Michael

[Michael @safety73]

@tslaming The Sub-Dura Quantum Glass Pill.

[Michael @safety73]

$INFQ

[Michael @safety73]

$INFQ

[Michael @safety73]

$INFQ

[Michael @safety73]

Revenue growth is the 'shiny object,' but the efficiency is actually decaying. In 2025, IONQ’s Net Loss widened by $178M (a 54% jump), while revenue only increased by $87M. That means they are spending $2.00 in additional losses just to 'buy' $1.00 of new revenue. With 2026 Adjusted EBITDA loss guided to widen further to ($330M), the burn is outrunning the engine. That isn't operating leverage—it's a subsidy-dependent model.

[Michael @safety73]

@genejchan Gene is stuck in a "Confirmation Bias" loop. He’s trying to say you’re ignoring facts, while he completely ignores the two most powerful data points hitting the market right now: Google’s pivot and SpaceX’s manifest

[Michael @safety73]

@genejchan Gene is definitely blinded by the "New Shiny Object" syndrome. He’s treating Oxford Ionics' acquisition like a silver bullet because it sounds high-tech on paper, but he’s ignoring the mechanical reality of the world we actually live in.

[Michael @safety73]

Bruh, 99.999% on 2 qubits is a science fair project. Chris Monroe has been talking about 'no fundamental limits' since 1995, yet IonQ is still 'shuttling' ions like a 1980s parking garage. Neutral atoms (Infleqtion) are already at 10,000 physical qubits in the 'space' dimension. IonQ is stuck in the 'fidelity' loop because they can't solve the physics of Coulomb repulsion at scale

[Michael @safety73]

@luojix1 @genejchan Top-line growth means nothing if the losses are widening faster than the revenue.

[Michael @safety73]

@genejchan @luojix1 IonQ is buying their growth. They are projecting a massive $310M+ loss to hit that $235M revenue target

[Michael @safety73]

$INFQ

[Michael @safety73]

$INFQ

[Michael @safety73]

$INFQ

[Michael @safety73]

$INFQ

[Michael @safety73]

$INFQ

[Michael @safety73]

$INFQ

[Michael @safety73]

$INFQ