Analysis $HYPE | Market Structure & Liquidity / Trading strategy. Smart risk 🇺🇦
Joined December 2023
- Tweets2K
- Following227
- Followers1.7K
- Likes1K
Hyper_Up retweeted
Holy smokes!!!!
$SPCX says Q4 capex will be $35-40 billion versus $18-19 billion from sell-side estimates.
Elon also says they can bring on 10 GW of compute in 2027 in addition to the 2.5+ GW they expect to have by the end of 2026.
This means $SPCX capex in 2027 could be $300-400B billion (ie $30-40B per GW) vs current sell-side estimates of $165B.
From Elon… “At current pricing, new compute deployments are generating a payback of less than a year. Pricing is currently tracking slightly above the high end of the $30 to $50 per watt range we were discussing just last quarter, which further supports the attractiveness of these terrestrial SI compute investments.”
From Elon… "I think the demand for bandwidth is going to be dramatically higher than it is today. I think in three to five years there is probably a demand for 1,000 times more bandwidth than there is currently, because AI or SI agents will on a per-agent basis use far more bandwidth than a person, and there will be far more agents than there are people... With next year being primarily Rubin, I would say I am fairly confident of being able to bring an incremental 10 gigawatts of compute online in 2027. That would be in addition to the roughly 3 gigawatts, maybe 2.5 to 3 gigawatts that we will have online by the end of this year. Let me put it this way. I would be surprised if we brought on less than 13 gigawatts of compute by the end of next year."
…and to think that some of you are bearish on ai infrastructure 🙄 while the clowns at Gartner think demand is lagging supply 🤣
Hyper_Up retweeted
"Memory is cyclical, everyone knows that, and the recent run up in memory names is an obvious bubble."
That's the easy, reflexive view. But I think the people who hold it are missing the simple scale of what AI is doing to memory demand.
The first clue that there might be more to the memory story came in January of this year when it came out that NVDA's next gen Rubin platform would require 16 TB of NAND per GPU, or 1152 TB per rack, and that required HBM bandwidth for the system would be 70% higher than what had been previously reported.
That was the first time it became obvious to outside observers that memory would need to scale exponentially to keep up with already-known GPU demand.
One under-appreciated fact is that while GPU compute has largely scaled with Moore's Law (doubling in compute ~every 2 years), memory density and speed hasn't. As GPU compute continues to scale, existing memory manufacturers must produce exponentially more chips.
These chips will also need to be faster than ever, which introduces an incredible technical challenge: how can memory manufacturers find the required speed improvements that have eluded them for decades?
When you combine this added technical complexity with an exponentially expanding demand for the product, memory starts to look less like the "commodity" everyone knows it to be, and much more like a high-margin proprietary chip.
This hasn't even touched on memory's role in inference (compute needed for inference is expanding exponentially as well, and is highly memory-dependent), long context, etc.
Agentic AI requires agents to pull massive amounts of data into their context, which increases the number of tokens per "turn" and also the amount of memory required to run them. True agentic systems will require both dramatically higher context, and also many more "turns" or iterations of each task (as they improve an output over and over until it reaches a target quality level). Longer context = more memory per workload, and more "turns" = more workload per output.
To put a specific number on that, Micron SVP Jeremy Werner said recently on The Circuit that agentic AI is causing context length to grow 30x a year.
Michael Dell recently framed the problem in extremely simple terms: H100 had 80GB of HBM; by 2028, accelerators could carry ~2TB. That is 25x more memory per accelerator. Over the same period, he expects roughly 25x more accelerators deployed.
That's 25 x 25 = 625x more accelerator memory demand by 2028.
Everyone knows memory stocks are cyclical, and they always look cheap right before the bubble bursts. But what if there are structural changes happening in the memory markets that could prove the consensus wrong?
Does anyone remember another traditionally cyclical company that has rerated to a growth story due to the demand from AI? Hint: It's now the most valuable company in the world.
Reminder: this is not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities. It's a framework for thinking about how the AI buildout may be changing the memory market.
Hyper_Up retweeted
The irony is that we are chasing an ever-narrowing window of hope.
First, we traded on headlines of 'ending the war,' then it was 'a ceasefire.' After that, we traded on the hope of a partial, temporary opening of the SoH, and then we were reduced to hoping for just a single round of negotiations.
Now, we are trading on the expectation that the maritime blockade will be lifted—just so that a single meeting can even take place. As the focus narrows, it drifts further away from the truth and any fundamental change.
Yet, we have become more obsessively fixated on these increasingly meaningless details. Looking back, it was almost better two weeks ago when the market reacted to the nonsense of 'a new era of peace.' At least that felt like change.
Now, we are further from that than ever, yet trapped in an obsession with the trivial. They have done a masterful job of blurring the essence of the situation.
#oott #iran
A headline just flooded the screens claiming, "Signals received the US is ready to end the blockade," and Brent crude immediately plunged about 200 pips.
For context, we saw the exact same headline from the BBC 10 hours ago, quoting an Iranian diplomat. Since morning has just broken in Tehran, Tasnim simply re-quoted that report.
This is how the market functions today. Of course it’s even more effective bc 90% of those trading on Globex during the Asian session are particularly clueless.
It seems conspiracy theorists have their reasons for being so cynical.
#oott #iran
Hyper_Up retweeted
🚨 Incoming short report to drop soon on memory sector
I was given a glimpse on what is leading the selloff of memory sector and its bad.
Sora appears to be just the first announcement of planned shutdowns of Ai video. Report suggests OpenAi was struggling to keep up with commitments to purchase up to 50% of the global supply of RAM after costs exploded, making it difficult to maintain running memory intensive applications globally.
Basically OpenAi has secretly pulled its unrealistic commitment of HBM NAND and DRAM that could have massive implications for price volatility behind the scenes.
$SNDK $MU
Hyper_Up retweeted
Next tweet by Trump will probably go like this:
“My Saudi friend Sheikh <XYZ> called and begged me not to attack Iran’s power facilities.
The devastation it would cause the region would be immense so I will leave their plants intact.
I will still destroy the leaders.
Thank you for your attention to this nonsense”
Hyper_Up retweeted
Equity bears are at the brink of insanity given resilience in the indices, but odds of a breakdown are increasing now.
Equities top slowly as passive flows and rotational dynamics can hold up indices for a long time. There are many structural forces rigged to push them higher, and thus it takes a lot to make them go down. Over the course of an equity bull market, buy-the-dip behavior continually gets reinforced, and the majority of capital will be controlled by adherents to this mantra. In theory, the longer prices remain coiled, the larger the move once they exit the range.
This nuke in gold suggests there are liquidity issues brewing under the surface. It feels like a preview of what is going to happen to crowded trades. My theory is the Middle East is selling gold to shore up capital, as they have lost their revenue, and have many expenses around defence. They will also need to rebuild lost energy infra, and eventually, new pipelines to reroute around Hormuz.
The buyback window is starting to close, and the sugar rush of higher-than-usual tax refunds is starting to fade. Retail has been a key marginal buyer of equities in these past weeks, and the fading of the tax refund tailwind is critical.
The market is gradually coming to terms with the fact that this conflict may last for a long time. On a conventional level, the US and Israel have completely dominated Iran, but Iran has an asymmetric edge when it comes to controlling world oil prices through Hormuz. Trump can still end it, but the issue is that the US cannot simply leave, a ceasefire with Iran must be struck in order to guarantee that Hormuz is reopened. In order to strike a ceasefire, Iran wants to see a guarantee that the US and Israel won't attack them again (at a bare minimum), and it will be difficult for the US to get Israel to agree to that. Trump is used to being able to quickly maneuver according to his whims, as he did with tariffs, but the complex interlocking physical realities of war are different.
Oil shocks often contribute to the end of bull markets, since they constrain consumer spending, hit manufacturing, and lower the ability of central banks to offer support. Indeed, the Fed came out slightly hawkish yesterday, and Powell also hinted that he may stay in his Governor seat post his role as Chair ending, which would constrain Trump's plans to unleash liquidity.
We have a stronger dollar and long duration bond yields are going up over the world, which tightens liquidity. The Middle East is tight on money now and they were the marginal bidder in many assets. In particular, they were a key funder for AI capex through their investments in the frontier labs. They've been 40-50% of recent big rounds. Remember other deep pockets like Softbank are close to being tapped out. Any dollar that goes into these rounds will have to come out of something else, like liquid stocks (look at my pinned post for this broader thesis). And if we have any signs of risk to AI capex expectations, this will be a major shift that the market needs to contemplate.
I've said this before, but puts are a difficult way to express bearish equity views because timing is so uncertain. Equities can hold on for a long time, because they are structurally rigged to go higher. Easier expressions are simply being in cash, or gradually shorting cash stocks over time, which helps avoid getting chopped. This is a very difficult market, stay safe out there.
Hyper_Up retweeted
I'm going to make some obvious points.
(1) Blowing up all the oil infrastructure in the Middle East is an insane idea, and may well result in a global economic crash and humanitarian crisis unrivaled in the lives of those now living. We're talking about the price of everything everywhere rising, from food to gas, at a moment when inflation was already high. All of that will be laid at the feet of the authors of this war.
(2) The antebellum status quo of Feb 27, 2026 was just not that bad, but we're unlikely to return to it. Expect indefinite, long-term, ongoing disruptions to everything out of the Middle East.
(3) Also assume tech financing crashes for the indefinite future. The genius plan to get the Gulf states caught in the crossfire has incinerated much of the funding for LPs, for datacenters, and for IPOs. Anyone in tech who supported this war may soon learn the meaning of "force majeure" as funding gets yanked.
(4) Many capital allocators will instead be allocating much further down Maslow's hierarchy of needs, towards useful basic things like food and energy.
(5) It's fortunate that all those progressives yelled about the "climate crisis." Yes, their reasoning about timelines was wrong, and much of the money was wasted in graft, but the result was right: we all need energy independence from the Middle East, pronto. It's also fortunate that Elon and China autistically took climate seriously. Now they're going to need to ship a billion solar panels, electric vehicles, batteries, nuclear power plants, and the like to get everyone off oil, immediately.
(6) It's not just an oil and gas problem, of course. It's also a fertilizer problem, and a chemical precursor problem. Maybe some new sources will come online at the new prices, but it takes time to dial stuff up, particularly at this scale, so shortages are almost a certainty.
That said, China has actually scaled up coal-to-chemicals[a,c] (C2C), and there's also something more sci-fi called Power-to-X[b] which turns arbitrary power + water + air into hydrocarbons. But all of that will need to get accelerated. I have a background in chemical engineering so may start funding things in this area.
(7) Ultimately, this war is going to result in tremendous blame for anyone associated with it. It's a no-win scenario to blow up this much infrastructure for so many people. Simply not worth it for whatever objective they thought they were going to attain. But unless you're actually in a position to stop the madness, the pragmatic thing to do is: scramble to mitigate the fallout to yourself, your business, and your people.
[a]: reuters.com/business/energy/…
[b]: alfalaval.com/industries/ene…
[c]: reuters.com/sustainability/c…
Hyper_Up retweeted
3/17 Bitcoin ETF Total Net Flow: +$198.31m
$IBIT (BlackRock): +$168.27m
$FBTC (Fidelity): +$24.39m
$BITB (Bitwise): $0.00m
$ARKB (Ark): +$2.48m
$BTCO (Invesco): $0.00m
$EZBC (Franklin): $0.00m
$BRRR (Valkyrie): $0.00m
$HODL (VanEck): +$3.17m
$BTCW (WisdomTree): $0.00m
$GBTC (Grayscale): $0.00m
$BTC (Grayscale Mini): $0.00m
3/16 Bitcoin ETF Total Net Flow: +$199.19m
$IBIT (BlackRock): +$139.05m
$FBTC (Fidelity): +$64.53m
$BITB (Bitwise): +$2.82m
$ARKB (Ark): –$3.07m
$BTCO (Invesco): $0.00m
$EZBC (Franklin): +$2.14m
$BRRR (Valkyrie): $0.00m
$HODL (VanEck): –$6.28m
$BTCW (WisdomTree): $0.00m
$GBTC (Grayscale): $0.00m
$BTC (Grayscale Mini): $0.00m
Hyper_Up retweeted
Notes on Taiki Maeda's "Why I Think the Bottom is in for Bitcoin":
The reason I became bearish in Q4 ’25 was because people were positioned all-in on leverage for the Q4 alt season, while the DATs were running out of money to buy, so the market was fragile. Maybe there was also a confluence with the four-year cycle, so people were ready and itching to sell anyway. A combination of all these factors led to the deleveraging cascade.
Right now, in terms of positioning, people are generally aware of the four-year cycle and are prepared for a potential Q4 bottom. The prevailing idea is that you can just do nothing, wait until Q4, buy this magical bottom, and then make money.
For us to hit new lows in Q4 ’26, there would have to be some kind of liquidation or capitulation event. But if people are already comfortable sitting in cash, I just don’t really see how something like that happens. When I look at the positioning across traders and fund managers I talk to, most of them are over 60% in cash. It’s not that they’re bearish on crypto - they’re just waiting for one more leg lower.
I think the reemergence of Saylor could prevent that next leg lower, meaning these people would have to buy back higher. Markets can’t bottom without two things: sellers being exhausted and buyers stepping in. For a long time, we really haven’t had a marginal buyer ready to push prices higher.
If you look at Saylor’s X, all he talks about is STRC. I think he knows that the only way for MSTR to get out of its rut is to really drive usage and adoption of it. STRC holders receive an 11.5% rate and stability, while MSTR buys BTC with the proceeds. If BTC goes up by more than 11.5% in a year, then MSTR shareholders also benefit.
MSTR has over $2 billion in reserves, which equates to roughly 28.5 months of dividend coverage. That means they have enough cash to pay more than two years’ worth of liabilities. So as a yield farmer, capital allocator, or investor, getting an 11.5% rate from a company with over two years of runway to pay those dividends seems like an interesting proposition. I’ve never owned MSTR, but I bought some STRC to experiment with.
This situation could cause problems in the future, but because they have enough runway, I don’t have to worry about that right now. I think that over the next 12, 16, or 18 months there will be increasing demand for STRC, and Saylor can leverage that demand to buy BTC.
The main BTC bull case here is STRC reaching some kind of escape velocity, where it becomes more trusted over time and its risk profile is considered safe enough to attract not only crypto-native investors but also outside capital. That would enable Saylor to buy hundreds of millions of BTC every week, if not billions.
My bet in buying BTC is that we are in the early stages of the capitalization phase of STRC. This is actually the first MSTR product I can imagine using as part of my portfolio. And if it works for me, it should work for others. And if it works for others, that’s a lot of potential demand flowing into this product.
Also, if this works, then people like Tom Lee could replicate it, which could create some crazy reflexivity. It’s something to think about.
In bear markets people often worry about everything that could go wrong, while in bull markets they focus on everything that could go right. I would encourage everyone to do the opposite: in a bear market, think about what could go right.
Why I Think the Bottom is in for Bitcoin.
Bought $BTC $HYPE $STRC
Watch: youtube.com/watch?v=rYS8U5sb…
Hyper_Up retweeted
New article on STRC.
I break down:
- how the mechanism works
- why it can scale massively
- what the real risks are
substacktools.com/sharex/e-r…
Hyper_Up retweeted
Just walked in the front door after work.
My 5 year old son ran to greet me.
"Hi dad!" he said excitedly.
As he went to hug me, I grabbed his shoulders and said, "Bud, I think you're overestimating the value of human relationships. I read that in a Substack today. Everything is different now. I mean - it was different before, but it's super different now."
He blinked, clutching a plastic dinosaur. I couldn't believe it. Attachment to physical objects in a post-digital era. I gently rotated him toward the hallway mirror.
“Look,” I continued, “do you see that reflection? That’s legacy hardware. Carbon-based. High latency. Limited processing power."
As I kicked off my shoes, my 3 year old daughter came running up to me with a drawing she made in preschool this morning.
She was glowing. Beaming.
“Look, Daddy! I made this for you!”
I glanced at it and explained that Nano Banana one-shotted her entire effort. Her job prospects were hopeless if she didn't understand this.
“Sweetie,” I said gently, kneeling down, “this crayon sun? It’s 2022. Nano Banana can generate 100,000 emotionally resonant suns before you finish saying ‘primary colors.’ You need API access.”
She asked what an API was.
“Exactly,” I said, standing up.
The crying started around then. Very emotional household. Understandable. They hadn't read *the essay.*
My wife heard the children crying in the foyer and came to check on us.
"I don't understand what's happening here, but why don't we sit down for dinner and talk about this?" she asked. "I made chicken pot pies!"
“Dinner? Your contribution to a world where Amex and Mastercard are heading to zero by 2028 is DINNER?!”
I started laughing.
“Uh yeah…” I explained: “Cooking is a pre-Claude activity. Do you realize I can vibecode a functional DoorDash competitor in about 8 minutes now? It's all right there in the Substack.”
As the kids continued sobbing, my wife looked at me in disbelief.
“Okay, okay. Maybe it would take me 15 minutes to spin up a functional Doordash competitor,” I conceded. “Payments integration can be annoying.”
She asked if I was feeling alright.
“Better than alright,” I said. “I’ve seen the roadmap. I've read the Substack.”
I gestured broadly at the house: “This? This is a future data center. The hugs? Deprecated. The drawings? Automatable. The chicken pot pies? Disrupted.”
My wife folded her arms. “You used to like chicken pot pies.”
“That was before I could prompt at a few hundred words per minute,” I said.
Hyper_Up retweeted
Thoughts after reading Citrini’s piece.
Ultimately, this is one enormous game of chicken.
AI frontier labs can never reduce investment. The moment they do, they fall from a galloping horse and suffer irreversible damage. The dilemma Citrini described for incumbents — “sit still and die slower?” — applies equally to the AI labs themselves.
And the structure of this game is self-reinforcing. The more I cut to the bone, the more capacity I free up to invest, and more investment translates into stronger intelligence that can overwhelm competitors. Because the other side is running the same calculation, no one can turn the wheel first.
As Citrini precisely identified, AI investment occurs not as CapEx but as OpEx substitution, and this is how the game of chicken spreads from the labs to the entire economy. AI may not replace every job that relies on intelligence, but it structurally reduces the necessity of human intelligence. For companies, adopting AI is not a choice — it is a condition of survival.
Right now, NVIDIA is hiring aggressively. But someday even NVIDIA will freeze hiring, cut headcount, and pursue maximum efficiency through AI. The reason is simple. Competitors like AMD will aggressively leverage AI to build the capability to challenge NVIDIA. Standing still while competitors ride AI upward means obsolescence.
This is the most uncomfortable truth of this scenario. Each company’s individual response is rational, but the collective result is catastrophic — in Citrini’s words, “a feedback loop with no natural brake.” We have no choice but to invest in AI as intelligence. Even if it means letting our people go. And that decision to let people go forces someone else to make the same one.
In a game where the one who turns the wheel loses, no one turns the wheel.
