律动BlockBeats · 273

Remember NFTs? The price of the new project exceeds that of Bored Ape

Author: CookieRobinhood's NFTs are getting more and more attention, and the most immediate catalyst was an interaction between Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev and Beeple's tweet. NFTs have been around for a long time, and Beeple is one of the few people who can also have a boosting effect on NFT assets. It's a bit like “whatever Beeple draws, whatever it goes up”. In the tweet above, Vlad appears as an NFT savior, holding Cash Cat with the caption “Robinhood is saving NFTs.” Vlad replied, “Someone always has to do this.” As the “second protagonist” in the picture, the Cash Cat NFT series's floor price rose to a maximum of around $660, a fivefold increase in 2 days. Before Vlad launched this direct catalyst, the floor price of StonkBroker, the leading NFT on the Robinhood chain, once surpassed 13 ETH (about $25,000), but now it remains at 11.75 ETH. Judging from the price of a single NFT, this series has surpassed BAYC, and its total market value once surpassed 100 million US dollars, surpassing many old blue-chip NFTs such as Pudgy Penguins and Milady. Are NFTs really revived on the Robinhood chain? How can I quickly get started on this track that has been forgotten by everyone for a long time? Meme Coin/NFTMeme Coin comes with an NFT series. This is the first Robinhood NFT project category worth mentioning in this article. In addition to CashCat, $HOODRAT has also launched a supporting NFT series, and this one is directly carried out by the meme coin project, so there is no need to worry about whether the community will recognize it or not. However, $HOODRAT's current market value is only about 3 million US dollars, making it difficult for NFTs to rise anywhere. We mentioned Cash Cat NFTs at the beginning of the article. Although this NFT series doesn't come from the official Cash Cat meme coin, after Vlad tweeted, it had 3 imaginable logics: - Currently, the market value of $CASHCAT is around US$1.5-160 million. Based on the highest floor price of 660 US dollars over the past few days, the corresponding market value of the entire NFT series is only 6.6 million US dollars. If the price of $CASHCAT continues to stabilize, break through new highs, and continue to rise, then the price of the NFT will seem more cost-effective - what if Vlad swaps his X avatar for a Cash Cat NFT? - Although it is not a part of the $CASHCAT project, there aren't any examples of a successful meme that came from the original project party. The most typical example is $SPX6900/AEON. The highest AEON has reached a market value of about 25 million US dollars, corresponding to a single floor price of about 7,500 US dollars. After a short period of FOMO, the floor price of Cash Cat NFTs has fallen back to about 375 US dollars. This is a normal correction, and it will still be An NFT collection that occupies a key position on the Robinhood chain depends on the height of $CASHCAT and whether it can be widely recognized by the $CASHCAT community. Therefore, this type of project should be tracked from two aspects: - A coin with a meme image that has risen well. Recently, $hmm on Pons has suddenly skyrocketed quite a bit. If the latter can withstand the current sharp correction, NFTs will also be picked up. It's just not easy to say which series - it's already led by the meme coin project or related meme coin NFTs that have already run out of price. Follow the price trend of the meme coin itself and observe whether the odds for the corresponding NFTs are appropriate StonkBroker is currently the top 3 most expensive NFT series, all of which are “StonkBroker series”. StonkBroke...

8d ago律动BlockBeats#NFTs

Why did NeoCloud rise more sharply than Nvidia in this round of technology stock rebound?

Author: Vibrant BlockBeats Original title: Why did NeoCloud increase the most in this round of rebound in US technology stocks? One of the strongest directions in this round of US tech stock rebound came from NeoCloud: CoreWeave, Nebius, and some AI infrastructure companies with power and data center resources. Logically, the capital is pricing an AI infrastructure equity certificate with multiple leverage: computing power production capacity that has been locked in a contract and can be delivered quickly. Once AI demand improves, NeoCloud's revenue expectations, financing capacity, and shareholder equity value are likely to rise at the same time. This makes it highly resilient during the rebound phase of technology stocks; electricity, data centers, financing, and valuation flexibility together form this level of leverage. The AI bottleneck is changing. What was most scarce in the early days was GPUs, followed by HBM and high-speed networks; today, what customers really lack is a complete set of capabilities to go online: get a GPU, have enough power, complete computer room construction, network connectivity, and be able to deliver large-scale clusters within a few months. NeoCloud is stuck in this gap. The funds were purchased by NeoCloud, a “powered computing power factory,” usually including GPU clusters, networks, liquid cooling, data centers, power access, and operation and maintenance services. The customer purchased a block of large-scale computing power capacity that can directly run AI training and inference. This is important. GPUs can be purchased, but power capacity, land, substations, data center licenses, and network access cannot be replicated in the short term. Large cloud vendors have capital and customers, and are also bound by the construction cycle; some AI companies want to preserve more flexibility and are unwilling to put all of their needs on a single hyperscaler. As a result, NeoCloud, which has ready-made electricity and rapid deployment capabilities, became an “accelerator” for investment in AI infrastructure. The market is willing to value them higher, and the core is that these resources have two characteristics: · Scarce: limited available electricity and deliverable data center capacity; · Contractable: customers are willing to sign multi-year capacity contracts with minimum commitments. When scarce resources can be locked in by long-term contracts, the market will reinterpret it from ordinary IT service revenue as a cash-flow asset with infrastructure attributes. Financial reports have changed the market's view on the business model. Previously, the market's main question about NeoCloud was very direct: buying GPUs and building data centers required huge amounts of capex. Will the company fall into a cycle of “continuous financing and continuous burning of money”? The answers given in recent financial reports were positive. CoreWeave Q2's revenue reached $2,575 billion, disclosing a backlog (signed but unconfirmed expected revenue) of approximately $104 billion; Nebius' AI Cloud ARR (annualized recurring revenue) reached $3 billion, and disclosed a number of large long-term contracts. The market focuses on single-quarter revenue, and more on the complete commercial loop that appears behind these numbers: AI customers sign long-term capacity contracts → some customers provide advance payments or minimum payment commitments → companies can more easily obtain debt and equipment financing → add GPUs, computer rooms, and power capacity online → revenue and EBITDA (profit before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization) increase → continued increase in financing capacity and expansion capacity. This has gradually moved NeoCloud's narrative from “high-capex GPU renters” to “AI that supports expansion with orders” “Infrastructure operators”. As long as orders, financing, and delivery can continue to be linked, growth will have a clear flywheel character. Why isn't funding prioritizing storage and the three major clouds? The choice of funding reflects poor expectations in different areas. Storage leaders are benefiting from AI demand, and products such as HBM and DRAM are still very popular. However, the market has begun to worry about rising supply, high prices, peaking profit margins, and whether upbeat expectations in the early period have been fully reflected in stock prices. The financial report is strong. If the forward guidance does not continue to be revised, the stock price will easily be under pressure. The challenge for storage companies is their cyclical nature. The market deals with prices, shipments, and gross margin paths for the next few quarters; when supply is likely to catch up with demand and average selling prices may fall, it is difficult for strong current performance to continue to drive valuation expansion. HBM/DRAM, NAND/SSD, and HDD are also in different sub-cycles, and the stock price performance of all storage companies cannot be attributed to the same reason. Three major clouds — Microsoft Azure, Amazon...

9d agoburnking#AI #Arithmetic power #US stocks #financing

Gold returns to 4,350 US dollars, and a new round of precious metals market begins?

Source: Groove BlockBeats Original title: Gold returns to $4,350, is the precious metals pullback over? The central bank's gold purchases have resumed, and the rebound also depends on the dollar and real interest rate points: · Sprott believes that the 2026 annuity bank decline is more like a cyclical correction in a long-term bull market. Gold rose above 4,350 US dollars/ounce on August 7. · Global central banks' net purchases in the second quarter were 289 tons, about five times the 57 tons after the first quarter correction, but the amount of money purchased in the first half of the year was still the lowest since 2022. · Silver is expected to be in short supply for the sixth year in a row, but industrial demand is slowing, and the dollar, real interest rates, and liquidity will still amplify short-term fluctuations. Sprott Asset Management recently released a precious metals report, characterizing the retracement of gold and silver since 2026 as a cyclical correction in a long-term bull market rather than the end of the market since 2025. As of August 7, gold had once risen above $4,350 per ounce, a seven-week high. Previously, the price of gold stabilized in the 4,000—4100 US dollar area, indicating that safe-haven demand and financial sentiment have begun to recover. The question this report is trying to answer is straightforward: after gold rose 64.58% and silver rose 147.95% in 2025, the obvious retracement in the first seven months of 2026 actually meant a reversal of trend or a rebalancing of leverage and financial sentiment after clearing up? As of July 31, gold closed at $4046.15 per ounce, down 6.33% during the year; silver closed at $57.60 per ounce, down 19.63% during the year. Although both varieties are down from the beginning of the year, prices are still significantly higher than a year ago. For investors, what they really need to observe is not whether there is a correction in gold and silver, but whether the long-term demand that supported the previous round of growth has changed. Gold and silver rose sharply in 2025, and there was a marked retracement after hitting a high in early 2026, but as of the end of July, the price of gold stabilized around $4,000, which was still higher than a year ago. Futures capital began to flow back. Sprott's judgment was not that precious metals would not continue to fall, but rather that this round of retracement had not destroyed long-term support factors. Annuity banks rose too much in 2025, and continued to reach record highs in early 2026, and the market has accumulated more leverage and profit margins. Sprott believes that the March geopolitical conflict unexpectedly tightened global liquidity, and some leveraged investors were forced to sell gold to raise cash; after entering the second quarter, the US-Iran situation eased, oil prices fell, the dollar strengthened, and expectations that US interest rates might remain high for a longer period of time further suppressed precious metals prices. By early summer, some selling pressure was gradually released, and gold regained physical demand and central bank buying support around $4,000, then rose above $4,350 on August 7. Silver fluctuated more sharply, but it also stabilized in the $55-60 area, and once rose again above $60. Futures positions are also showing signs of a return. According to Saxo Bank's compilation of CFTC data, as of the week ending August 4, hedge funds had increased their exposure to precious metals before gold completed technical breakthroughs. Net speculative long positions in silver futures increased 32% month-on-month, and net long gold positions also continued to rise, reaching their highest level since January. Meanwhile, speculators cut back about $13 billion in a week, the biggest weekly decline in six years. However, the overall dollar position is still clearly too large, and it is not yet possible to judge that the dollar trend has reversed based on this. COT data is more suitable for observing short-term financial sentiment. It shows that precious metals are attracting speculative capital again, but it cannot alone prove that a new round of bull market has begun. As of August 4, net longings of gold managed funds rose to 132,000 lots, reaching the highest level since January; net longings of silver increased 32% month-on-month to about 11,000 lots, but overall positions remained relatively low. The central bank made a net purchase of 289 tons of gold in the second quarter, but demand in the first half of the year still did not fully recover. Long-term support for gold is still inseparable from central banks and sovereign capital. According to data from the World Gold Council, the net purchase amount of global central banks reached 289 tons in the second quarter of 2026, about five times the revised 57 tons in the first quarter, an increase of 62% over the previous year, and the highest level in the second quarter since statistics were available. However, there is another side to this set of data. Due to the drastic reduction in the scale of purchases in the first quarter, the central bank's total net purchase amount for the first half of 2026 was 345 tons, or 20...

10d ago22#Baiyin #precious metals #gold

How did DeepMind change lead to a sharp increase in Google Cloud's revenue?

Author: Vibrant BlockBeats Original title: DeepMind changes direction, why is Google Cloud likely to be the biggest winner? TL; DR · SemiAnalysis believes that after DeepMind's leadership adjustments, Google Cloud may become the biggest short-term beneficiary. ·Alphabet's second-quarter Google Cloud revenue increased 82% year-on-year to $24.768 billion, and the backlog of cloud business orders reached $514 billion. ·The report estimates that more than $150 billion in TPU system orders could push Google Cloud's 2027 revenue growth rate to around 150%. ·This forecast relies on the pace of order delivery, customer financing, and revenue recognition, and the valuation of system sales may also be lower than traditional cloud services. On August 7, SemiAnalysis released a report stating that after Google DeepMind's leadership adjustments, Google Cloud may become the biggest financial beneficiary in the short term. The report links personnel changes to the distribution of computing power within Google. TPU is a scarce resource that Google relies on to grow its cutting-edge model and expand its cloud business. More computing power for Gemini training will help Google catch up with cutting-edge models; more TPU flowing to external customers can be more quickly converted into Google Cloud revenue, backlog orders, and profits. Based on this, SemiAnalysis gave a set of aggressive predictions: TPU system sales may push Google Cloud's 2027 revenue growth rate to around 150%, significantly higher than the 64% seller consensus estimate listed in the report, and contribute about $3 per share to Alphabet's earnings for the year. DeepMind changed, and the market began to reassess its computational power. According to Axios, Demis Hassabis stepped down as Google DeepMind CEO and became DeepMind Chairman and Alphabet Chief Scientist; former DeepMind CTO Koray Kavukcuoglu took over day-to-day management and reported to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai. Meanwhile, Jeff Dean, Sanjay Ghemawat, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc Le left Google to co-found AI research firm Discovery Loop. Google will participate as a founding investor and partner with it to establish cloud services. This round of adjustments has prompted the market to re-evaluate Google's computing power allocation strategy. The same batch of TPUs should not only support Gemini training and inference, be made available to external AI labs and enterprise customers through Google Cloud, or sold as a package to special purpose entities operating AI data centers. Different distribution methods correspond to different returns. Investing in Gemini's computing power is linked to Google's competitiveness in the cutting-edge model field; investing in TPU for commercial customers can enter Google Cloud's revenue and backlog orders more quickly. According to SemiAnalysis, Google Cloud leader Thomas Kurian's influence in internal computing power competition is rising. As more TPU and supporting infrastructure flows to external customers, Google Cloud is likely to gain greater revenue elasticity. DeepMind's share of Google's AI computing power declined, but Alphabet did not attribute this organizational adjustment to the obstruction of Gemini development. The company said at the second-quarter earnings conference that Gemini 4 is undergoing the most ambitious pre-training so far, and AI services are still limited by supply. Pichai also emphasized that the primary task of TPU allocation is to ensure that Google has the computing power needed to compete at the cutting edge of AGI. Currently, Google has yet to announce a reduction in Gemini's computing power priority. “Gemini priority decline” is SemiAnalysis's inference of personnel changes and resource flows...

12d agoburnking#Google #financing

SpaceX's first listing earnings report is out, why did Bernstein look at $239?

Source: Groove BlockBeats Original title: Bernstein Interprets SpaceX's First Earnings Report. How was the $239 target established? The current profit depends on Starlink. The future valuation depends on AI and Starship's core points: · SpaceX's second-quarter revenue was 7.81 billion US dollars, an increase of 92% over the previous year, and Bernstein maintained a “outperforming market” rating and a target price of $239. · The Bernstein model still assumes that the design price falls back to about $10 per watt for a long time, and the 30 to 50 US dollars/watt proposed by Musk is not fully included in the target price. · Connectivity provides the current profit base. AI computing determines revenue elasticity, and Starship's complete reuse determines whether forward costs can actually be reduced. SpaceX's first quarterly results after launch brought a more aggressive growth story to the market: the Connectivity business continued to contribute profits, AI computing revenue grew rapidly, Musk also brought forward the target year of reaching $1 trillion in annual revenue from 2031 to 2030, and said it could be achieved as soon as 2029. According to SEC filings filed by the company, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Class A common stock has been traded on Nasdaq and Nasdaq Texas under the SPCX code. After the company released results for the second quarter ending June 30 on August 4, Bernstein maintained an “outperforming the market” rating and a target price of $239. Based on the closing price of $125.33 on August 4 as listed in the research report, this corresponds to about 91% of potential upside. However, the target price of $239 is not based on the full achievement of the $1 trillion revenue target. Bernstein's own revenue forecast for SpaceX 2031 is $554 billion, which is significantly lower than management's vision; its AI computing price model also assumes a long-term fall back to around $10 per watt. In other words, higher calculated prices and more aggressive revenue targets are more of a potential upside in addition to current valuations. SpaceX shares fell further to $108.27 on August 5, down 13.6% in a single day. This shows that the market is not only looking at this quarter's results, but is also weighing AI capital expenses, stock supply pressure brought about by the lifting of the lockdown period after listing, and whether Starship can enter the high-frequency, low-cost launch phase. Revenue increased 92%, and Connectivity is still a profit pillar SpaceX's second-quarter revenue reached $7.814 billion, up 92% year over year. Axios cites an S&P Visible Alpha consensus of $6.9 billion, and the Bernstein report uses a market consensus of $6.546 billion. Despite differences in statistical caliber, both point to the same conclusion: revenue for the quarter clearly exceeded expectations. The company lost $0.09 per share after dilution in the second quarter, which was also better than the market's forecast loss of $0.24 per share. The combined operating loss of $143 million across the three business segments was far better than Bernstein's $1.73 billion market forecast, mainly due to narrower AI business losses and higher-than-expected Connectivity profit margins. By business, the most stable connectivity business with Starlink at the moment is still the Starlink core. At the end of the second quarter, the number of Starlink users reached 12 million, an increase of 1.7 million over the first quarter, and the average monthly user revenue remained at $66. Connectivity's revenue for the quarter was US$4.291 billion and operating profit of US$1,656 million, corresponding to an operating margin of approximately 38.6%, which was higher than Bernstein's 37% market forecast. It is also currently the only business segment of SpaceX that has achieved operating profits, providing important support for the company to continue investing in AI and Starship. The Space business completed a total of 38 launches in the second quarter, of which 10 were customer launches, 28 internal launches, and the total mass to orbit (MTO) mass (MTO) reached 485 tons. The segment generated revenue of $962 million, up from $8.74 billion...

15d ago22#SpaceX

AI accounts for 30% of revenue but eats up 86% of capital expenses: SpaceX's ledger is splitting

Author: Vibrating Blockbeats Original title: SpaceX's AI ledger: Revenue still depends on Starlink, and capital expenditure is already based on AI. According to the company's quarterly report for the second quarter, SpaceX completed its initial public offering (IPO) in June 2026. The first post-listing report for the second quarter, which was handed over later, included Space, Link, and AI side by side in the public financial report. In the past, people used to talk about this company in terms of rocket launches and Starlink (Starlink) satellites. Now, there are also figures that can be checked for investment trade-offs that were originally hidden within the company. The easiest thing to catch your eye is the growth rate of AI. However, according to the company's second-quarter results annex, the AI segment contributed 32.8% of consolidated revenue but accounted for 86.2% of the quarter's capital expenditure. Revenue and capital expenditure are not skewed in the same direction; this is where this financial report is most worth breaking up. What does SpaceX rely on to make money now? Let's first look at the income table. The conclusion is not a mystery. The Link segment continued to be the biggest revenue source for the quarter. According to the company's second-quarter results annex, it brought in revenue of $4.291 billion, while the AI segment was $2,561 million. This segment includes Starlink's business for consumers, businesses, and the government, and still supports the highest level of revenue in the current period. Figure 1 selected three disclosure comparison points, which is not a continuous quarterly sequence. Even so, the AI changes are still intuitive. By the latest quarter, the orange section had significantly thickened, and the Link segment still occupied the largest blue area. The same company is writing two businesses at different paces. One is the current larger Link service revenue, and the other is the AI business, which is rapidly expanding. Here, we also need to draw a boundary for the “AI Division.” According to the company's second-quarter results annex, the Grok, X platform, AI solutions for consumers and enterprises, and AI computing infrastructure are all placed in the same segment. Therefore, AI revenue on the chart cannot be directly equivalent to pure cloud service revenue, which also includes advertising revenue. This will change the reading. If you only look at the year-on-year growth rate of AI, it's easy to think of it as an independent and mature cloud service business. The financial report shows more like a business basket that is merging and expanding. It has models, platforms, and AI infrastructure that is still being built. Where did the money go again? The income statement records services that have already been sold, and capital expenditure shows where the company has allocated infrastructure. In Figure 2, AI's revenue share has not caught up with the Link segment, yet its share of capital expenditure has far exceeded it. According to the company's second-quarter results annex, AI accounted for 32.8% of revenue and 86.2% of capital expenditure. If you exchange this contrast for an amount, it will be more tactile. According to the company's second-quarter results annex, the AI division's capital expenditure for the quarter was US$15.828 billion, and revenue for the quarter was US$2,561 billion. This is like comparing the construction cost of a factory building with the current rent on the same sheet of paper. You can see the difference in scale, but you can't handle it one by one. The comparison here is segmented capital expenditure and current revenue, not segmental cash flow. Figure 3 puts these two pillars back to when the three disclosures were compared. In the latest quarter, every $1 in AI revenue corresponds to $6.18 in capital expenses, according to the company's second-quarter results annex. This is not a confirmation rate, and future profits cannot be estimated from this. It only shows that current revenue and equipment, data centers, and related infrastructure configured for AI are not on the same level for the time being. The nominal computing power consumption disclosed by the company also increased from 0.4 GW in the same period a year ago to 1.4 GW. According to the definition in the performance annex, it is calculated based on the installed GPU and full aperture power consumption, and does not represent actual power consumption or utilization. This set of changes is like adding lanes to a new highway. What can be confirmed now is that the road is getting wider, and the financial report does not disclose how many cars have already run in each lane. Another column in the same division table gives this expanded, more simple footnote. According to the company's second-quarter results annex, the AI division still recorded an operating loss of US$1.257 billion for the quarter. Adjusted EBITDA can help observe the operating structure, but it is not a substitute for cash flow. The capital expenditure, adjusted EBITDA, and operating loss in the chart are of a different caliber and cannot be replaced with each other. Contract sales of $141 billion, how much incremental revenue did the second quarter bring? The most easily amplified in financial reports was the total contract sales of $141 billion from multiple cloud service agreements. According to the company's second-quarter results annex, these agreements brought in $1.6 billion in incremental AI infrastructure revenue during the quarter. The former is compatible...

17d agoburnking#AI #IPOs

Why is Apple still hiding a tariff refund out of its first 100 billion dollars in revenue?

Author: VibrationBlockBeats Original title: In the June quarter of the most valuable technology company on Earth, Apple's revenue surpassed 100 billion US dollars for the first time. On July 30, Apple revealed the latest fiscal quarter. The company's revenue reached $109.4 billion for the first time, and Apple called it the strongest June quarter in history. According to the company's press release, the iPhone, Mac, and service businesses all set records for the same period. What's really worth breaking apart are the two curves with different speeds. Revenue increased 16.4% year over year, while EPS grew 28.7%. The former is saying that Apple is selling more, while the latter also included a tariff refund. According to the earnings press release issued by Apple on the same day, this refund was included separately in the gross margin and earnings per share statement. How did the 100 billion threshold cross the last blue pillar in the past chart, leaving a distance visible to the naked eye from the first four June quarters. Apple didn't rush here from a straight runway. FY2023's revenue declined slightly during the same period, and only then was it faster year by year. According to Apple's consolidated financial statements for each quarter, this quarter's growth rate was the fastest in these five periods. According to Apple's FY2026 Q3 earnings report, the significance of $109.4 billion is not that an integer threshold has been stepped on. It pushes the quarter where apples are most likely to be labeled as a “new product empty window period” to a scale close to the traditional peak season. The scale itself changed people's intuition about the location of the June quarter in Apple's fiscal year. The rise in revenue did not fall on only one market. Apple's regional table shows that all five regions have achieved double-digit growth. Europe contributed the biggest absolute increase, while the year-on-year growth rate in Greater China tied with Europe for the highest year-on-year growth. Looking at these regions together, Apple's growth this season is wider than the American market alone. Who brought the increase to the iPhone According to Apple's consolidated financial statements for this quarter, the company generated $15.4 billion more in revenue compared to the same period last year. The iPhone alone brings almost two-thirds, which is the longest blue bar in the picture. It explains why the pace of earnings reports for this quarter will be faster than the June quarter of the past few years. Services and Macs aren't back in the background either. The former brought in new revenue in second place, followed by the latter. iPad is the only category to fall back. The picture spelled out with a few horizontal bars is very straightforward. Apple didn't rely on a single category to pull the numbers up this season; it's just that the iPhone is getting a lot of momentum. This difference is important. If the service business supports growth on its own, readers will see a company that gradually reduces hardware fluctuations. The current combination is more like two engines speeding up at the same time. The hardware provides a longer acceleration runway, and the service business continues to fill the high-margin portion. According to Apple's earnings report, the iPhone, Mac, and service businesses all set their respective June quarterly records this season. In addition to the product table, the regional table adds another layer of explanation. According to Apple's regional table for this season, Europe ranked first in absolute revenue growth, with revenue in Greater China growing 22.4% year over year. The changes in these two markets have not changed the fact that the iPhone is the biggest source of incremental growth, yet the answer to “where does growth come from” is no longer limited to one region. Services have increased every dollar in revenue. Apple's consolidated statements have a detail that is rarely taken away by news headlines. It lists the cost of selling products and services separately. In this way, the layer of gross profit other than income can also be disaggregated. According to Apple's earnings report for this quarter, services only account for 28.1% of the company's revenue, yet they contribute 42.4% of gross profit. In everyday language, for every 100 yuan of revenue from Apple's sales, the service volume is less than 30%, but the gross profit left behind is close to half. The gross margin of the service business was 75.6%, and the product business was 40.1%. The former is like a thick bottom plate. When more equipment is sold, this floor still supports the entire company. This structure also explains why service revenue has not taken the biggest increase in revenue, yet it is still a part that cannot be circumvented when reading financial reports. According to Apple's consolidated financial statements, both ratios are calculated by subtracting their respective revenue and sales costs. The bulk of this season's additional gross profit still comes from the product business. According to Apple's consolidated financial statements, it contributed 77.2% of the new gross profit. This is linked to the recovery of iPhone and Mac in the previous picture. The service did not take over the hardware; it made more profit left over when the hardware was released. What did the refund change the profit curve? Apple revealed in a press release that the tariff refund had a positive impact of about 2 percentage points on gross margin this season and increased EPS by 0.11 dollars. This isn't an earnings report...

22d agoburnking#apples

Nvidia's daily production capacity of 1,000 cabinets is only the upper limit; Rubin's real bottleneck is in the computer room

Author: Vibrating BlockBeats Original title: Nvidia Rubin Recent developments: Test cabinets have been delivered, what does the daily production capacity of 1000 cabinets mean? TL; DR · According to The Information, Vera Rubin test cabinets have been delivered to dozens of customers, about $7 million to $8 million per cabinet. · Each cabinet contains 72 Rubin GPUs and 36 Vera CPUs, and manufacturing partners target production capacity of up to 1000 units per day. · 1000 cabinets are only the upper limit of production capacity, not equal to the order. The customer data center's ability to connect electricity, liquid cool, and go online is still limited. According to The Information, Nvidia's next-generation Vera Rubin server system has delivered a small number of test cabinets to dozens of customers. The price of a single cabinet is about 7 million to 8 million US dollars, and the manufacturing partner's ultimate target production capacity can reach up to 1,000 units per day. The NVIDIA Vera Rubin NVL144 CPX rack and tray set of numbers clearly explains the focus of Nvidia's next round of AI hardware upgrades: it's not just selling more powerful GPUs, but more expensive, more complex full-cabinet server systems. According to official Nvidia data, the Vera Rubin NVL72 is a rack-scale system containing 72 Rubin GPUs and 36 Vera CPUs. Compared to the current flagship Grace Blackwell 300 rack's price of approximately $5 million, the Rubin single cabinet price has further increased. CoreWeave announced in June that bring-up and verification of the Vera Rubin NVL72 has been completed. Nvidia also recently claimed that Vera Rubin has entered the full capacity climb phase and is already running machines with partners such as CoreWeave, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and OCI. In other words, Rubin is no longer just a paper product, but the $7 million to $8 million single cabinet price revealed by The Information, dozens of test customers, and a target production capacity of 1,000 containers per day are still not Nvidia's official revenue guidelines. The maximum price of a single cabinet is 8 million US dollars. The price of buying a complete computing power unit Rubin is not simply a chip price increase, but a continuation of Nvidia's full cabinet system route. After Blackwell, the core products Nvidia sold to major customers were increasingly not isolated GPUs, but systems that packaged GPUs, CPUs, networking, cooling, power, software, and rack-level connectivity. The customer purchased a computing power unit that can be used for data center planning, rather than components that can be assembled from scratch by themselves. This is why the price of a single cabinet can reach 7 million to 8 million dollars. According to Nvidia's technical data, the Vera Rubin NVL72 is about 4,000 pounds, which is close to the weight of a pickup truck. For cloud vendors and AI companies, purchasing Rubin is not only about placing an order chip, but also simultaneously preparing the computer room load, power supply, liquid cooling, network connection, and online commissioning. The Information paraphrased Ian Buck, Nvidia's vice president of high-performance computing, as saying that the company wants to sell to all customers, but the actual distribution will be linked to whether the customer has the ability to physically install and bring servers online. Who can actually connect these cabinets to the data center is more likely to get more goods. 1000 cabinets a day is amazing, but not the easiest way for an order to trigger the market's imagination is “1000 cabinets a day.” The Information paraphrased Andrew Bell, Nvidia's senior vice president of hardware engineering, as saying that the more than ten manufacturing partners working with Nvidia to produce Rubin racks will eventually be able to produce up to 1,000 racks per day. At $7 million to $8 million per cabinet, this represents a huge potential revenue potential. Based on this production capacity, the report estimates that if 1,000 containers are continuously produced every day, the previous quarter could theoretically correspond to at least 630 billion US dollars in revenue. By comparison, Nvidia's revenue for the quarter ended April 26, 2026 was $81.6 billion. However, this figure can only be understood as a theoretical estimate of “production capacity multiplied by unit price.” It wasn't given by Nvidia management...

31d agoburnking#Nvidia

Morgan Stanley: The AI network market is rushing to $70 billion, and the first to reap the dividends is the copper cable sector

Author: Vibrant BlockBeats Original title: Morgan Stanley Interpretation: The AI network market is rushing to 70 billion US dollars. Why is it still copper cable that takes the dividends first? TL; DR · Morgan Stanley anticipates an AI large-scale networking opportunity of around $70 billion in 2030, which is more than four times larger than last year's estimate. · Large-scale networks will still be dominated by copper cables in 2026-2027, and CPO will not reach 20%-30% penetration until 2029-2030. · Keysight, Astera, Broadcom, and Semtech benefit first, while Corning, Lumentum, and Coherent Elasticity fall behind. In its latest report, Morgan Stanley estimated the market opportunity for large-scale AI networks to about $70 billion in 2030 and put the life cycle of copper cables in AI clusters back in front of the stage. This isn't a “CPO breaks out right away” story. AI clusters are moving from a single rack to multiple racks. GPUs require more intensive and faster connections, and the overall back-end network is being expanded. However, until power consumption, distance, and bandwidth density actually approach the upper limit, short-distance connections still have strong copper inertia. The timeline given in this report is restrained: in 2026-2027, the CPO penetration rate in large-scale networks is close to zero; minor introduction will begin in 2028; it will only be possible to reach a meaningful level of 20%-30% until 2029-2030. Market opportunities have been drastically raised, but optics will actually eat up the majority of large-scale networks, and we will have to wait for a larger GPU domain and a more mature supply chain to be in place at the same time. The $70 billion opportunity comes from multiple racks. Expanding first is not the core of this optical module upgrade; it is a marked increase in demand for connections within servers and between racks after the AI cluster was expanded. In the traditional single-rack scenario, the distance between GPUs is short, and copper cables still have advantages in terms of cost, latency, and power consumption. For short distance connections, especially within 7-9 meters, copper cabling is still the most direct solution. Over the past few years, stronger technologies such as SerDes, retimer, and PAM4/PAM6 have continuously extended the life span of copper cables, and delayed the timing of optical replacement several times. The change occurred after the cluster continued to grow larger. The training and inference cluster expands from one rack to multiple racks. GPUs need to communicate across racks, and signal speeds are also advancing from 100G to 200G and 400G. As the distance becomes longer and the speed increases, the difficulty of managing electrical loss, insertion loss, and noise will all increase, and copper cables will begin to approach the performance boundary. Back-end network revenue forecast 2024-2030; large-scale network revenue is rising rapidly, with market opportunities of around $70 billion in 2030. For investors, this determines the order of benefits. The first beneficiaries are not necessarily CPO suppliers, but chip and module companies that enable copper cables to continue to run faster and farther; until multi-rack clusters become more popular, the elasticity of optical engines, passive photons, lasers, and test equipment will become more obvious. 2026-2027 is still the copper cable window. CPO will not break out until 2029. The appeal of CPO is to move optical devices closer to switching chips or computing chips to reduce the transmission distance of high-speed electrical signals on the board, thereby improving power consumption and bandwidth density. The challenge is that this isn't just a line replacement; it's changing the division of packaging, manufacturing, testing, maintenance, and supply chain responsibilities. That's why CPO won't fully explode in 2026. CPO penetration in large-scale networks was close to zero in 2026-2027, introduced slightly in 2028, and real meaningful adoption is expected until 2029-2030. At that time, if the multi-rack GPU domain expansion progresses according to plan, the penetration rate of CPO in large-scale networks is likely to reach 20%-30%. CPO penetration rate is projected on a scale/scale scale; large-scale CPO will only rise to 20%-30% in 2029-2030. This left a window for at least two years for copper chains. Astera Labs' Scorpio X-Series has entered initial mass production and shipment, Broadcom has connectivity opportunities in the AMD Mi400/Helios and custom ASIC ecosystem, and Semtech is participating in the transition phase through CopperEdge's low-power copper and linear optics solutions. More importantly, copper cabling and optics are not simply an alternative relationship. Large cloud vendors will be based on distance, power consumption, cost,...

38d agoburnking#AI

Robinhood chain market: the faucet has cooled down, long term testing

Source: Vibrant BlockBeats Author: Cookie Original title: Is the Robinhood Chain market worth paying attention to? The day before yesterday, $CASHCAT was once close to a high of $230 million, but it has now pulled back to a market capitalization of about $150 million, a decline of nearly 35%. Following the pullback of $CASHCAT, the market on the Robinhood chain began to chaos and cool down. Yesterday, $1 skyrocketed rapidly from a market capitalization of about $800,000 to a market capitalization of about $15 million due to news of suspected Robinhood CEO address purchases. Soon, however, the news was falsified. Currently, the coin has fallen back to a market value of just over 1 million US dollars. The address was used by Robinhood CEO for a live demo, and 9 of the 12 mnemonic phrases were leaked during the live demo. The address was destroyed a year ago due to a partial leak of the mnemonic phrase. Another coin that made a big splash yesterday was $SCATMAN. The hacker stole SpaceXAI's official promotion, added subsidiary certification to the X account that mocked Sam Altman's coin, and retweeted a tweet. At its peak, the coin's market capitalization surpassed $2.5 million; currently, there is less than $100,000 left. Due to the $CASHCAT pullback itself, the overall sentiment on the Robinhood chain has declined somewhat. Coupled with “suspected wallet purchases” and situations where hackers steal social media accounts and post rug pulls, which are seen as “signs of the end,” some players have already begun to sound “the end of the Robinhood market.” Is it really over? To answer this question, we need to combine several market segments since this year to give short-term and long-term answers separately. Short-term: Normal decline. If we look back at the most direct catalyst for $CASHCAT's sharp rise, one is Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev's tweet: Also on the morning of July 8, Vlad followed $CASHCAT's official push on X, causing the coin to instantly skyrocket from a market capitalization of 10 million dollars to a market value of nearly 50 million dollars, and continue all the way up. These two catalysts are indispensable. One conveyed the attitude that “Robinhood CEO supports the creation of meme coins on its own chain,” and the other conveyed “CASHCAT is the leader selected by Robinhood.” Back on July 2, when the Robinhood mainnet was first launched, there were players who followed this new chain, but there weren't many. People mainly followed the “new chain gold mining” logic. No one could predict it. Just less than a week later, Robinhood CEO will personally step down, bringing everyone's expectations to a very, very high level. Because of this change in expectations “from the ground to the sky,” which was completely unexpected, the market began to anticipate the Robinhood chain market again, and gave it a lot. For example, “the Robinhood chain can bring all retail stock traders to the chain”, “Robinhood on CASHCAT can replicate DOGE and SHIB”, etc. The rapid rise in $CASHCAT further intensified the FOMO sentiment in the market. However, today's market also lays some hidden dangers. The hidden danger is that apart from $CASHCAT, there is no very obvious Dragon 2. This is very easy for us to think of other market situations this year: the ETH mainnet market brought about by “Space Dog” $ASTEROID doesn't have Dragon 2, but the good news is that there are Uniswap v4 hook narrative targets such as $UPEG and $SATO as a supplement to the market. There is no Dragon 2. There is no Dragon 2. Only those related to Ansem can reap some of the relevant indicators around Ansem In these two periods of market growth, everyone hoped that the leader would reach a market capitalization of 1 billion US dollars, then spill over into other narratives and expand the scope of PvE targets, but none of them were able to do so. The main reason for this is that there is still insufficient capital in the market, and the market value of 1 billion US dollars is difficult to rise in the current market environment. Second, the explosive rise in these leading labels all stemmed from sudden attention events. “Space Dog” was because Musk promised to use it as the SpaceX mascot, $...

39d ago章鱼烧#MEME #Roinhood #transactions