Labrict retweeted
I've been critical in the past of AI compute indexes and the willingness to price compute based on the spot rental price, but now that the AI reset is sinking into the repricing of AI buildout debt its time to realize that the cost of capital is what determines the price of compute.
The most important number in GPU pricing right now isn't $/GPU-hour. It's the gap between what a hyperscaler pays to borrow (~90bp over Treasuries) and what a neocloud pays (~1,100bp).
The cost of compute is now set by the cost of capital, and the spot rental rate no longer tells you much.
The price of an H100 isn't one number. The same chip in the same rack costs a different amount depending on whose balance sheet it sits on. A ~1,000bp funding gap is a structural cost advantage that no amount of operating skill closes.
For example, take one GPU-hour apart. Most of it isn't power or space. It's paying back the chip, the interest on the loan that bought it, and the return the equity expects. A $40–55k all-in GPU, 75% debt-funded, at ~7,000 utilized hours a year is a financing instrument that happens to do matrix multiplication.
As the +500bp on neocloud debt (10%→15%) adds $0.20–0.30 to the break-even cost of every GPU-hour, which is then added on to the rental price.
That's 8–10% of the H100 index, from a credit spread alone, driven almost entirely by the cost of capital.
That means that the compute spot index is a derivative of the AI infra debt credit curve and the squeeze on neocloud margins.
Labrict retweeted
I'm hiring my next Chief of Staff. You won’t know every field I work in. What matters is how quickly you learn, the questions you ask, and whether you can think from first principles. You’ll help evaluate opportunities and work with founders building consequential companies. Technical background preferred. Three-year commitment. Menlo Park, in person. Apply: jobs.ashbyhq.com/khoslaventu…
Labrict retweeted
And interesting frontier lab strategy would be to encourage distillation, set price that mass distillation is unit economic positive, and then just focus on building the best models. This results is a downstream ecosystem addicted to you. And with no capability to surpass.
Labrict retweeted
“Attention is one of the last moats.”
-Dan Koe
If you have multiple interests, do not waste the next 2-3 years
article summary in 4k dark & light
Labrict retweeted
AI development is hitting a "power bottleneck"—making this a key area for strategic positioning. After all, chips cannot function without electricity.
Addressing this "shortage" is set to become the next major investment theme. IT power demand for U.S. data centers is projected to surge by 755% to 78.57 gigawatts (GW) by 2029, with demand reaching 97 GW between 2026 and 2028.
With current projects under construction and existing grid reserve capacity totaling only 40 GW, there is a projected power shortfall of 57 GW.
Servers based on the Rubin architecture could drive IT power demand up to five times current levels by 2028. So, should you invest in power-related assets or continue betting on chips? Send me a private message for more stock market insights and information.
Labrict retweeted
Fentanyl Grade Compute: Why a GB300 Rack Will Out-Price Blow by Weight in 2030
A GB300 NVL72 weighs roughly 1,580 kg fully populated and recent purchase orders put it at $5M per rack.
That is $3,165/kg. Strip out the 1.5 tons of busbar, manifold and coolant and the GPU packages alone are well into gold territory, but we're pricing the rack, because that's what you actually take delivery of.
Where that sits on the illicit commodity curve today ($/kg):
$2,400 Cannabis flower
$3,165 GB300 NVL72
$3,500 Fentanyl
$28,000 Cocaine
$65,000 Heroin
$138,000 Gold
So today NVIDIA ships a product that is denser in value than weed, roughly fentanyl-grade, and still an order of magnitude short of cocaine.
For now...
GB200 NVL72 was $4M, GB300 is ~$5M, and Vera Rubin NVL72 is already quoted at up to $8.8M at essentially the same rack mass. Rack weight is constrained by the datacenter floor loading; rack price is constrained by nothing. That's ~1.75x $/kg per generation with HBM, CoWoS and power all supply-limited through the decade.
Cocaine: Colombia's new president has pledged a hard-line security crackdown with $1B in US aid behind it
Every prior crackdown has consolidated the industry into fewer, better-capitalized operators with better logistics and higher yields per hectare. Consolidation is deflationary.
We model US wholesale drifting from ~$28k/kg toward ~$12k/kg by 2030 as the supply chain professionalizes.
**Crossover: 2030.** Our extrapolated NVL72-class rack hits ~$17k/kg while wholesale cocaine falls to ~$12k/kg. At that point the rational cartel pivots to smuggling racks, except a rack has a fixed 500+ kW power draw, a 3,300 lb forklift requirement and an export-control regime that is actually enforced. Cocaine has none of these problems, which is why it will remain the superior product for anyone without a substation.
Key risks to the thesis: US retail coke is still ~$60–200/g, i.e. $60k–200k/kg so the crossover only holds at wholesale.
Retail compute (H100 hour on a neocloud) is also marked up, so we consider this an apples-to-apples wholesale comparison.
Full model available to Coke Research subscribers. – at San Francisco, CA
Labrict retweeted
i'm still not sure people are fully getting how good opus 5.5
i gave my claude agent fig access to the runway MCP and told it to make a 'high-end netflix style documentary about superintelligence for normies' and...
it came back with this
Labrict retweeted
In the past few weeks, a wide network of X accounts have repeatedly claimed that those raising concerns about AI are merely pawns in a well-funded psyop run by powerful interests.
So I followed the money behind them. Here's what I found 🧵
Labrict retweeted
A lot of people are saying Anthropic has already nerfed Claude Opus 5.5.
We have every BridgeBench result for Opus 5.5 from day 1 of launch.
We're retesting soon.
If the scores drop, you'll see it here first.
Have you noticed a difference?
Labrict retweeted
America’s corporate governance system is broken, and it’s killing public companies. Look no further than Cracker Barrel: Decades of brutal mismanagement have seen one incompetent CEO after another walk away with a massive paycheck while customers and actual shareholders take a beating.
Why does this keep happening? Because proxy advisory firms like ISS are corrupt. They blindly rubber-stamp failing boards year after year, protecting the corporate elite while burning shareholder value to the ground.
The root of the rot is index funds. There's no question that indexing one's money is a smart financial move for most people. But just because you passively index your investments doesn't mean your corporate votes should be handed over to the managers of your fund so they can play politics. Right now, passive funds hold massive, unchecked voting blocks while having zero skin in the game themselves.
It is time for a simple rewrite of the rules: We need to index the votes of index fund investors.
Passive index funds should be forced to automatically split their votes to proportionately mirror those of retail and active institutional shareholders — the people actually doing the research, risking their capital, and fighting for performance in the companies they hold shares in. No more rubber-stamping. A change like this will immediately strip corrupt gatekeepers like ISS of their toxic influence.
True accountability happens when lazy, overpaid boards actually answer to the stakeholders they represent, rather than screwing them over.
Actual, logic-driven governance when your money is passive happens when your vote passively follows the voting decisions of the actual market.
We need to stop letting passive capital protect active incompetence. By stripping index funds of their arbitrary voting power and empowering engaged investors, we will finally torch corporate cronyism and usher American capital markets into a golden age of capitalism.
Labrict retweeted
Here's the newest private equity structure (bottom to top):
> Layer #1 - a portfolio company borrows to fund its own buyout.
Normal course, fine.
> Layer #2 - the buyout fund that owns it borrows against its portfolio.
Ok, guess that's reasonable.
> Layer #3 - a secondaries fund buys a stake in that buyout fund, then borrows against the stake.
Getting spicier 🔥
> Layer #4 - that borrowing gets sliced into senior and junior, and the senior piece is sold to insurers, rated just high enough for them to own.
Voila. Perfection. 🤌
Labrict retweeted
The next time someone asks “wHaT dOEs paLaNTiR evEN dO?”, I’m just going to send them this video:
$PLTR