Accelerationist (occasionally effective). Retired at 45 by investing well. Now helping people do the same to get ready for a post-scarcity, post-work future.
The Singularity
- Tweets 20,834
- Following 1,176
- Followers 6,221
- Likes 34,314
Pinned Tweet
Information asymmetry is where alpha comes from
The dumber the market, the bigger the asymmetry, and bigger the alpha
In this thread I will point out 4 situations where the market is very dumb, and there's still time for investors to get in position for an outsized return:
5
2
24
1,366
Elon's mother btw
Maye Musk raised Elon, Kimbal, and Tosca as a single mother after leaving Errol Musk. She sometimes worked 5 jobs simultaneously. She modeled, consulted, taught nutrition courses, and took speaking engagements. There were periods where the family ate peanut butter sandwiches for dinner because that's what the budget allowed.
Elon has described watching his mother come home from her third job of the day, sit down at the kitchen table, and begin preparing for her fourth. He said she never complained. Not once. The absence of complaint wasn't stoicism. It was a woman who understood that complaining consumed energy that could be used for working and her children needed the working more than she needed the relief.
The drive that the world attributes to Elon didn't emerge in Silicon Valley. It was absorbed at a kitchen table in South Africa watching a woman hold a family together through sheer refusal to stop moving.
Maye became a supermodel in her 60s. She walked magazine covers at 69. She built a career that most women half her age would envy, and she did it 30 years after spending her best years making sure her children survived.
When Elon was asked who he admires most, the expected answers are physicists, engineers, inventors. The answer he has given most consistently is his mother. Not because of the modeling. Because of the kitchen table.
The man who works 120 hours a week is not replicating his father's intensity. He is replicating his mother's. The difference matters. His father worked from cruelty. His mother worked from love. Both produced relentless motion. One produced a man who builds. The other produced a man who destroys.
Elon builds. That's Maye's kitchen table. That's the peanut butter sandwiches. That's five jobs and no complaints. Everything he became started with a woman who refused to stop.
2
13
905
Another demonstration done on older $IONQ Forte hardware
This one will have a ton of defense applications
ionq.com/news/ionq-demonstra…
3
35
1,174
Gene retweeted
There was one day in 2008 when Elon Musk considered walking away from everything.
He has never identified the exact date. But the details he has shared across multiple interviews map to a specific window: late August 2008, after the third Falcon 1 explosion and before the fourth launch. Tesla was weeks from bankruptcy. SpaceX was weeks from bankruptcy. His marriage was ending. He was borrowing money from friends.
He described lying on the floor of his office staring at the ceiling, unable to move, unable to make a decision, unable to see any path forward that didn't end in total failure. The man who moves faster than anyone in business was physically paralyzed by the convergence of every system in his life failing simultaneously.
He called his friend and SpaceX investor Steve Jurvetson. He didn't ask for money. He didn't ask for advice. He asked a question that Jurvetson later repeated publicly: "What do I do?"
Three words from a man who always knows what to do. The question wasn't about strategy. It was about survival. The man who designs solutions to problems that have never been solved before was asking another human being how to get through a single day.
He didn't walk away. Nobody who has heard the story knows exactly what changed between the floor and the decision to launch a fourth rocket. Whatever happened in that room between lying on the floor and standing up is the most important moment in the history of SpaceX, Tesla, and everything that followed.
Every launch. Every car. Every factory. Every innovation from 2008 to today traces back to a man getting up off a floor when the rational decision was to stay down.
The world remembers the successes. Nobody photographs the floor.
18
13
77
2,034
What he said (read the whole thread) 👇
$IONQ
And also not surprising that other modalities have the steepest hill to climb on QEC. Lastly, what everyone arguing on X totally (!) misses (again IMHO) is economics. unit costs and volume. If you can’t solve these in a way that is manufacturable at scale is not gonna work IRL
1
4
34
4,848
I sniped that shit lol
Bought back the $MSFT shares I trimmed near the recent high
Back to full position again
1
13
810
Information asymmetry is where alpha comes from
The dumber the market, the bigger the asymmetry, and bigger the alpha
In this thread I will point out 4 situations where the market is very dumb, and there's still time for investors to get in position for an outsized return:
5
2
24
1,366
3. The market still doesn't understand that the top AI firms constantly leapfrog each other every few months. Right now $META seems to do no wrong, but less than a year ago, people thought $GOOG has won AI. I don't think we've seen the last word in this story yet.
Whoever ends up on top, compute infrastructure players win. In this space, I prefer $MSFT over $AMZN, one because Microsoft seems to be the most responsible with CapEx and remains cashflow positive, and two because Amazon faces disruption risks from change in advertising and shopping habits due to Meta Muse's popularity, while Microsoft faces no such risk.
1
13
428
4. The $BTC market doesn't understand that the quantum threat is imminent.
After close to 1000x improvement to algorithms made by likes of Google and IonQ within the last several years, and continuous advancement of quantum hardware, Q-Day is being steadily pulled forward from 2035+ to 2030 to now 2028/2029.
You'd have to be a fool to believe progress suddenly stops here. It's highly likely that further improvements will bring Q-Day to the late 2027/early 2028.
Many Bitcoiners hide behind the cope that "oh if Bitcoin is hacked, everything else in the world will be hacked".
They seem to be unware that "everything else in the world" have been actively preparing. Banks and governments are moving to PQC standards. The US government has set hard migration deadlines for all its departments.
Bitcoin is woefully behind "everyone else", and this cope is counter-productive to ever reaching a consensus. The best way to short is via $MSTR - a leveraged ponzi vehicle holding mostly Bitcoins.
2
14
626
It appears many quantum investors still don't understand that the whole purpose of having logical qubits is to reduce errors (or increase fidelity).
To put it simply: You run error correction code with a group of physical qubits to create a logical qubit.
If you can't even reduce errors on your logical qubit to a level that beats $IONQ's physical qubits, then you've spent all that extra error correction overhead just to catch up to what IonQ already does natively.
15
2
75
6,976
$INFQ announced that they achieved 30 "logical qubits" but did not disclose fidelity.
They claim to have executed 1,000 useful operations (1 KiloQuOp), so I asked AI to estimate their 2-qubit gate fidelity based on that claim. It came back with a range of 99.93-99.97%.
While this looks decent for a 30-qubit circuit, it is strictly inferior to $IONQ's 99.99% fidelity on *pre-QEC physical qubits*
This is what Ballance meant when he said "logical qubits" from competitors are bogus when, even after applying error correction, they still can't beat IonQ's native fidelity.
The caveat here is IonQ hasn't published native fidelity after scaling up to 256 qubits. The question remains whether they can maintain 99.99% with a machine of that size.
But they do seem very confident, so my guess is they will be able to NATIVELY achieve >99.95% at a minimum, which is comparable to Infleqtion's LOGICAL numbers.
Once we get confirmation on this, I might have to sell my Infleqtion position because IonQ will be way too far ahead.
13
9
74
5,631
The announcement:
infleqtion.com/infleqtion-ac…
3
574
SpaceX is "a place where people sacrifice their personal lives for a mission that might not succeed"
I'm not crying you're crying
A SpaceX engineer once described the moment she realized her work had meant something. It wasn't a launch. It wasn't a landing. It was a phone call from her daughter's teacher.
The teacher called to say that her daughter had stood up in class during show and tell and told her classmates that her mom builds rockets that go to space. The teacher said the classroom went silent. Then every child started asking questions. Her daughter answered all of them.
The engineer had worked at SpaceX for 7 years at that point. She had worked through the early failures. She had worked 80 hour weeks. She had missed recitals. She had missed birthdays. She had explained to her daughter hundreds of times why mom couldn't be there. The daughter absorbed every explanation without complaint.
The show and tell was the first time the engineer understood that her daughter hadn't just accepted the absences. She had been watching. She understood what her mother was building and she was proud of it. Proud enough to stand in front of her classmates and speak about rockets with the authority of someone who had absorbed 7 years of dinner table conversations about propulsion systems and orbital mechanics.
The engineer cried on the phone with the teacher. Not because of the rockets. Because her daughter's pride meant the absences hadn't just been tolerated. They had been understood.
Elon has described SpaceX as a place where people sacrifice their personal lives for a mission that might not succeed. This story is what that sacrifice looks like from the inside. Not from the CEO's perspective. From the engineer who missed the recital and got a phone call years later that made it make sense.
The mission isn't just Elon's. It belongs to every person who went home late and hoped their children would understand someday. Sometimes someday arrives during show and tell.
16
1,228
100% agree
Zuck may have singlehandedly turned around AI sentiment for the normies just in time for mid-term elections
We'll see
Meta will continue to be successful because they understand that a winning consumer AI strategy is “hey you can use AI to negotiate a good deal on a Peloton through Marketplace and btw we made a silly little AI character with a fluffy butt that you can look at on your new Meta Tamagotchi”
not “run our open weight model 6.7.1 on this new Chinese orchestration architecture oh and btw it might take your job and kill you good luck”
2
1
16
2,217
wtf I was actually bang on regarding how much Superion 256 will sell for
Was that a fluke or did $IONQ hear me? 😂
“Countries want to grow ecosystems with @IonQ_Inc. So do states. So do universities.” @NiccoloDeMasi #QuantumWorldCongress
23
7
117
9,420
The tweet:
I'm going to tighten my 2027 estimates a bit for $IONQ.
CEO Niccolo said Superion 256 is “designed to be built by the hundreds rather than one at a time.”
Combine that with CFO's price-setter comment at Analyst Day, I continue to believe they will sell out their production capacity.
It'll take time to ramp up from 0 to a minimum of 100, let's conservatively assume midpoint of 50 units for 2027.
BOM was estimated to be "under $30M" in 2025 for the 2M-qubit machine. This was later clarified as "materially under $30M" to buffer for inflation. Working backwards by discounting this machine that costs $29M in 2030 with 3% inflation, BOM would be roughly $26M if the machine was sold today.
They also said this design's "COGS moves only single-digit percent" as they make the chip bigger at each generation. Working backwards from 2M to 256 (4 generations) and reducing cost by 5% at each generation, we come to a BOM of $21M.
This is the pre-SkyWater BOM. Post SkyWater acquisition, we can decrease it further by SkyWater's margin. Assume SkyWater foundry margin of 20% which only applies to the chip & package, not the chasis and control equipment, I believe this reduces BOM by about $2M to $19M total.
As they ramp up production, IonQ may not reach 40% HW margin at the start. Let's call it 30% in 2027.
Then, each unit sells for $25M, 50 units will be $1.25B of revenue with gross profit of $375B for the Superion 256 product line alone in 2027, before we consider the quantum platform and SkyWater businesses.
This is full of assumptions (by necessity) and ignores QCAAS revenue for simplicity, as IonQ typically only keeps a couple units for cloud. Will update if that changes materially.
I tried to err on the side of being conservative at each step. We are looking at a potentially breakeven 2027 if IonQ achieves these results and keeps SBC under control.
1
8
902
