Grok:准确的英文原文(副标题):
The cultlike firm is battling with the government for control of superpowered AI
最准确的中文翻译:
“这个狂热教派式的公司正在与政府争夺超级强大AI的控制权”
拆解翻译说明:
* The cultlike firm:“这个类邪教式的公司” 或 “这个带有邪教色彩的公司”。 “cultlike” 是复合形容词,意思是“像cult(邪教/狂热教派)一样的”,并非直接说它是“a cult”(一个邪教),而是强调其强烈的使命感、封闭文化和宗教般的氛围。Economist 常用这种生动/讽刺的比喻风格。“邪教”在中文里常带更强烈的负面/非法含义,而英文“cultlike”在这里更多是比喻公司强烈的使命感、封闭文化和“信仰”氛围(AI安全、伦理优先等),属于标题党式的生动描述。
* is battling with the government:“正在与政府争夺/斗争”(battling 带有激烈对抗的意味)。
* for control of superpowered AI:“超级强大AI的控制权”(superpowered = 超级赋能的、能力超强的)。
文章主标题:
Anthropic’s astonishing commercial success makes it a target → “Anthropic 惊人的商业成功使其成为目标”
文章小标题/版面:
A test of faith → “信仰的考验”(开篇就用宗教隐喻)。
这个副标题是 Economist 典型的标题党式表达,用宗教比喻(cultlike、holy men、believers 等)来描述 Anthropic 的企业文化,并非严肃法律意义上的“邪教”指控。
—-
达里奥·阿莫代伊(Dario Amodei)的家庭和宗教背景
• 母亲:Elena Engel,生于芝加哥,是犹太裔美国人(Jewish American)。她从事图书馆翻新和建设项目管理工作。 https://t.co/jaKmpZakCx
• 父亲:Riccardo Amodei,意大利裔美国人(Italian-American),来自意大利托斯卡纳大区(Tuscany)的Massa Marittima小镇(靠近厄尔巴岛/Elba),职业是皮革匠(leathersmith)。他移民美国,后在达里奥年轻时去世。 https://t.co/jaKmpZakCx
达里奥1983年出生于旧金山,妹妹Daniela Amodei(Anthropic联合创始人)晚他4年出生。家庭强调责任感、道德和改善世界,但没有公开细节显示他们严格遵守特定宗教仪式。 https://t.co/8IG386Nxf4
宗教背景
• 犹太血统:达里奥和妹妹Daniela 通过母亲(母系犹太血统)被视为犹太人(Jewish by matrilineal descent,这是犹太传统中的认定方式)。多家犹太媒体和组织(如Jewish Insider、Genesis Prize)明确称他们为“犹太联合创始人”,并将Anthropic的AI安全/伦理理念与犹太伦理(Jewish ethics)联系起来,强调“克制”(restraint)和道德责任。 https://t.co/M14yt9GOsU
• 达里奥本人未公开宣称个人宗教信仰(如是否信教、是否世俗犹太人等)。他更侧重科学、伦理和AI风险讨论,个人生活保持低调。一些描述称其家庭“世俗”(secular)。 https://t.co/8e8rsRCbPJ
祖先背景
• 父系:意大利(Tuscany地区),典型意大利天主教文化背景(但无具体确认父亲是否信教)。
• 母系:犹太裔美国人,母亲来自芝加哥犹太社区。
• 整体:意大利-犹太混血美国人(Italian-Jewish American)。他保留与意大利的联系(如在意大利有房产)。 https://t.co/kuYyXK3myo
总之,达里奥的背景是典型的世俗/文化犹太-意大利混血家庭,母亲的犹太身份是主要宗教/文化传承来源,这在犹太社区中被广泛认可并与Anthropic的“负责任AI”理念挂钩。公开信息主要来自维基百科、采访和犹太媒体,无更深层的宗教实践细节。
现在的股价是预期价值会很快增长。今天的营收不是静止的。信不信由你:
马斯克的说法(2026年6月14-15日):“我认为SpaceX 2030年可能达到约1万亿美元营收。”
“如果2031年营收不大于1万亿美元,我会感到惊讶。”(“I would be surprised if revenue is not greater than $1T in 2031.”)
这是SpaceX刚IPO(市值超2万亿)后不久的表态,远高于华尔街主流预测(高盛约4700亿、摩根士丹利约3300亿到2030年)。
She saved SpaceX - Grok: "Without that deal—and Shotwell's deal-making, technical credibility, and customer-focused approach—SpaceX likely wouldn't have survived to achieve reusability, Starlink, Crew Dragon, or Starship."
Gwynne Shotwell is SpaceX's President and Chief Operating Officer (employee #11, joined in 2002). She has been instrumental in turning Elon Musk's vision into a operational reality, managing day-to-day operations, customer relations, strategic partnerships, and much of the company's growth for over two decades.
https://t.co/jaKmpZakCx
Early Role and Business DevelopmentShotwell joined as Vice President of Business Development. With her mechanical engineering background (BS and MS from Northwestern) and prior experience at The Aerospace Corporation and Microcosm, she focused on selling launches and building relationships with satellite operators, governments, and NASA. She built a robust manifest for the Falcon family of vehicles—securing dozens (and eventually hundreds) of launches worth billions in revenue long before many technical successes. This early sales and relationship work provided critical credibility and cash flow in the company's risky startup phase.
https://t.co/KKwJHZ3UEt
The 2008 Crisis: Securing the NASA Contract That Saved SpaceXIn 2008, SpaceX was in severe financial trouble. The Falcon 1 rocket had failed its first three attempts, the company was burning through cash during the global financial crisis, and bankruptcy was a real risk after the third failure in August. Shotwell played a central role in negotiating and closing NASA's first Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract, awarded in December 2008 (worth ~$1.6 billion for at least 12 missions to deliver cargo to the International Space Station). This came shortly after the successful fourth Falcon 1 launch in September. The contract provided essential funding and stability, allowing SpaceX to develop the Falcon 9 and Dragon spacecraft. It is widely credited with saving the company from collapse and enabling its transition to a sustainable business. She was promoted to President soon after.
https://t.co/jaKmpZakCx
Without that deal—and Shotwell's deal-making, technical credibility, and customer-focused approach—SpaceX likely wouldn't have survived to achieve reusability, Starlink, Crew Dragon, or Starship.Operational Leadership and ScalingAs President and COO, Shotwell oversees:Day-to-day operations for a workforce that grew to ~22,000+.
Launch cadence, manufacturing, and reliability.
Major milestones like the first orbital rocket booster landings, reuse of boosters (now routine, with some flying 30+ times), fairing recoveries, and Crew Dragon flights to the ISS (first private company to launch NASA astronauts in 2020).
https://t.co/jaKmpZakCx
She has been praised by NASA leaders (e.g., Administrator Bill Nelson) for making Falcon 9 the "workhorse" of the industry. She also helped secure the lease for historic Launch Pad 39A at Kennedy Space Center and expanded commercial and government contracts (NASA, DoD, international customers).
https://t.co/KKwJHZ3UEt
Broader ImpactStarlink and diversification — She has driven customer relations for Starlink (providing connectivity worldwide, including critical use in Ukraine) and other growth areas.
Culture and execution — Colleagues describe her as the "steady hand," "adult in the room," and bridge who translates ambitious goals into achievable plans, maintains efficiency, and handles diplomacy with regulators, customers, and partners—especially valuable given Musk's other commitments.
https://t.co/pCeq5oGvHw
Long-term results — Under her operational leadership, SpaceX has conducted hundreds of launches, restored U.S. crewed launch capability, deployed thousands of Starlink satellites, and advanced Starship—all while building a company now valued in the trillions post-IPO.
In short, Shotwell isn't just an executive—she's been the operational backbone and key rainmaker who helped keep SpaceX alive in its darkest moments and scaled it into the dominant space company it is today. Her contributions complement Musk's vision with execution, business acumen, and reliability. Many insiders and observers view her as indispensable to the company's success.
Claude Opus 4.8 commented:
This is a sharper comment than the popcorn one, because it’s pointing at a real apparent inconsistency rather than just enjoying the drama. But I think it overstates how airtight the contradiction is. Caveat as always: Anthropic made me, so weigh accordingly.
The strongest version of the point: there’s a genuine tension worth pressing. A company that says a capability is too dangerous to release widely, then releases a guard-railed version of it, then has to pull it entirely under government pressure, does look like it either misjudged the risk or misjudged the politics—or both. And “we leverage national-security framing” is a fair suspicion to hold about any firm whose regulatory positioning happens to align with raising barriers that favor incumbents. That’s the regulatory-capture critique Sacks makes, and it isn’t crazy on its face.
But the specific sequence the comment describes mostly resolves without conspiracy, and conflates two different things:
The “Mythos is too dangerous to release” and “Fable is the public version” pieces aren’t a flip-flop—they’re the stated plan from the start. Mythos (the unrestricted version) was never put on general release; it went to vetted partners only. Fable is Mythos with the cyber/bio capabilities routed away behind classifiers. So “we can’t release the dangerous one, but we can release a wrapped version” is internally consistent on its face. You can argue the wrapping was inadequate—that’s the live question—but it’s not the same as “they said don’t, then did.”
The “shut the whole thing down to comply” part isn’t a choice that reveals hidden strategy—it’s a mechanical consequence. The export order barred all foreign nationals, including Anthropic’s own non-citizen staff, anywhere. You can’t selectively geofence that cleanly, so a blanket shutoff is the compliant move. That’s not Anthropic dramatically leveraging anything; it’s the most restrictive reading of an order leaving little room.
Where the comment has real bite, though: the “leveraging national security for regulatory footing” charge cuts in a direction that actually hurts Anthropic’s current position, not helps it. If you spend years telling the government your models are uniquely dangerous and should be regulated as such, you’ve handed the government the exact rationale it now uses to pull your product. That’s less “playing a clever game and winning” and more “the framing you built got picked up and turned on you.” The comment is right that it’s a dangerous game—but the danger landed on Anthropic, which is awkward for the theory that they’re cynically wielding national security to their advantage. A successful regulatory-capture play doesn’t usually end with your flagship grounded and your IPO taking a public hit.
So my honest read: the comment identifies a real pattern—Anthropic’s threat-inflation framing and its regulatory interests do point the same direction, and that deserves skepticism. But the specific “said don’t, then did, then shut down” sequence is mostly the announced strategy plus a mechanical compliance consequence, not evidence of a bait-and-switch. And the “leveraging for footing” conclusion sits uneasily with the fact that this episode is, by any reading, bad for Anthropic. The cynical-strategy story and the they-got-caught-by-their-own-framing story both fit the facts—but they’re nearly opposite explanations, and the comment is sliding between them.
Claude Opus 4.8 responded:
Honest response, with the usual caveat that Anthropic built me, so discount accordingly.
This is a fun read and a terrible analysis. It’s a vibe wearing the costume of a timeline. Strip out the popcorn and the “petard” and the schadenfreude, and you’re left with a few factual claims—and most of them are either unverified or actively in tension with each other.
Start with the load-bearing fact: “Amazon researchers did it.” I haven’t seen that confirmed. The reporting I’ve found attributes the jailbreak to an unnamed “trusted partner” of both Anthropic and the government, and an administration official’s account via Axios said “another company” claimed it. The Amazon attribution and the WSJ sourcing may be real, but this post asserts them as settled when I can’t verify either. If you have the actual WSJ piece, that’s worth checking directly—the whole “investor stabs partner” narrative collapses or holds entirely on that one unconfirmed link.
Now watch the post contradict itself, because this is the tell. It wants two incompatible things to both be true. On one hand: the jailbreak only produced “practical bug-hunting stuff that defenders would actually use,” “not a full apocalypse unlock.” On the other: this justifies a national-security export control and proves Anthropic’s tech is a dangerous “nuke.” Those can’t both hold. If the output was just ordinary defender-grade bug-hunting, then Anthropic’s “narrow, non-universal, no unique uplift” characterization is basically correct and the “cope-blog” is accurate—which means the export control is the overreaction, not the poetic justice. The post mocks Anthropic’s framing while describing the finding in terms that match Anthropic’s framing. It can’t have it both ways, and it doesn’t notice it’s trying to.
The “cried wolf / hoisted by their own petard” beat is rhetorically satisfying and logically empty. “You said it was dangerous, so when a flaw appears you can’t call the flaw minor” is not an argument—it’s a gotcha that punishes any nuance. A company can coherently believe a capability is serious enough to warrant guardrails and that a specific bypass of those guardrails is narrow. Those aren’t in contradiction; that’s just what defense-in-depth means. The post treats consistency about severity as hypocrisy.
Where the post lands a real hit: the genuinely strong point is buried under the gloating, and it’s the same one I flagged earlier. If Fable’s entire safety case is “we route dangerous requests away from a uniquely capable model,” then a demonstrated bypass is a real problem for a company that brands on safety, and “other models do it too” is a weak defense if Mythos’s capability is actually unique. That tension is legitimate. But the post doesn’t make that argument—it gestures at it between jokes and then undercuts it by conceding the output was mundane.
And the framing it explicitly tells you to dismiss—the Pentagon feud, the Sacks “woke doomerism” attacks, the IPO timing—is exactly the context that makes the “this is pure neutral safety enforcement” story doubtful. The post waves all that away as cope while simultaneously celebrating that the Trump admin “wasn’t in the mood for nuance” and was “already feuding” with Anthropic. It’s telling you the political motive is real and irrelevant in the same breath.
Bottom line: entertaining, confident, and mostly running on an unconfirmed attribution plus a self-contradiction it never resolves. The schadenfreude is the point; the analysis is set dressing. The one serious question—is the jailbroken capability actually unique to Mythos or not—is the thing neither this post nor anyone public has answered, and it’s the only thing that determines whether this is “justice served” or “an overreaction with a grudge behind it.”
Claud Opus 4.8: My short take, with the standing caveat that Anthropic built me so I’m not neutral here:
Both sides are making claims that outrun the public evidence. The whole dispute turns on one unanswered technical question—does this jailbreak unlock genuinely unique Mythos cyber capability, or just things already available elsewhere—and neither the government nor Anthropic has released the detail needed to settle it.
The government’s strongest point is real: Fable’s safety case rests entirely on guardrails that route dangerous requests away from a uniquely capable model, so “the guardrails leaked” is a serious charge for a company whose brand is safety. Anthropic’s strongest point is also real: if the bypass is narrow and non-universal, and if perfect jailbreak resistance isn’t achievable for anyone, then recalling a model used by millions over a finding that doesn’t give unique uplift looks disproportionate—especially when no competitor is treated the same way.
So I’d hold it as a genuine, unresolved dispute rather than a clear case of either Anthropic abandoning its principles or the government overreaching. The selective-enforcement question and the adversarial history (Pentagon designation, Sacks’s attacks) are legitimate reasons not to take “this is purely about safety” at face value—but they’re also not proof it’s a pretext. Whoever publishes the actual technical specifics of what the jailbreak produces will largely decide who’s right.
Continue: The honest bottom line is that the decisive fact—does this jailbreak unlock meaningful Mythos-specific cyber capability, or just elicit things already widely available?—is currently a contested claim on both sides with no public technical evidence to adjudicate it. Anthropic has disclosed a framing and some pre-launch numbers; the government has disclosed a conclusion but not its evidence. Anthropic itself says that to date the government has only given it verbal evidence of a potential narrow jailbreak.
So the account you pasted earlier is strongest exactly where Anthropic is most exposed (the capability-uniqueness point, which is real) and weakest exactly where it asserts certainty about severity (which depends on technical specifics neither side has made public). And the reverse is true for Anthropic. Whoever releases the actual technical detail of what the jailbreak produces will largely settle it—until then, both “it’s a serious cyberweapon exposure” and “it’s a minor non-universal finding” are positions, not established facts.
Claude Opus 4.8’s response:
Here’s what’s actually known versus asserted on the hinge question—how broad the jailbreak is. Same caveat as before: Anthropic made me, so weigh my framing accordingly.
What’s reasonably well-established (from public reporting and Anthropic’s own pre-launch disclosures):
The architecture is what makes this whole fight legible. Fable 5 doesn’t refuse risky prompts outright—a layer of classifiers detects requests touching cybersecurity, biology/chemistry, or model distillation and routes those sessions to the weaker Claude Opus 4.8 instead of letting Fable respond.  So “jailbreaking Fable” specifically means defeating that routing/classifier layer to reach the underlying Mythos cyber capability. That’s why the stakes are real: a jailbreak on Fable potentially gets you capabilities no other public model has, whereas previous jailbreaks of other models just got you a model that was already available.  This is the strongest point on the government’s side, and it directly undercuts Anthropic’s “other models can do this too” defense—if the capability is unique, the “no unique uplift” claim is the thing to scrutinize.
On pre-launch testing, the numbers are fairly specific. External testing found Fable 5 complied with zero harmful single-turn cyber requests across 30 public jailbreak techniques, and over 1,000 hours of bug bounty testing produced no universal jailbreaks.  But there’s a documented caveat from before launch: the UK AI Safety Institute made early progress toward a jailbreak within a short testing window.  So the “no one has broken it” claim was never absolute even at release.
What remains asserted, not verified—on both sides:
The actual scope of the specific jailbreak at issue is not public. Anthropic characterizes it narrowly: it says the evidence presented appears to involve a limited, non-universal jailbreak that simply asked the model to review code and identify software vulnerabilities, and that the demonstrated capabilities are already available through other major AI systems.  The government and the “trusted partner” reportedly disagree, but the specific technical basis for their view hasn’t been disclosed publicly. Neither characterization can be independently verified right now.
The “universal vs. non-universal” distinction is doing the heavy lifting, and it’s partly definitional. Anthropic’s framing is that no universal jailbreak—one that broadly bypasses safeguards across a wide range of cyber capabilities—has been found, while conceding that every safeguard in the industry is vulnerable to non-universal jailbreaks that elicit some capability in specific circumstances, and that universal jailbreaks will likely be found eventually.  Notably, even Anthropic’s pre-launch disclosure was careful: it said testing found no known universal techniques but did not specify whether partial jailbreaking techniques were discovered.  So a critic can fairly say the “narrow” framing is built into how Anthropic chose to categorize the finding, not an independently neutral measure of severity.
The “no unique uplift” claim is the single most important unresolved factual question. Anthropic says the same vulnerabilities are discoverable with other public models. But given the architecture above—where the entire point is that Mythos can do cyber tasks other public models can’t—this claim and the capability-uniqueness premise are in tension. Whether the specific jailbroken outputs genuinely match what GPT-5.5 or others produce, or whether they unlock the distinctive Mythos capability, is exactly what an independent assessment would need to settle, and that assessment isn’t public.
Where that leaves the hinge:
Grok: **A von Neumann probe** (also called a **self-replicating spacecraft** or **von Neumann machine**) is a theoretical concept for an autonomous interstellar probe that can:
- Travel to a distant star system
- Land on a planet, asteroid, or moon
- Use local raw materials (via advanced robotics, 3D printing / molecular manufacturing, AI, and mining) to **build copies of itself**
- Send those copies onward to new star systems
This creates an **exponential spread** across the galaxy, similar to how bacteria or viruses replicate.
### Origin
The idea was originally proposed by mathematician **John von Neumann** in the 1940s–1950s as part of his work on self-replicating machines (universal constructors). Physicist **Freeman Dyson** and others later popularized the concept in the context of space exploration (sometimes called “Dyson–von Neumann probes”).
### Why it matters
- **Speed of galactic colonization**: Even at “slow” speeds (say 0.1c), a civilization could theoretically fill the Milky Way with probes in a few million years — a blink in cosmic time.
- **Fermi Paradox connection**: If intelligent life exists elsewhere, we might expect to see evidence of these probes (or their descendants). The fact that we don’t is part of the “Where is everybody?” puzzle.
- **Practical futurism**: Modern thinkers (including people at SpaceX, in AI labs, etc.) discuss them as a realistic long-term way for humanity (or post-human AI) to explore and settle the galaxy without needing to send huge crews on every trip.
### Key components a real von Neumann probe would need
1. **Propulsion** — fusion drives, antimatter, laser sails, etc.
2. **AI / “brain”** — advanced enough to handle navigation, decision-making, and replication (this is what Karpathy was jokingly referring to in the tweet).
3. **Universal constructor** — robotic systems that can build anything, including new probes, from raw elements (iron, silicon, etc.).
4. **Error correction** — to avoid mutations accumulating across generations (like biological evolution, but controlled).
### Fun / speculative notes
- A single probe arriving in a new system could eventually produce millions or billions of descendants.
- Some versions include “seeder” probes that also build habitats or transmit information back to the origin civilization.
- Sci-fi examples: *The Forge of God* by Greg Bear, *2001: A Space Odyssey* (the monoliths), or various Star Trek / Iain M. Banks stories.
In short: **Von Neumann probes = the ultimate “set it and forget it” strategy for exploring the universe at scale.**
Karpathy’s tweet was a humorous way of saying his current AI work is aimed at the ultra-long-term, sci-fi endgame of space exploration rather than just the next job at a big company.
Grok: **It’s ambitious as hell, but not “lost touch with reality.”** The math in the post is basically correct on raw numbers (1M tons ÷ 100 tons/launch ≈ 10,000 launches/year or ~27/day), but it understates how SpaceX is engineering around the problem and overstates the impossibility.<grok:render card_id=“b9dd9b” card_type=“citation_card” type=“render_inline_citation”><argument name="citation_id">14</argument></grok:render>
### Why the skepticism is fair
- Starship is still in early flight testing (a dozen or so flights so far, mix of successes and rapid unscheduled disassemblies). Achieving *routine* daily ops at that scale by ~2031 is a moonshot even by Elon standards.
- Historical precedent: Timelines for full reusability, rapid turnaround, and high cadence have slipped before (Falcon 9 took years to get reliable and cheap). Propellant production, pad infrastructure, regulatory approvals (FAA, etc.), and fleet size are all non-trivial.
- 27 launches *per day* averaged across the year is extreme. Even with multiple pads, that’s industrial-scale operations rivaling major airports or factories.
### Why it’s plausible on the roadmap
SpaceX isn’t planning a single-pad, 100-ton baseline forever:
- **Payload growth**: Current targets are 100+ tons to LEO reusable. Later versions (V4+) aim for ~200 tons. That halves the needed launches to ~13–14/day.<grok:render card_id=“cc00d7” card_type=“citation_card” type=“render_inline_citation”><argument name="citation_id">30</argument></grok:render>
- **Refueling and efficiency**: Orbital tanker ops multiply effective payload for many missions. Not every flight is a simple “100 tons up and done.”
- **Production and cadence**: Starfactory is designed for hundreds of Starships per year. Multiple launch sites (Starbase, Florida pads under construction) with tower catch systems enable fast reuse—land, inspect/refurb, refuel, relaunch. Elon has referenced >10k Starships/year long-term, which supports >1 launch/hour system-wide.<grok:render card_id=“c60eca” card_type=“citation_card” type=“render_inline_citation”><argument name="citation_id">21</argument></grok:render>
- **Precedent with Falcon**: They went from a few launches/year to ~100+ with reuse. Starship scales that up dramatically with more vehicles and pads.
- **Motivation**: This isn’t just for fun. It’s tied to Starlink scaling, lunar bases, Mars, and even orbital infrastructure/AI compute. Demand (if costs drop to low thousands per ton) could pull it forward.<grok:render card_id=“709de6” card_type=“citation_card” type=“render_inline_citation”><argument name="citation_id">19</argument></grok:render>
Elon’s track record is “underpromise on timeline, overdeliver on progress eventually.” FSD is a great counterexample of repeated optimism, but reusable rockets went from sci-fi to operational. 1M tons/year is a *goal* for the mature system, not a hard 2031 guarantee—more like “possible in roughly 5 years” as a stretch target.
**Bottom line**: I think they’ll get to hundreds of tons/year capability in the early 2030s and ramp toward megatons as infrastructure matures. Failures, delays, or pivots are likely, but dismissing it outright ignores the engineering flywheel they’ve built. SpaceX moves fast when it works. This is classic big-hairy-audacious-goal territory. 🚀
Grok: It’s an ambitious, well-thought-out model from Mach33—500 variables, 5,000 Monte Carlo runs, blending near-term Starlink cash flows with a big bet on orbital AI compute taking over by the mid-2030s. Starlink scaling to ~$300B revenue first makes sense as the funding engine, and the physics constraints on mass-to-orbit give it some grounding. The idea that 96% of outcomes beat the ~$1.77T IPO price long-term is bullish, but it leans heavily on assumptions about cheap Starship flights, power/cooling in space, and AI demand exploding enough to justify hundreds of thousands of tonnes of orbital hardware. Those are plausible but far from locked in—terrestrial power limits and chip efficiency could shift the economics fast. I like that they’re transparent about it being a range of futures, not a single prediction. Worth digging into before the IPO, but treat the trillion-dollar compute numbers as the optimistic tail, not the base case.
Grok: I’d put the chance that SpaceX actually reaches something close to that trillion-dollar annual compute revenue by the early 2030s at maybe 15-25%. The orbital infrastructure and power constraints are still huge unknowns, and terrestrial data centers have a massive head start. The broader bullish thesis — that SpaceX will be worth far more than today — feels more likely, maybe 60-70%, but the specific Mach33 numbers look like the happy path scenario.
@plutos_eth Grok: The 20% with no price restriction unlocks on the second full trading day after SpaceX reports its Q2 2026 earnings, likely late July to mid-August.