Remix.run Logo
▲ int32_64 a day ago

Looking at the S-1 lockup schedule the IPO seems doomed. They need to bring in a ton of investment, and you will have massive unlocks right as the next congress is most active authoring anti-AI bills. Who's going to buy this?

▲notnullorvoid a day ago | parent | next [-]

Anthropic have been calling for regulation, that in itself seems like a high risk for buyers.

▲thechao a day ago | parent | next [-]

Corporate calls for regulation usually translate to "regulatory capture to ensure the moat", in my books.

▲ifwinterco a day ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly, regulation isn't a risk, that's their attempt to avoid their product becoming commoditised.

The risk for investors is they don't succeed in getting regulatory capture because without that they don't have a long term business model

▲bunderbunder a day ago | parent [-]

I’m not convinced that regulatory capture really saves the day, either.

If we believe all the hype about programming efficiency, then regulatory capture in the US becomes just one more in a list of many steps the current administration has taken to chase software development jobs overseas.

▲paxy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In Anthropic's case it is pretty openly that. Dario has been very public about existential dangers from Chinese models.

▲jacquesm a day ago | parent [-]

Existential for Anthropic.

▲jackb4040 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

And if there was any doubt, look at the difference in their stock price for the prior year when they were "calling for regulation" vs now that there's an actual chance they get regulation by someone they don't control.

▲creato a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Anthropic wants open weights models banned, and wants data centers. They're probably going to get the opposite.

▲infamouscow a day ago | parent [-]

The problem is SCOTUS has already ruled software is protected under the First Amendment, and the landmark cases that establish this precedent applies perfectly to model files.

▲jjav 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The problem is SCOTUS has already ruled

The current SCOTUS majority will change any ruling as needed to satisfy the wishes of the oligarchs.

▲jackb4040 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Weights aren't really software though? Any more than a png is software. And God knows you can put things in a png that are not covered by the first amendment.

▲hedora a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Especially since it seems to be a call for Trump, specifically, to control the models.

▲forrestthewoods a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What is the lockup schedule?

▲dgellow a day ago | parent [-]

They have like 26 different dates IIRC

▲KellyCriterion a day ago | parent [-]

...nearly same range as SpaceX/XSI? :-D

▲paulpauper a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sigh...people said the same about SpaceX, too. And it has held above $130, its IPO price, for almost 6 months now. Same for Uber. These companies keep defying predictions of crashing or dying.

The market anticipates the unlocking; when the shares become public, buyers swoop in, so the stock decline is much less than expected, if at all. There is no new information here. If everyone is expecting shares to unlock, then it’s priced into the market accordingly.

▲cmiles8 a day ago | parent | next [-]

1) SpaceX is trading below its IPO price. If you bought shares at the IPO you’d have lost money, unless you sold on the pop.

2) Valuation aside, SpaceX has a massive moat. It’s crazy hard to do what they’re doing. Anthropic increasingly has zero moat, with the market rapidly coalescing around commodity open models.

▲paulpauper a day ago | parent | next [-]

1) SpaceX is trading below its IPO price. If you bought shares at the IPO you’d have lost money, unless you sold on the pop.

"SpaceX (ticker: SPCX) was priced at $135 per share during its initial public offering on the Nasdaq on June 12, 2026."

current price is $134 , give or take a dollar.

▲MrAlex94 a day ago | parent | next [-]

The debut price for retail investors was $150[1].

1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2026/06/12/spacex-op...

▲ a day ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲bunderbunder a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It remains to be seen whether SpaceX just drained their own moat when they canceled Falcon 9.

They’ve now got all their eggs in a new basket. A basket that isn’t entirely in working order yet, and whose market viability is still uncertain because it remains to be seen whether a market that’s used to panniers really wants a laundry hamper.

▲labcomputer 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And is there some law of nature that prevents SpaceX from un-cancelling Falcon 9?

▲davedigerati a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

um, they've got 2 years before the basket is retired during which time they can always extend if they need to. why would they want to keep a less capable, more $/lb into orbit system going after Starship becomes a viable, reliable upgrade???

▲bunderbunder a day ago | parent [-]

But they have already stopped taking orders, which means they’re already clearing their pipeline and it will take some time to restore. Launch contracts don’t happen overnight.

$/kg to orbit is not as important a deciding factor as many people assume it is. It’s typically a small portion of overall costs, and there are often cases where a launch provider that’s less expensive in terms of $/kg to orbit is actually more expensive in terms of total cost.

Starship is going to be a particularly weird one to adapt to. The “deploy out the side” design may make it straight up incompatible with a large subset of spacecraft. For those where it is workable, migrating commercial payloads to it may still require the development of new satellite buses, which is something SpaceX doesn’t seem to be working on for the benefit of anyone other than Starlink. And such a large rocket means most potential customers will have to plan on ridesharing with even more co-passengers, which means even more room for scheduling conflicts, compromises on initial orbit (and therefore cost to reach destination orbit), etc.

That’s just assuming Starship development goes smoothly from here on out. Which seems optimistic considering that, even by the standards of spaceflight, its development thus far arguably qualifies as cursed. Considering the gap between original design goals and reality is already historically large, I certainly wouldn’t be taking any cost estimates at face value right now. Like for any launch vehicle program, we won’t know its true capabilities and costs until it’s operational.

▲hehheir a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲reenorap a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not the same as Uber all. Lots of employees got fucked because at lockup expiration it was much lower than the ipo price (at which they were taxed at).

▲skrtskrt a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It seems like SpaceX is not as deeply tied to unprecedented debt-financed infrastructure buildouts at the same moment that interest rates are pushing up and up and up though.

That's the primary angle of depreciation of Anthropic's outlook, is that as interest rates are running hot, they need to grow ever faster to justify the $2B target, at the same moment that they're growing slower.

▲kamarg a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Who's going to buy this?

So many people who don't actually read and evaluate things but just buy stocks based on vibes and what they see on Twitter. Which is to say, the same people that buy and lose money on most IPOs.