GOOGL is interesting at this price. Stock price stagnated for a couple of months, IV low. They have arguably the best channels and will / should / hopefully do something similar to Meta's Muse.
Is there any mathematical proof that shows LLM will definitely progress to AGI? Sounds like a good math problem to be solved first before all these investment
There is some speculation about our partnership with Cerebras.
Cerebras is a close partner, and we have a deep engagement pushing on the frontiers of speed.
I am honestly disappointed with a lot of investors and popular accounts.
They clearly didn't do their homework on $CBRS and were talking absolute rubbish.
Let me clear this out.
1. Insider selling:
The claim that the CEO sold 99.8% of his shares is flat wrong.
Class A is what you and I trade. Class B is what founders hold, and it only converts to Class A when they sell.
So the CEO shows just 17,659 Class A shares but still holds ~13.9M Class B. Did people actually read the second table?
Since the IPO, insiders sold ~$400M, under 1% of the company. About 80% was pre-planned sales of old options bought at $1-8, and the rest came from VC board members and forced tax sales.
Stake each still holds
- CEO Feldman ~98%
- CFO Komin ~97%
- CTO Lie ~87%
- COO Mallick ~50%, the only outlier
The real short-term scare is the lockup, with ~39M shares (~16%) unlocking on Oct 14 and Oct 28.
These are old shares that can now trade, not new ones. That's pressure on the stock, not dilution.
2. $NVDA competition:
People are saying Nvidia just launched OpenAI's "Ultrafast" mode on Blackwell, so Cerebras is done. That's not the whole picture. Every AI chip trades speed against volume.
Nvidia wins on volume. One GPU holds 288GB of memory, so it serves lots of users at once, the cheapest way to run big models for the masses.
The catch with $NVDA is speed. Its memory sits next to the chip, not on it, so every token has to travel back and forth. To go fast anyway, Nvidia runs each GPU with only a few users, which wastes most of the chip. That's why Ultrafast costs 6x the normal price and still tops out around ~300 tokens/sec.
Cerebras wins on speed per user. The whole model sits on the chip, and data moves thousands of times faster (21 PB/s vs ~8 TB/s on a GPU). Cerebras ran OpenAI's Ultrafast at 750 tokens/sec in August, on a smaller model, and the new CS-4 does 4,400+.
The catch with $CBRS is memory and bandwidth. Each wafer holds 44GB, so big models get split across many wafers that talk to each other slowly, about a sixth of one Nvidia GPU.
That's likely part of why the new tier went to Nvidia. But CS-4 links wafers 6x faster per rack, and more memory is coming. And speed is where a lot of the demand is heading, not just scale. AI agents work for one user or one task at a time, and every second they wait is lost work. Companies will happily pay for that.
That's why $AMZN and $AMD pair Cerebras with their own chips instead of replacing it. Theirs reads the question, and Cerebras writes the answer.
3. OpenAI and concentration:
Yes, OpenAI is the biggest customer, with a $20B+ deal through 2028 and about a third of last quarter's revenue.
One launch on Nvidia doesn't cancel a multi-year contract though. And the list is growing with Amazon, AMD, $META, Mistral, Perplexity, Cognition, $CRWD and more.
Wall Street already expects ~$3B of revenue and the first real profit in 2027, then ~$7.5B of revenue and ~$3B of free cash in 2028, with ~60% gross margins long term.
4. The $450M loss:
$377M was stock comp, and $274M of that was a one-time IPO catch-up. It's non-cash, and without it the business lost only ~$7M.
Stock comp keeps engineers from leaving for Nvidia, OpenAI or Google, and should run ~$100M+ per quarter until ~2028. The cost is dilution from new grants, roughly 1-2% a year, not cash.
Where I land:
Long term, Cerebras owns a specific job in the AI stack that gets more valuable as demand for fast AI grows.
I'd love to see more chip sales, since ~61% of revenue is cloud today, plus the memory and bandwidth upgrades.
The risks are real, but none of those break the story.
- OpenAI is most of the backlog today, but it won't stay the only big customer.
- Nvidia could get "fast enough" with the Groq technology it licensed, but the market is too big for just one winner.
- Dilution is real, and the lockup plus Q3 earnings could bring short-term volatility.
Do your homework before you panic.
Not financial advice.
@bitcoinbeezy @bitdeer Agree with your hydro analysis. But from a grand scheme of things, the ROI of selling machines and self-mining is comparable, so they do have the flexibility to do either. Add more capacity from TSMC is also not too hard for them