bsky.social/post/3mnan7hr2j...

There is nowhere near enough burning rage for this absurd fleecing of the public.

Only $3mm needed?

We need the opposition taking names for investigations in 2029. They're not all getting pardons.

Oh, SpaceX already has that covered: thanks to the TX legislature, SpaceX shareholders cannot file shareholder lawsuits, you can only complain to the "Texas Business Court" or get binding arbitration [0].

[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-21/spa...

why? the cards are on the table. If you buy a turd from me after I disclose the composition, that is on you

Listen to the author of “A Brief History of Financial Bubbles” argue why it probably isn’t a bubble:

https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/260347/s/233172.rss

We don't let bubbles pop anymore. We print money and borrow from the future so that no one loses money on their homes and retirement accounts. The GFC changed the rules.

It’s never going to happen because too many people want it to happen.

> If this is a bubble... The pop stage will be devastating...

Why? It could be sudden. It could be slow and gradual. I've seen no reason it needs to be one versus the other.

I mean if the blow back wasn't so horrible for a lot of people, I kind of respect just how creative the pump is on this one.

One thing I have come to realize, is that worrying about bubbles will keep you poor.

If everyone is in the bubble and it pops, everyone is in the same boat, so you’re not really going to be poorer than your peers by comparison.

If it’s not a bubble and you are wrong, you will fall way behind everyone else and just watch people get richer and richer doing the exact same thing you should have done.

Also, just because something is a bubble doesn’t mean it has to end in a devastating pop. Sometimes bubbles expand and then just get diffused. The exponential rise stops and prices plateau, but it just becomes a new normal and things stagnate for a while before resuming normal upward growth.

> S&P 500’s 12-month seasoning and 4-quarter GAAP profitability requirement → waived

S&P hasn’t announced a final rule change yet.

People buying into space x are basically telling Musk to do anything he wants with their money, no questions asked...

Isn't AI routinely making significant mistakes in analyzing medical imaging?

> they've produced the cheapest way

Were we struggling to do this before? Was the overall percentage reduction in costs? Was some other achievement held back because we couldn't accomplish this? What is now enabled?

> to get any payload into space.

A limited set of payloads into space. No vehicle can get "any payload" to space at a fixed price.

> The benefits are easy to miss,

You've listed a bunch of reasons to publish papers. What is the actual ground level change that's occurred? Are those antibiotics produced? Do they actually work just as predicted? Why is that first world problems are exclusively listed but basic problems like world hunger are never even approached?

> or wouldn't have within our lifetimes.

And your life, your actual life, benefits, how?

You'll overpay -- but not by trillions.

I use LLMs daily, both as chat applications and "vibe coding".

I wouldn't say it "significantly improved my life" however. Everything AI has done for me right now is a "Nice to have" but it doesn't fulfill my needs.

I suppose many do live in different worlds.

I haven't found anything out of LLM's that has improved my life. It was a fun little toy but could never find a use case. But clearly, your mileage varies greatly from mine. That's cool.

I just personally don't the use in more when what I think many need is less. But that comes from essentially this point of view - “Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace.” ― Buddha

I do too, and pay $200/month, but anthropic’s margins on that revenue are negative.

What’s the long term plan? Make it up on margin? 100% tariffs on Chinese open weight models?

I don’t plan on pulling from my 401k for decades, so the long term plan is the part I care about.

Do you use Grok multiple times per day? Is Grok solving Erdos problems?

Even if they are, it still doesn't justify the ridiculous levels of overvaluation. They are not essentials and their consumer demand is extremely elastic.

I’d love it if for once someone on here saying LLMs are some life changing apparatus would give a single example.

Meanwhile the federal minimum wage is still $7.25/hr.

> Basic necessities are expensive

There is going to be a well-deserved shitshow when these IPO proceeds start hitting real estate markets.

If jury is still out on positivity, long term, of AI, I'd really like to see arguments for that. Historically all - almost? - technical improvements were net positive; even some blunders had upside. AI is dangerous, yes, but e.g. fission was developed for the bomb, and now powers significant numbers of households worldwide - the tech less than 90 years old.

It's not a pyramid scheme, it's a reverse funnel.

you can replace “google” with every company that exists or has ever existed so no sure what the purpose of your comment is unless you are pitching abolishing the stock market. google is what they are because they make shitton of money and will continue to do so (more and more) into foreseeable future. that is stock market, always has been, always will be

If you are growing revenue at a high rate then taking profit is a misallocation of resources. That is short-term thinking. It is much better to reinvest in revenue growth.

You can take small profit now or much larger profit later. Insisting that companies need to be profitable even when growing revenue rapidly is failing the marshmallow test.

They reported 559 million in Q2 of this year. OpenAI on the other hand, is nowhere near this.

Anthropic seems to have clawed its way to being the best AI and charging for itself. Microsoft had to slash the Anthropic budget… which it exceeded while being the exclusive host of OpenAI.

Google seems to have a good B2B and internal leveraging AI to make $. OpenAI/Microsoft seems to have squandered an early product lead.

And then you have the Muskiverse, where we have an rocket ship company that buys surplus cyber trucks, operates a space ISP, an AI company that produces virtual fetish porn and makes money renting GPUs to Anthropic, a rando dying social network and a tunnel company to cock-block public transit.

I may be underestimating the market for AI anime porn, but I think Anthropic is probably the best in class product right now. Google and AWS are probably the best positioned sellers of AI. SpaceXAI is the dark horse because they are likely enriching the dear leader more. OpenAI is fucked.

Anthropic is profitable unlike OpenAI though. Sure they'll owe a lot of money for probably decades, but if they remain profitable moving forward, it will be worthwhile.

They will defend it the way any good monopoly always does: buying the competition. Case in point is Facebook: it is just a social network, the way they really stay on top is buying other companies and paying for people to spend even more time on their properties.

I can’t imagine them actually being bullish about exponential growth, when both seem instead to be stagnating. I’m more inclined to believe they’re just maintaining a level of hype in public because that’s what you do.

What are they offering the public (not me and you writing code in our free time)?

"I think both are bullish that the public still isn't pricing in exponential growth."

So youre saying they will both become the economy whilst Google, Apple et al let them?

Man the idiotic statements on here are insane. Why do you fools pretend to know a subject well enough to spout such nonsense?

> the accelerated S&P 500 inclusion of SpaceX

To be clear, S&P hasn't announced a decision on this yet.

The company. Worse for the investors. It's a classic bagholder play, but it can give the companies a comfortable runway post IPO.

Typically, you IPO when your private funding is drying up and/or some of your early lenders want to cash out.

The old saying goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

I’m not necessarily expecting a crash any time soon. (But we average a major correction, what? every 8 years? So if you keep predicting one long enough you will eventually have been right all along.) But I do feel comfortable saying OpenAI and Anthropic are overpriced. For more or less the same reason Cisco was overpriced in the late ‘90s. It’s not that what they were making wasn’t valuable; it’s that we got out over our skis a bit over how much of it the world could actually manage to consume in the immediate future.

> After a certain point , 100% market penetration is achieved and these products become mainstream and profitability follows. See Uber and Tesla for examples.

Groupon got to pretty much 100% penetration, still crashed and burned right after IPO. I think Zynga followed a similar trajectory.

Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't.

If note the dotcom boom lasted from about 1995 until 2000. Housing bubble longer. Theres no time table on when the bubble bursts, and the web didn’t die and neither did housing when the burst happened. It is just a reset and consolidation of overtly excessive speculation. It’s not like the bust leads to an end of civilization.

In 2004 people were predicting that the real estate bubble would burst and then nothing happened. Until it did.

> 30% increase in one year

30% above the average. Households bought $1.6 trillion in Q3 of 2025, for example. (Foreigners bought a further $650 and $700 billion in Q3 and Q4, respectively.)

American capital markets are ridiculously deep.

> A third of all spending is not fundamentally a stretch?

Where did you get spending? That's net buying of stocks by non-financial Americans. It's the new money that has, on average, gone into the U.S. stock market from that section of investors every year. A third of it going into these new issuances doesn't need to break anything.

The vast majority of that was fuel.

From that doc, prices went up 0.6% in one month, multiple by 12 get 7.2% annual inflation rate.

Inflation is a measure of the cost of living. It's not got loads to do with large-scale, institutional investments.

This is one of those "everyone who dies, breaths air" statements.

It's frustrating people who parrot it think they're smart by saying it to others with no basis and finally when it does happen they're like SEE SEE!?

> Until then, history teaches that we'll just keep going up and up

And this is the more important part. As long as you're <40 you SHOULD always buy SPY or VOO, even at the very top.

People have been saying the crash has been coming since 2022. If you believed this and acted on it, you would've missed 3-4 +10%/yr returns.

As Buffet says: You can't time the market; be in it.

I very much disagree that it's coming. I think we need to completely reset our expectations of how the market works. There's been nearly an entire generation working in this "new" bull market, where things like EPS mean absolutely nothing and speculation no longer requires actual returns.

> the crash (that we all know is coming) will do that. Until then, history teaches that we'll just keep going up and up

Stock prices don't have to crash. They can just stagnate while profits catch up and multiples compress.

Debt binges, on the other hand, tend to go bust with a bang. But after the recent private-credit scare, the AI build-out has been predominantly financed with stock. (I think.)

> it treats Social Security and Medicare/aid as a liability instead of the service that they are

It's a liability because the U.S. has promised to pay it. We haven't committed to a level of military spending backed by our full faith and credit.

EDIT: Never mind! Apparently we can just cut social security payments.

Repayment isn't a goal that anyone in the system should reasonably want. Federal debt is not like credit card debt. Debt is a product that the US Government sells. Me, being a big corporation or human, go to the USG and say "I need somewhere to park my money that is safeish from inflation". The USG sells me debt at X.Y% interest. The money now generates safe interest, which means its safeish from inflation. A world where the USG "repays the debt" is a world where this essential product is no longer available.

High levels of debt only signals high demand for this product.

This is super-counterintuitive, but the debt has little to do with the deficit. We could run a surplus and still be in the same level of debt (in fact, this would be a tremendous place to be). We could run a deficit and have no debt (just print money, duh). The decisions that go into column A generally do not impact the decisions our leaders have to make in column B, though there are of course convenient relationships between the two.

Well, will be interesting to see how this play out. The US federal debt repayments is already above $1trillion a year.

How can you use a word like “never” when this debt is literally unprecedented in the history of the world

As mentioned defaults do shockingly little to change future funding. Its been years since i looked but its something like a few years of “cool down” on issuance and a few points of coupon premium. The economist has done some great, very accessible, articles on this over the years.

Second, its critical that treasury bonds are denominated in USD. The us gov controls the monetary policy and can choose to inflate away the debt over time. This is in contrast to EM debt where they get trapped with foreign denominated bonds. See also the tensions around EU debt, greece, etc.

> Of course they're not going to find a market to sell more debt to after that

Argentina is doing fine. The real constraint would be that defaulting on the debt would cause a credit crisis and bank collapses.

The way I understand my money market settlement account at vanguard, is that it's all, or nearly all, treasuries. Treasury not honoring government debt would be the worst bank failure in the history of the world.

We also don’t have anywhere near $175 trillion in debt. That’s a crazy made up number.

Sure, but it's the Americans that can least afford to be stood up as exit liquidity that have the most exposure here relative to their net worth. The ultra wealthy are going to be heavily overrepresented in the active basket. Meanwhile the folks lower down on the income scale are more likely to have their money in passive funds.

  World Online IPO

Meanwhile, Anthropic is adding ~$10-$15b ARR every month.

  That said, I don't even see "huge demand" for the AI triocorns right now. Unlike in 2000, most people are skeptical.

Technically, the model is a depreciating asset too. Just consider the difference between a model you need a B200 cluster to run vs one you can run on a Raspberry Pi. One's going to have a moat around it that gives it value and the other isn't. It's a hyperbolic argument to be sure but the nature of "enthusiast" hardware is that we're currently running, say, ~27B parameter models on hardware for a few thousand. What's that going to look like in 2 years?

Anthropic/OpenAI really need to train ever-bigger models to keep their moat. But that assumes there isn't a law of diminishing returns and also that a compressed model isn't sufficient for what many people need.

You mihgt say that the training is a barrier. And it is, kind of. Notice how it's Chinese companies coming out with open-source models like DeepSeek and Qwen? That's no accident. As soon as DeepSeek came out I knew what was going on: China is going to make sure no single Western company "owns" AI. It's in their national interest for that not to happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if the rush-to-IPO is motivated, at least in part, by getting ahead of Chinese AI commoditization.

Amazing! Thank you!