Musk holds over 85% voting power through Class B super-voting shares (10 votes/share). Public investors combined will have 15%.
What Musk Controls:
- CEO removal = his consent. You can't fire him even if he destroys the company
- Take business for himself. SpaceX gets a rocket deal? Musk can say "I'll do it at Tesla instead"
- 85% voting forever. No expiration, no time limit, permanent control
- Board elections. You have no power to elect directors you trust
Only after the cofounders brought in veteran "adult supervision" who offered guided the company with a steady hand, while Larry and Sergei were safely in their moonshot hobby project play-pens, away from the core products - an arrangement that would greatly benefit shareholders in Musk companies.
The Google founders are, lets say, more reliable than Musk when it comes to making sound business decisions.
This is just sole proprietorship with window dressing.
On the subject of the governance structure this [1] is worth a read ...
"The company significantly limits shareholders' rights to sue. SpaceX's bylaws will make it clear that anyone who owns shares "irrevocably and unconditionally" waives all rights to pursue a jury trial. Shareholders will also be prohibited from bringing class actions against the company, its directors, officers, controlling shareholders or bankers tied to the IPO, according to the filing.
Instead, shareholders will be subject to mandatory arbitration, which had long been illegal in the U.S. The Securities and Exchange Commission reversed its position, opens new tab in September, allowing companies to adopt mandatory arbitration policies, which are private proceedings overseen by arbitrators."
... I can't remember how much he spent in Pennsylvania but you might argue it was money well spent.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
The point of a company going public is not to just distribute possible profits among speculators, but to give the public a meaningful voice in company direction, in particular by offering escape hatches like being able to eject a CEO who's lost their mind and is no longer acting in the fiduciary best interest of the shareholders, which will so obviously happen here.
The point is to raise money from investors. The investors get a voice in exchange.
In theory (were we talking about any other man, in any other time) that's very strictly illegal with a whole area of law dedicated to it (fiduciary duty).
If/when Musk’s misadventures turn his companies to shit, I may spare a thought for the collaterally damaged, but not a single tear will I shed for the shareholders.
I'll happily take Musks proven and superior leadership with guarantees over letting the company decline chasing short term sugar hits that destroy it long term.
And it is a LOT of money that he is floating ($77B) so there have to be dumb people at scale for this to work.
> We believe that our current space efforts will catalyze transformative breakthroughs that could reshape terrestrial industries and lead to the emergence of new trillion-dollar markets on the Moon, Mars, and beyond. In particular, we believe our goal of establishing a lunar presence will enable terawatt-scale annual AI compute growth, support deeper space exploration and industrialization, and serve as a stepping stone to establishing a civilization on Mars.
There is no secret about this. If this scares you, do not invest. Mars is mentioned 60 times in there. That's what he's going to spend the money on if it comes to it. If you don't want to lose your money on a Mars mission then the guys who are saying they're going to spend your money on a Mars mission are not the guys for you.
Thats always been the plan.
1. One of Elon's companies (Tesla) bought out another of Elon's companies (Solar City) that was going bankrupt because it owed a lot of money to yet another of Elon's companies (SpaceX) [1];
2. Elon diverted $500M of NVidia H100 GPUs reserved for Tesla to xAI [2];
3. Elon made a buyout agreement for Twitter then tried to back out. Twitter sued (for specific performance) and a Delaware judge agreed. Elon completed the purchase before the court ordered him to [3]. That purchase was secured by his Tesla shares. He ran Twitter into the ground and then created xAI in 2023 [4]. Both Tesla and SpaceX "invested" billions into it. Elon ultimately used the funds to buy out Twitter at an inflated price (and still less than he paid) [5]. He ultimately then bailed out the xAI investors by having SpaceX acquire xAI [6]. IMHO this made SpaceX a significantly worse company. It was also used to inflate the value of SpaceX by using some wildly optimistic made up numbers about the AI total addressable market; and
4. The Cybertruck has been an unmitigated financial disaster. It's a terrible car and sales are awful. But that's OK because Elon uses SpaceX to buy Cybertrucks [7].
At least with the Google founders and Mark Zuckerberg, they only had one company so they weren't playing corporate shell games or using it as a personal slush fund on this scale.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/24/technology/elon-musk-spac...
[2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/04/elon-musk-told-nvidia-to-shi...
[3]: https://www.npr.org/2022/10/06/1127346372/elon-musk-twitter-...
[4]: https://research.contrary.com/company/xai
[5]: https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/musks-xai-buys-social-...
[6]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq6vnrye06po
[7]: https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-bought-tesla-cybertru...
Alphabet owns some SpaceX shares, which makes Google's sudden 90-day compute contract with xAI seem a little less than coincidental
> In our downside scenario, orbital data centers won’t work or offer any advantage over terrestrial ones. We surmise that the company, having invested tens of billions to find this out, would cut bait on the project sometime around 2028, the way management walked away from plans to build multiple small-car factories at Tesla.
Specs: https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/2064108916611420273?s=20
If you build one data center on earth, you did just that.
If you build one in space and make it work and cost effective, you can scale infinitely (which is why SpaceX is uniquely positioned), until you hit the next bottleneck (which is why Tesla is building a fab).
Tangential: If you play Factorio or Satisfactory, this is _all_ you do. Removing bottlenecks.
Satellites are really expensive and electricity on the surface is relatively cheap. What hypothetical prospective customers are willing to pay the necessary rates? I understand that bandwidth back to the surface is expensive but are we really expecting so much raw data to be trapped in space that it justifies sending computers into orbit in order to crunch it at the source?
IMO, that lines up with a weird remark from Musk around stealth jet obsolescence few years ago, and makes sense.
They’re not launching something the size of a building!
Ok. And why does it follow from this that the physics of an orbital data center makes no sense?
Technologically, will they work? Shovel enough money at the problem and there's no reason they shouldn't. Rack up some GPUs in a shipping container, attach a couple of solar panels to the outside, zip-tie a Starlink to the door. Except for the little problem of heat. Space isn't cold, it's more of a giant Thermos bottle, and they gotta park in full sunlight, which is famously the only thing supplying the heat that keeps the entire planet alive. Good luck to them with their radiator setup.
But economically? There's no chance. Too expensive to get into space, too many auxiliary systems required, no maintenance is possible, and, given the lead time of prepping payloads for launch versus the rate of new developments in AI hardware, likely badly behind the times if not outright obsolete on the day of liftoff.
There is no shortage of land despite what some in the media would have you believe. Those same solar panels work at ground level. DCs don't have to be water guzzlers or grid destabilizers. They'd be better off by every metric solving terrestrial problems for the same money.
Of course they won't work. It's ludicrous that we have to even entertain the thought of otherwise.
Well... yeah, sure, everyone thinks that.
And the fact that it doesn't matter and won't impact demand for shares illustrates how increasingly and dangerously untethered the stock market is from reality.
"Disconnected from historical valuation norms" is a more sensible statement.
The idea that the stock market is "detached from reality" is dangerous too because the stock market is...reality. People make and lose real money in it every day.
There are good arguments that the historical valuation norms are reasonable and deviation from them is "dangerous" but there's no actual law that says the stock market needs to behave according to history.
While I personally think the current behavior has significant risk, I also can't dismiss that the role the stock market plays today is different. It's not just about raising capital, providing liquidity, price discovery, risk management and building wealth, for large numbers of laypeople it's also the go-to casino (entertainment) and a platform for expression (way to express dissatisfaction with corporations, politicians, the world, etc.).
Part of the reason for this demand is the fact that index tracking funds like QQQ will be forced to buy up massive volumes of shares. Not only that but other non index tracking funds that track large cap stocks will also have to buy. Vanguard large cap for example manages trillions of dollars. That in itself will have 100s of billions worth of buy orders.
It's better than what preceded it but we still manage retirement wealth poorly.
I am looking forward to buying a little piece of it. I plan on putting a couple thousand into the IPO. I view it like buying into D.D. Harriman in "The man who sold the moon." I plan on taking those shares and forgetting about them for a couple decades. Maybe leave them to my grandchildren. This is the longest of plays and I hope it works out.
Maybe SpaceX will fail, but this is the first time since I was a boy that there is any real hope that humanity will step into that future, and I want to be part of it. Maybe Musk is suckering in dreamers like me, but I'll bet on a better future. This is it. This is our shot. Godspeed.
As far as I can tell, that’s exactly how it works. Reality is investor emotions. If it shouldn’t be that, I mean the whole system needs a rework.
One of the obvious problems with the short-term thinking is you can trade on feelings all you want, but if things go really bad the company goes bankrupt and suddenly the court say no more trades allowed anymore and your and your value goes to zero.
Who is this product for? How the hell did "data centres in space" make it into the prospectus at all?
More to the point, why is Morningstar being so generous with their interpretation of that line of business? It's plainly insane, and you don't need an advanced degree in physics to understand why.
1. The recent Iran drone attacks on AWS data centers
2. Growing anti-AI and anti data center sentiment at home, plus Larry Fink (ceo of Blackrock) in a recent interview being terrified of dissident groups using consumer drones to attack data centers.
3. Anthropic, Grok, and other AI vendors becoming more and more integrated into defense and military, plus increasingly reliance on AI for other national surveillance systems
Data centers are and will be targets, both for national military attacks as well as home grown dissident attacks, so they are proposing to move some of the critical workloads to somewhere that the only group that can attack the data center hosting the workload is a nation state with space launch capabilities. That significantly reduces the number of actors that can attack the data center. And if the US wants to they can probably bomb all the other space rocket launch facilities worldwide in less than 24 hours, leaving extremely limited capability to attack a space hosted DC.
Is it insane? Probably, but the US has done insane things with military budget before, and will continue to do so for a long time. If you are Elon, its a great time to milk that US defense budget for some more R&D, and even if the main project doesn't work out, he's still going to be able to keep some innovations within the company and apply them to Starlink and other more realistic endeavors.
In other words, we can just assume this concept is possible and makes sense some level of financial sense for military, government, and high sensitivity use cases.
Well, find me a military contractor worth $1.5 trillion. Lockheed Martin is worth 1/10th of that.
Put Lockheed Martin and AT&T together and you’ve got about 1/5 of a SpaceX IPO target valuation.
Even if we make this assumption that the technology is marketable and has merit, it’s not like every company or government agency is going to want to switch to this technology. There are already a number of alternatives that can mitigate many to all of the risks that it solves.
The cost and complexity right now to deploy global services and their disaster recovery replicas to multiple distant data centers in the terrestrial world is already extremely low. Often, these features are offered as an off-the-shelf service.
California could sink into the ocean and my users wouldn’t even see a blip of downtime. Unless they live in California.
Heck, build some data centers underground in deep fortified bunkers if you want. That would be cheaper than launching them into space. They might even be easier to defend than satellites and space DCs because a foreign adversary can’t just launch a missile up in the sky to get to it.
Going back to not really suspending disbelief as much, I also think performance and latency is going to be an insurmountable problem. Right now as we speak Starlink residential service is about 10x slower than my home fiber connection at the same price. How is this technology going to compete with data center level infrastructure even in an optimistic scenario?
I can toss pennies per hour at Amazon for a relatively small VM with like 4GB of RAM and they’ll give that thing a 15 gigabit connection.
I'm not disagreeing with you but peace is far more prosperous for humanity than blowing the worlds' retirement funds on datacentres-in-space as a military endeavour.
The idea that we can manage heat in a data center scale in low earth orbit is pretty much impossible.
Look into the physics of the problem and how heat transfer works in the vacuum of space.
2 -- Space also belongs to the citizens and not the corporations.
3 -- The defense industry is the single worst most corrupt and idiotic industry we still shackle ourselves to.
1. Using one part of Musk's holdings to trick people into feeling optimistic about how it will do incest with another part.
2. Megalomania dreams of becoming the Tessier-Ashpools from Neuromancer with their private fiefdom.
Right now, 70% of the country is at least skeptical of DCs and at worst absolutely hate them. NIMBY is basically the rallying cry. That's why you go "up" (if they can make starship work). The physics is "hard" but doable, you can keep them cool enough in a sun synchronous orbit. The math pencils out. It's not my field, but back of the envelope math seems to work. Scott Manley has a video on it if you're skeptical.
But, people keep thinking about this like "return on investment" is the only thing driving this play. They're literally the only company with a mostly reusable system (unless you count that company trying in China?). They're the closest company to a fully reusable launch vehicle. They have a ton of government contracts with star shield. After Bezos' rocket blew up last week, there's basically nobody close to competing with starlink...
I am not a Musk fanboy, but, like, there is literally no other serious space competitor right now. I mean, "maybe" Boeing? But not really - they're years away...
So, like if you read about the Memphis Datacenter - Colossus I think? They're unable to get power, they're pulling in power from Mississippi to keep the thing running. You know how many times they have to ask permission for that? The infrastructure costs there just to power it start to get absurd too. Then the unending line of approvals and environmental impact studies and permits. For all the people saying, "it'd be cheaper on earth" it might be in terms of dollars, but if you can basically iterate entirely unfettered in space, it's the obvious choice if you can make it happen.
Like, seriously, go try to build something, there are a LOT of rules outside of rural areas. It's literally why my wife and I decided to build our cabin where we are building, because there were basically no restrictions. Meanwhile in town, my buddy's deck was a nightmare to permit... it was a deck, not bridge. Seriously, to all the people saying, "it's easier" go try to get something built in a big city or where you have to fight through permit hell.
These tech oligarch guys view this (I think rightly - it's one of the only things I view them as right on) as a race to AGI against the Chinese. We're in the lead right now, cool, but the Chinese have excess kilowatts and we don't. In fact, we don't have adequate power plant infrastructure at all and we couldn't get the power plants built if we wanted to (the Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson book Abundance touches on this topic if you're curious as to why). It's not going to happen.
But up? No NIMBYs in space (yet). So they're going to go where nobody will tell them "no." At least, that's what I would do if I owned a literal rocket company.
People are all looking at this stuff through the lens of "money" as if that matters hardly at all after AGI, lol. The analysts are looking at this like it's 1995. I mean, PE ratios are important, don't get me wrong, but after 2016, and Trump, and the applications of transformers, and the war in Ukraine (and current shit show in Iran), and the rising price of fuel, and, well I'll stop, the list goes on and on, but acting like the "normal" rules of investment apply is just silly. This stuff is about power, and he who controls access to orbit is worth a basically unlimited amount of money...
Do I wish it was happening differently? Yup. But hey, we decided to give up on space as a country like 50 years ago, maybe we can try to do cool stuff in space now.
This doesn't make sense because there's one party whose permission you always must ask, and that's the government. They are the ones who get to decide whether you can launch your rockets.
A more accurate version of your claim would be: datacenters in space allow you to deal with one party (i.e. the government) instead of many. So long as your relationship with that one party is good, your business plan is safe.
I would think this is a very temporary victory. You only don't have to ask permission right now because nobody is doing it. But space does actually belong to people, as in there are a lot of different stakeholders with their own motivations. And, that also naturally includes every country's military. I don't foresee everyone just rolling over and accepting massive amounts of space junk without at least getting their piece of the pie.
I also don't think we gave up on space as a country. We have Artemis. I think we sort of realized that there isn't much in space. Outside of science-y stuff and research, there's really nothing to do. There's no products to be made, and our country revolves around consumerism. I think space DC's will be the same story. Does it make sense from a money perspective? Because I think that's really the only perspective that matters.
Why would SpaceX be any different? If anything it would be even more disconnected from the fundamentals than Tesla is, given how much more control it gives Elon.
SpaceX stock is a bet on Elon, full stop. It has nothing to do with space, data centers, AI, or whatever technology they're currently working on; it's a bet that Elon will figure something out.
(and if you need any example of this, just look at Twitter--he engineered an exit for his X shareholders at a higher valuation [at the expense of SpaceX, but a positive exit nonetheless])
I say this entirely neutrally. Some people want to invest in that—and he’s made a boatload of money for those who have thus far!—while others find it insane.
But you don’t get to buy into this and complain.
Tesla is only one administration change away from going bankrupt. Ask yourself what would happen to Tesla if BYD could freely import cars.
This might not even take an administration change. Elon very famously had a public falling out with Donald Trump, going so far as to call the sitting president of the United States a pedophile, basically [1]. Now, as a Tesla investor, what to make of this? Elon is technically risking the entire company on a childish outburst.
SpaceX at least has some competitive advantages. Falcon 9 as a launch system is unmatched. Nobody can currently compete with the track record and cost per launch (factoring in booster reuse). That may change but the next company has to compete with the Falcon 9 and develop a proven track record. Also, SpaceX is American so it has guaranteed business from the US government for national security reasons.
But, space operations are a rounding error in the valuation model for SpaceX. All of the AI stuff is bullshit, basically, particularly space-based data centers. STarlink is interesting but is dependent on Starship and will have to compete with 5G operators.
[1]: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5387380-elon-mus...
Well, here in Australia, BYD (and lots of other CN EV brands) can freeely import cars, and Model Y still outsells every other EV. [1]
[1]: https://thedriven.io/2026/06/03/australian-electric-vehicle-...
Like how he figured out how to promise full self driving cars in about six months? For eight years running?
Like how he figured out how to cut USAID programs that prevented and treated malaria and tuberculosis with no plan or warning?
There is never going to be a long-term colony on Mars. It is the most childish conceit imaginable.
He is not popular. I am sort of reminded of folks from hollywood or tech who collide with politics... and not everybody becomes ronald reagan.
Also, someone doesn't get to be the richest man without controversy.
But controversial or not, I think he has been a net positive.
Would we so profoundly have electric cars if tesla hadn't shaken the status quo? Sure, now ford has cancelled the lightning, but they now have people who know about EV technology deep within their stodgy ICE stronghold.
Right now there are 14,000+ satellites in earth orbit, 11,000+ are from the US, and 10,000+ of them are from spacex.
By any objective measure, he has figured stuff out. And he has shaken things up.
SpaceX plans to launch 120 kW satellites, each weighing 1.7 tons. Let's be conservative and say it ends up being a 100 kW satellite massing 2 tons. Let's be conservative and say Starship can launch 50 tons to orbit for $20 million ($5 million more than a Falcon 9 launch).
50 kW per ton x $400K per ton = $8,000 per kW = $8 million per megawatt in launch costs.
That means a 100 megawatt orbital data center will cost $800 million to launch.
You need about 833 satellites for 100 megawatts, so let's round up to 1,000 satellites. Let's say one of these satellites cost $3 million (that's probably high, but let's go with that for now). That's about $3 billion for satellite manufacturing.
Bottom line: It will cost SpaceX $4 billion to launch a 100 megawatt data center.
Anthropic is paying SpaceX roughly $50 million per megawatt per year. SpaceX could sell access to its data center for $5 billion per year. Assuming the satellites last for 4 years, that's $20 billion in revenue from $4 billion in costs.
Please correct my math/assumptions, but this rough calculation shows that SpaceX could be right and Morningstar could be wrong.
1) You forgot to include the actual costs of the GPUs and other equipment, you are just calculating launch costs which will always come on top of the other stuff
2) Datacenters require repairs and hands-on attention, and space provides extra challenges like radiation to deal with
3) They have not provided any evidence that they can solve the heat diffusion issue, which could kill the whole project
4) Musk's track record for outlandish tech is poor (hyperloop, fully autonomous driving, Mars trips, etc. were significantly delayed or not achieved yet), and unlike some of these other things no one else seems to think this is economically feasible
The space data center doesn't make intuitive sense to me. Why put it in space? Wouldn't it be better just... on the ground? The technology doesn't feel like it's there either, and there would be significant competition from existing or new data centers that don't have all the drawbacks of orbiting the planet.
I wouldn't take that bet, but I can see why some people would.
SpaceX has been the only game in town for quite a while now, to such an extent that the intelligence agencies of foreign governments have no alternative but to launch with SpaceX. They now do more orbital launches than the entire rest of the world combined. If they really are worth less than Microsoft, then it seems space just doesn’t matter that much, because SpaceX is space for all practical purposes.
This article is just about the making money part.
[0]: which obviously provide some revenue, but much less than the value provided.
Further, space is just reaching the point it can really grow.
Space is strategically important but perhaps not as directly economically valuable as Microsoft yet, and SpaceX is just a fraction of that value.
The real immediate economic value hasn't really changed for decades. Starlink is the most recent significant innovation in that area, and it's worth less than 3% of Google's revenue.
The hyped up reasons for space mattering are all completely speculative and at the limits, stretch the bounds of a sane person's credulity: asteroid mining - ok, there may be an economic case for that, but it's far future; colonies on the Moon and Mars - there's no economic case for those, it's purely a dubious expenditure of tax dollars that has no meaningful economic purpose. Etc.
So, what makes spaceflight "important" beyond what it's already used for and has been used for, for decades?
otherwise using ROIC or CAGR might be more optimal way to evaluate your investments
You guys are looking at these IPOs all wrong. Nobody is looking at valuations. It could open at $200 a share it would make no difference.
Surely putting server racks in orbit where you can't do basic maintenance without sending someone up there is a terrible idea?
It just always puts me in mind of the story of an IT guy having to travel for two days to go to a premises and turn on a server that three separate people ensure him was already on.
And there's also bitflips. Acceptable for astronauts carrying normal laptop to watch movies, but in a data center? Solving it through redundancy easily cut the usable capacity to half, and there's not enough shielding with any competition for the payload slot.
The usual criticism of Mars colonization is maintaining a base in Antarctic is already a heroic effort despite being relatively easier. Google and Microsoft mostly abandoned their "data center underwater in nearby shore" plans even though in those the tech would've only sat for few minutes going down or alternatively waiting for the problematic module being floated to the surface.
I may agree with their overall sentiment, but I think this sort of formulation is just silly nonsense from analysts who build models instead of companies.
Are these kinds of reports mostly a lot of window-dressing around a gut-feel about what might happen in the future? Yea, of course. But, there's not really other options. Pretty much all the other options for predicting how much money a particular company is going to make in the future will also boil down to a gut-feel.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-08/spacex-ip...
1. Space operations: $370 billion;
2. Connectivitiy: $1.6 trillion, roughly split between mobile and broadband; and
3. AI: $26.5 trillion, which includes $22.4T in AI Enterprise applications, $2.4T in AI infrastructure, $760B in subscriptions (ie Grok) and $600B in digital advertising.
So immediately we see the limits of the space market. SpaceX did 170 launches in 2025. At $100M each, that's $17 billion in revenue and Falcon 9 launches just don't cost that much. That brings Starship into the picture but that program is arleady at $15 billion spent without a single dollar in revenue. So we know from the outset that only the other markets can really justify the STarship prgoram because you have to remember that STarship has to compete with Falcon 9. Or, even worse for SpaceX, a Falcon 9 competitor.
Now, as for Starlink, this one is interesting. Starlink has a big advantage when you need mobile broadband (eg planes, boats) as there's nothing really equivalent, Yes, there's 5G and that's fine in populated areas on, say, RVs and such. But the receivers are expensive.
I think Starlink is going to have a hard time competing with 5G, mainly because 5G already exists and Starlink handhelds are predicated on STarship being able to launch sufficient low-altitude V3 Starlink satellites, which themselves have a more limited life because they are lower altitude. And you're still going to have to deal with per-country licensing, marketing, regulations, etc.
I wonder how much of this is predicated on military applications.
But let's get to AI as that's the most hand-wavy (IMHO) of all this.
First, digital advertising. Well, when Elon bought Twitter it had $4.5B in ad revenuie. Now it's $1.8B. I also think Twitter is fundamentally limited so that's just not going anywhere. Twitter just isn't 10x'ing it's audience (IMHO).
Subscriptions? I think this is a dead market. For everyone. Why? There'll be a race to the bottom, hardware will get cheaper, eventually AI agents will be run locally (even on phones, eventually) and it's just not the cash show OpenAI, SpaceX or Anthropic think it is.
Let's also dispense with orbital AI data centers. It's a completely dumb idea. it's going nowhere. Don't believe anyone hyping it up. It makes zero sense and it will never amount to anything.
SpaceX seems unable to monetize their AI investments thus far. How do I know this? Because you don't lease DC space and GPUs to Google if you have a better use for them. So it not only looks like you're falling behind but you also need the cash. Also, this is dependent on getting enough GPUs. Published details about the Google deal seems to allow Google to cancel or revise the deal if SpaceX is unable to deliver so there is a huge risk here.
What none of these companies (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI) seem to be addressing is what happens when future generations of hardware come out? What happens when running models locally becomes more and more viable? What if there is no expensive hardware moat? What happens when AI models get commoditized? I personally believe this last one will happen and China will make sure it happens.
So all in all there are a ton of risks here. I am skeptical about the long-term prospects of OpenAI in particular and Anthropic less so but I think xAI's (ie Grok's) future is way more uncertain.
I'm actually most confident in Google's future here because they haven't bet the company's future on AI not imploding.
That’s why we are seeing pushes for regulatory capture, safety fear mongering, large government contracts, and even potentially the government taking stakes in these companies. It’s a sprint to cash out before they get commoditized.
I don’t think I have ever seen this before.
> At the rumored pricing of $1.8 trillion for the company, it is too richly priced for my tastes, given my valuation of $1.25-$1.35 trillion for the equity in the company.
https://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2026/06/a-weeks-ago-i-a...
That dwarfs all other launch capabilities on Earth, including all governments. Short and medium term value may be shaky if you evaluate SpaceX as a typical business.
Compute in orbit is "stupid" only to those who don't think it through. Their biggest initial customer for that feature will be Google, and through Google, Apple; two of the highest value tech companies on Earth. Seems like a fascinating flywheel to me.
This isn't different than any other tech IPO in the last 15 years.
No wonder they think it's "over valued"
...from the pages of Duh Magazine
