SnowballlNotes❄️❄️

저도 해외 계정하고 소통하고 싶은데 글을 굳이 영어로 써야 하나 아니면 자동 번역 있으니 한글로만 써도 되나 고민이예요. 또, 게시물 넘길 때 한국어만 있으면 외국 입장에서 안 볼 것 같기도 하구요.. 어떻게 생각하세요? 같은 글을 낮에는 한국에 저녁에는 예약으로 영어로 올리는 것이 좋을까요?

트럼프든 엘리자베스 워런을 비롯한 반(反)암호화폐 진영이든, 누가 정치적 영향력을 행사하느냐는 당장의 투자 수익률에 중요할 수 있습니다. 그러나 암호화폐를 단기적인 정치적 유불리로만 평가하는 데에는 아이러니가 있다고 생각합니다. 정부가 금융 거래와 개인의 자유를 통제하려 할수록, 오히려 암호화폐가 처음 탄생한 목적은 더욱 중요해지기 때문입니다. 탈중앙화와 검열 저항성은 암호화폐가 존재하는 근본적인 이유입니다. 거래소 해킹이 발생할 때마다 고래들이 자기 수탁(Self-Custody)의 중요성을 다시 생각하게 되는 것처럼, 정부의 통제가 강화될수록 더 많은 사람들이 암호화폐의 본래 가치를 깨닫게 될 수 있다고 생각합니다.

$GOOGL l Google이 기업용 LLM API 시장에서 Anthropic에게 점유율을 뺏기면, Google은 AI 경쟁에서 패배하는 것일까요? Menlo Ventures의 조사에 따르면, 기업용 LLM API 시장에서 Google의 점유율은 21%에서 9%로 하락한 반면, Anthropic은 40%에서 55%로 상승했다고 합니다. 분명 Google에 우려스러운 결과입니다. Gemini의 경쟁력에 대한 질문도 충분히 합리적입니다. 하지만 저는 이 숫자만으로 Google의 AI 사업 전체를 평가하는 것은 적절하지 않다고 생각합니다. 1. Anthropic이 성장하면 Google도 돈을 벌 수 있습니다. Anthropic의 2025년 매출 중 47%는 Amazon과 Google의 클라우드 유통망을 통해 발생했습니다. Anthropic은 Claude라는 AI 모델을 개발하지만, 기업 고객에게 전달하는 과정에서는 AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex AI 등 하이퍼스케일러의 유통망을 활용합니다. 중요한 점은 AI 모델을 판매하는 기업과 AI 모델을 유통하고 실행하는 기업이 반드시 같을 필요는 없다는 것입니다. Anthropic이 기업 고객에게 토큰을 판매하면 모델 개발사가 매출을 얻는 동시에, 클라우드 사업자는 유통 수수료와 컴퓨팅 인프라에서 경제적 가치를 확보할 수 있습니다. 2. Anthropic은 Google TPU의 주요 고객이기도 합니다. 2026년 4월, Google과 Anthropic은 2027년부터 가동될 수 GW 규모의 차세대 TPU 컴퓨팅 용량 확대 계약을 공식 발표했습니다. Nvidia가 GPU 생태계를 통해 AI 인프라 시장을 확장해 왔다면, Google 역시 TPU를 외부 AI 기업에 공급하면서 독자적인 생태계를 구축할 가능성이 있습니다. Anthropic이 잘되면 결국 Google도 잘되는 구조입니다. Google이 자체 Gemini 모델을 통해서만 AI 투자수익을 회수해야 하는 기업이 아니라는 의미입니다. 3. Google은 Anthropic의 상당한 지분을 가진 주요 주주입니다. Google은 Anthropic IPO 희석을 감안하더라도 지분을 약 약 8~15% 보유한 주요 주주입니다. 따라서 Anthropic의 성장은 Google에 클라우드·TPU 사업 기회를 제공할 뿐 아니라, 보유 지분의 가치에도 긍정적으로 작용할 가능성이 있습니다. 결국 제가 강조하고 싶은 것은 하나입니다. 프론티어 AI 모델 경쟁에서 누가 승리하는가와 AI 산업 전체의 경제적 가치를 누가 가져가는가는 서로 다른 문제입니다. Google의 Gemini API 점유율 하락은 분명히 지켜봐야 할 위험입니다. 하지만 Anthropic이 더 많은 토큰을 판매하고 더 많은 컴퓨팅을 소비할수록, Google에도 새로운 수익 기회가 생길 수 있습니다. 저는 Google을 평가할 때 Gemini의 시장점유율뿐 아니라 Vertex AI를 통한 유통, 외부 TPU 수요, 클라우드 수익성, 그리고 Anthropic 지분가치를 함께 살펴봐야 한다고 생각합니다. 여러분은 어떻게 생각하시나요? Google이 반드시 최고의 AI 모델을 보유해야만 AI 경쟁의 승자가 될 수 있을까요? ※ 이 글은 특정 자산의 매수·매도를 추천하는 것이 아닙니다.

Why I Think $UBER Is an Attractive Pitch The risk/reward looks compelling to me. Uber is growing at roughly 25%, yet I believe the stock trades at a meaningful discount, largely because of the market's concerns about autonomous vehicles (AVs). After spending a lot of time studying Uber, I've come to believe there are several reasonable arguments for why its growth could continue for years. Here's how I see it. 1. The overall market could keep growing rapidly The entry of autonomous vehicle companies could actually accelerate the growth of the entire ride-hailing market. AVs could make rides cheaper and more accessible, bringing in customers who previously wouldn't have considered ride-hailing. If that happens, Uber could continue growing even if it loses some market share. A smaller share of a much larger market can still be a pretty good outcome. 2. Growth is coming from far more than UberX and food delivery One thing I like about Uber is that management keeps finding new ways to grow beyond its core businesses. And some of these businesses are growing extremely quickly. Non-UberX Mobility (Reserve, Taxi/Hailables, Uber for Business, and Shared Rides): growing around 80%, contributing roughly 25% of the absolute increase in Mobility Gross Bookings. Grocery & Retail: growing approximately 40% YoY, with partnerships expanding to companies such as Tesco, Decathlon, GameStop, Kiehl's, Toys“R”Us, and Ulta Beauty. Suburban and smaller-city markets: growth in secondary and tertiary cities is outpacing growth in Uber's core urban markets. Uber is no longer just a ride-hailing and food delivery company. Its platform is expanding into more categories, more locations, and more use cases. 3. Cross-selling between Mobility and Delivery is a huge opportunity This is one of the most interesting parts of Uber's business model. Customers who use both Mobility and Delivery account for only about 20% of users, yet generate roughly 50% of total Gross Bookings. Think about that. A relatively small portion of Uber's customers generates about half of the platform's transaction volume. As more customers start using both services, their spending within the Uber ecosystem tends to increase. That's why I see cross-selling as an important long-term growth driver. The potential acquisition of Delivery Hero is also interesting in this context. It could expand Uber's cross-selling opportunity from 34 markets to 58, although that remains a potential scenario rather than a completed transaction. 4. Uber keeps finding ways to expand without owning all the underlying assets This is probably one of my favorite things about Uber. Management continues to look for opportunities to use its existing network to enter new businesses without having to build everything from scratch. A few examples: Multiple Gigs: Uber could allow its millions of drivers and couriers to earn money from digital tasks, such as AI data annotation, during their spare time. Uber could eventually earn fees by connecting this workforce with AI companies. Uber Autonomous Solutions: Uber could use the mapping, operational, and real-world data generated across its network to provide services and insights to AV companies. Drone Delivery: Through partnerships with companies such as Zipline and Flytrex, Uber could integrate drone delivery into Uber Eats, potentially lowering delivery costs, improving delivery times, and expanding order volumes. These businesses aren't necessarily completely capital-free. Some require investments and partnerships. But the important point is that Uber can leverage an existing platform rather than building an entirely new business infrastructure every time. That kind of scalability is extremely attractive to me. 5. Uber One makes the entire ecosystem more valuable Uber One connects multiple services through a single membership. The idea is pretty straightforward: More frequent usage → More spending → Lower churn → Stronger customer retention. And unlike $DASH, Uber can offer benefits across both Mobility and Delivery. That gives Uber another way to encourage customers to use multiple services. In Q2 2026: Uber One had approximately 50 million members. More than 70% of Delivery Gross Bookings came from Uber One members. The more customers rely on Uber for both transportation and delivery, the harder it may become for competitors to pull them away. I think this ecosystem advantage is still underappreciated. 6. The scale difference between Uber and AV companies is enormous I understand why people are worried about Waymo and $TSLA. But I also think it's important to look at the actual numbers. Based on the figures I've been studying: Autonomous rides still represent roughly 0.1% of the overall ride-hailing market. Uber processes approximately 40 million trips per day. Waymo has been operating at around 500,000 rides per week. The entire AV industry has been generating roughly 50 million rides annually. Uber's annual increase in trips alone is approximately 3 billion. Uber's incremental annual trip volume is much larger than the entire AV industry's current annual ride volume. That doesn't mean AVs aren't a threat. But it does suggest that even if Waymo and Tesla grow rapidly, replacing Uber's existing business won't happen overnight. And there's another important question. Self-driving cars may work very well in San Francisco or Austin. But can they operate just as efficiently in cities with heavy snow, extreme weather, complicated roads, or much lower population density? That remains to be seen. 7. Uber's actual profit exposure to AV competition may be smaller than investors think Another interesting way to look at AV risk is to break down where Uber earns its profits. Based on the exposure estimates I've been studying: Mobility accounts for roughly 60% of Uber's total profits. U.S. Mobility represents about 36%. The top 20 U.S. cities account for roughly 9% of total profits. Including suburban areas, the potential exposure rises to approximately 18%. But AV operators have a much more capital-intensive business model. Expanding into low-density suburban markets is not necessarily attractive when you have to own, maintain, and finance the vehicles yourself. Taking that into account, the portion of Uber's profits most directly exposed to near-term AV competition could be closer to 9–13%, depending on how the market develops. These are estimates, not precise forecasts. Meanwhile, suburban markets are becoming an important growth opportunity for Uber. Services such as Wait & Save can help stimulate demand in these areas by offering customers lower prices in exchange for more flexible pickup times. So while AVs threaten part of Uber's existing business, Uber still has meaningful opportunities to grow elsewhere. 8. Operating leverage could make earnings grow faster than revenue Uber's platform has substantial fixed costs. R&D, software development, matching algorithms, finance, legal, servers, and corporate overhead don't necessarily need to increase at the same rate as transaction volume. When another customer books a ride, Uber doesn't need to build an entirely new matching system. As Gross Bookings and revenue increase, the company has the potential to spread its fixed costs across a larger transaction base. That means operating income could grow faster than revenue over time. Of course, insurance, incentives, and other variable costs still matter. But I think Uber has meaningful operating leverage as the business continues to scale. 9. What if Uber becomes the platform for autonomous vehicle companies? This is where the investment thesis gets especially interesting to me. Operating an autonomous vehicle and managing a large-scale transportation marketplace are two very different things. AV companies focus on making vehicles drive themselves safely. Uber focuses on something else: How do you match demand and supply in real time, and how do you position vehicles to maximize utilization across an entire fleet? That's a different technological and operational challenge. An AV company that joins Uber's platform could benefit from lower customer acquisition costs, better fleet utilization, and potentially higher returns on its invested capital. Uber has repeatedly emphasized vehicle utilization as one of the key benefits it can offer AV partners. And if autonomous vehicles eventually become more commoditized, a platform that allows customers to choose among different providers could become even more valuable. The winner in autonomous transportation might not necessarily be the company that builds the best self-driving car. It could also be the company that most efficiently connects those vehicles with paying customers. 10. Peak demand creates a major challenge for AV fleet economics This is another reason I don't think AV companies can simply replace Uber overnight. Ride-hailing demand fluctuates significantly throughout the day. Peak demand can be roughly four times higher than off-peak demand. Imagine you're running an AV fleet. If you buy enough vehicles to meet peak-hour demand, many of those vehicles will sit idle during quieter periods. But even when they're not moving, depreciation and financing costs don't disappear. On the other hand, if you size your fleet around average demand, you won't have enough vehicles during peak hours. Customers end up waiting longer. That's a difficult trade-off. Now imagine an AV operator working with Uber. By accessing Uber's large customer network, the AV company may be able to generate more trips per vehicle and improve utilization. And a marketplace combining human drivers and AVs can potentially manage fluctuations in demand more efficiently than a fleet relying exclusively on autonomous vehicles. Higher utilization means more revenue per vehicle and a lower fixed-cost burden per trip. That's valuable to AV operators too. 11. Slowing insurance inflation could become another tailwind Insurance has been a major cost issue for Uber. During the pandemic, vehicle prices and repair costs rose sharply, pushing insurance premiums higher. More recently, the pace of insurance cost increases has been slowing. Uber renegotiates insurance arrangements with insurers, including during its annual March renewal cycle. Regulatory reforms in certain U.S. states have also created opportunities for hundreds of millions of dollars in potential cost savings. Uber can use some of those savings to lower prices and stimulate additional trip demand. And over the longer term, the transition toward autonomous vehicles, delivery robots, and drones could potentially change the insurance cost structure of its network. There are still plenty of uncertainties here, but I see possible upside. Final Thoughts There are many more reasons I find Uber interesting. But one thing has stood out to me throughout my research. I've come away with a much greater appreciation for Dara Khosrowshahi as a CEO. He seems exceptionally good at protecting Uber's core platform advantages while continuously finding new businesses that can scale on top of its existing network. Rather than trying to own every vehicle, every delivery system, or every piece of technology, Uber often looks for ways to connect the companies that do. I think that's a powerful business model. And despite all these growth opportunities, the stock still appears to reflect considerable concern about the future of autonomous driving. I don't think those concerns are irrational. AV competition is a real risk, and the long-term outcome is far from certain. But when I weigh that risk against Uber's market position, growth opportunities, operating leverage, and management's execution, I find the risk/reward compelling. That's why I think $UBER is an attractive pitch. I'm still studying the company, and there are plenty of questions I haven't fully answered. But the more I learn about Uber, the more interesting the business becomes. $UBER ※ This post is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security.

스마트폰이 폭발적으로 성장하고 대중화된 시점인 2010년에서 2013년, Facebook은 모바일 화면에서는 기존 PC보다 광고를 적게 노출할 수 있다는 우려로 주가가 -50% 이상 폭락하는 사상 최악의 IPO 잔혹사를 겪었습니다. 당시 Facebook은 PC 웹페이지 오른쪽에 약 5~7개의 광고를 노출했지만, 스마트폰 화면은 작기 때문에 동일한 수의 광고를 보여주기 어렵겠다는 논리입니다. 하지만, Facebook은 개인화된 피드 광고를 통해 클릭률과 광고 효율을 높이며 지금까지 매우 큰 성장을 이어왔습니다. 현재 $GOOGL 의 우려와 비슷합니다. 제 이야기는 'Google Search는 위협 받고 있지 않아'가 아닙니다. 위협은 실재하되 과거 Facebook 처럼 Google의 경영진이 대안을 찾을 가능성이 있다는 것입니다. 위기는 예상치 못한 곳에서 갑자기 옵니다. 현재 Google Search는 모두가 아는 위협이며, Google 경영진이 이를 잘 이해하고 있는 사람들일 겁니다. 무언가 대안이 나오길 기다려 봅시다! ※ 매수,매도 추천은 아닙니다. $GOOG

To Those Who Say Bitcoin Has No Value... If you define the value of an asset by the future cash flows it generates, you might conclude that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. Warren Buffett has made a similar argument. He doesn't invest in Bitcoin because it's not a productive asset and doesn't generate cash flow just by holding it. But by that logic, the same applies to gold. Gold doesn't pay interest or dividends either. If you put a gold bar in a vault, it won't produce more gold on its own. So does that mean gold has no value? If someone offered you a gold bar for free, how many people would actually turn it down? Gold isn't valuable because it generates future cash flows. It's valuable because of its scarcity, durability, divisibility, ease of exchange, and above all, the trust people have placed in it as a store of value for thousands of years. Unlike a business, gold isn't valued by discounting future earnings. Its value comes from how much people want it and what they're willing to exchange for it. In other words, not generating cash flow and having no economic value are two very different things. I think Bitcoin is an evolution of gold, taking some of its properties a step further. Part of gold's value comes from the fact that you can hold it directly, without relying on a financial institution. In times of war, governments can freeze the assets of wealthy individuals, including their stocks, bonds, and bank accounts. But if you physically own gold, they can't simply freeze it by blocking a bank account. Now imagine a wealthy person who owns 100 tons of gold. They can't exactly keep it at home. The risk of theft would be enormous. So let's say they store it with a major bank. If war breaks out, the government could order the bank to freeze their gold holdings. What if they don't trust banks and instead hide all that gold in a heavily secured warehouse? If war breaks out and they need to flee the country, how are they supposed to move 100 tons of gold? Now think about Bitcoin. If that same person holds the equivalent value in Bitcoin and can keep a piece of paper with their seed phrase safe, they don't need a bank or a massive vault to preserve control over their wealth. If war breaks out, they can move their wealth across borders in just a few minutes, without having to physically transport anything. Bitcoin has scarcity, just like gold, but it also offers portability that even the world's most expensive works of art can't match. Now let's compare the market capitalizations of gold and Bitcoin. Gold: $27.5 trillion Bitcoin: $1.5 trillion That's a difference of roughly 18 times. You can argue that Bitcoin has no value. But can you explain why Bitcoin should be worth nearly 18 times less than gold? ※ This post is not a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. bitcoin:native