And fomo is human.
We need transparency combined with widespread education and high trust so folks believe the few that investigate. All these pillars are needed - that's why we see attacks on all of them.
Nothing too deep here.
Heck, it goes against all my value investing instincts for me to even have 2% of my net value in it. To be fair however, 15% of my net value came from Tesla. I obviously have brain worms.
(Dear Reader, if you have no idea what that is, it's a good idea to know about in my opinion)
Getting a diversity of opinions doesn't mean talking to 10 experts in the same field, but talking to experts in 10 related fields.
So the banks know that if they don't fall in line, the VC's may not select them for future IPOs/make them lead bank and also not use them for other work. And the banks know that the big name investors who invested in the VCs are also their high net worth day to day clients buying their services.
The banks loyalties and financial interests are not in protecting normal everyday people, it's protecting their business and individual bonuses. (SpaceX paid around $600 Million in fees for the IPO! And that's after negotiating a low percentage).
The news sites know that if they speak out of line too boldly, they won't be 1st in line to get exclusive stories and invites to events. Or Advertising Spend.
It's for governments and regulators to put rules in, otherwise capitalists will carry on in their own interests.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think this is misleading. The bad estimate of fair price is _overwhelmingly_ due to incentives for bullish projections. I have no source to back this up, aside from common sense. SPCX is supposedly an AI-company now, even though we all know this is a lie. It's AI-only revenue within 5 years[1] is projected to be larger than most SP500 companies' full revenue today[2]. On the face of it, this is silly, and I don't accept that all the analysts group-thought their way to believing it.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/goldma...
That doesn't prove there is no such thing as "talent" wrt investments, but it is proof there is almost no proof anyone has "talent".
To be fair, this is many analysts’ ambitions. Use the role to build contacts and a public track record. Then go out and raise a fund.
Source? (Not doubting. Just haven’t looked at this for a while.)
This is pitiful. Not least because it is execrable writing. It’s 50 Shades Of Grey applied to investment advice.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstocks/wall-street-is-bul...
They're launching like 150 rockets a year or something like that? It's bananas. They have star link too.
Honestly, I think people are asleep at the wheel with the valuation and shorting it seems stupid. They have the star shield thing, and hypothetically point-to-point QRF systems for governments with star ship. Then there's space data centers.
I know people gnash their teeth at that, but I'm pretty convinced the ass-pain associated with getting a data center constructed on the planet with all the NIMBY stuff will be will incentivize space data centers too.
https://youtu.be/DCto6UkBJoI?si=opcoaBEqKmw4LCrF
Anyway, I think sun synchronous orbit (basically slightly off from polar) and pointing the solar panels toward the sun and the radiator away... It's not as far fetched as people would have you believe.
But as an engineering problem it's quite another thing. For example he talks about how far you have to pump the ammonia, and then you either need a very large amount of ammonia, or you have to pump a smaller amount of ammonia very fast through kilometers of plumbing.
Of course there are highly theoretical ideas like making an atmosphere of coolant around the satellite or something but he left that stuff on the sci fi category.
I think the trouble with my thinking was that I was locked into the Shuttle/STS numbers of waste heat transfer.
You can build solar panels practically anywhere with enough daylight. Space data centers will never make any sense and it's clearly bait for people who will believe anything.
For some reason data center companies keep wanting to build data centers near existing utilities, near existing roads and transport infrastructure, and near existing electrical utilities.
Not in the middle of a desert. Or the antarctic. Or decommissioned oil fields.
/s
sixtyj•3h ago