Galaxy reports tomorrow before the open. Since early September, the stock has cratered 43%, landing near $15 today, and it has nothing to do with Galaxy’s execution. It is fallout from its tenant, CoreWeave, and the broader AI rout. Over the last 90 days $GLXY has moved with CoreWeave, not bitcoin. And the last Q2 report didn't help either: an $85M net loss and a 14% drop on the day. But Q3 can be a real game-changer. Here's what I'm expecting tomorrow:

Instacart reportedly offered itself to Uber. Uber reportedly said no. As an Uber holder, that news didn't surprise me. On Thursday, it came out that Instacart, worth about $12B, is exploring a sale and had early talks with Uber and DoorDash. The stock jumped 9% to $56.44. Uber and DoorDash both fell about 3.5%. Then after the close it was reported that Uber had already walked away, and an Uber official said there are no talks right now. That leaves DoorDash as the only named buyer. Here's why I think passing was the right call. Uber says openly that it measures every acquisition against their own hurdle rate, including buying back its own stock. So a deal only happens if the price is good enough to beat that. If Uber said no, my guess is the price was too high for the upside it saw. At the right price, I think Uber would still have done it. Uber also already has a lot on its plate. It's buying Delivery Hero for $14.8B and ezCater for $2.3B, both in cash. A typical 30-40% premium would put Instacart at roughly $15.6-16.7B on top of that. Together, all three would come to about $33B, more than three years of Uber's free cash flow. Buybacks already dropped to $510M last quarter from $1.4B a year earlier. And Uber is already beating Instacart in grocery without buying it. Uber's grocery business is growing about 40% a year, Instacart's about 13%. Why pay a premium for the rival you're taking share from? The bull case for a deal is real though. Grocery is the biggest delivery category left. Instacart brings 2,200 retailers, an ads business doing around $300M a quarter, and about $1.3B of EBITDA expected this year. It would have closed the grocery gap in one move. The risk now is DoorDash. If it buys Instacart, it leads US restaurant delivery and grocery delivery at the same time. That's a much harder antitrust case, but if it clears, Uber Eats is a clear No. 2 in the US. Uber is priced at about 13x free cash flow, whereas DoorDash commands closer to 37x. To me, that gap reflects an opportunity. Uber has the scale and breadth to steadily siphon share from DoorDash over time. It is global, it is not a one-trick delivery business, and it can lean into platform network effects. That could mean outspending on customer acquisition or rolling out differentiated perks and functionality that pure-play delivery apps cannot easily match. UBER is one of the main stocks in my Milk Road portfolio. You can see it here: link.milkroad.com/Martin

Morgan Stanley's worst case for Galaxy is $16. The stock closed Friday at $14.68. TeraWulf is even further off. The bank's bear case is $17.50, and it closed at $11.32. I own both. Morgan Stanley reiterated Overweight last week, with base targets of $65 on TeraWulf and $43 on Galaxy, and called the selloff a buying opportunity. Four of the seven names in its table (TeraWulf, Galaxy, Hut 8 and Riot) now trade below the bank's own bear case. So either the bear case is too generous, or the market is pricing something worse than a bad year. I think it's pricing the second one: money for building drying up. Elon said it bluntly on Sunday. Debt markets have "almost entirely shut off access to money for any company that doesn't have substantial revenue independent of AI data centers." These landlords build mostly with borrowed money, so that sentence covers them too. He's right about the debt markets. But I think the risk is smaller here than for the neoclouds. These companies raise money to buy land, put up buildings, and connect them to power. They keep owning the land and buildings, and buildings depreciate over 25 years or more. Whatever happens to the AI trade, those assets don't go away. The rent they build against usually comes from hyperscalers or neoclouds, so the tenant risk is real. But I find it hard to imagine we'll use less of those services in the future than we do today. Whoever owns the land, buildings, and grid connection owns a valuable asset. Still, this capital-intensive phase is touching everyone, and anyone looking for funding will likely have to pay a steeper price for it, assuming they can secure any at all. But here is the other side of this trade: Morgan Stanley's TeraWulf target is about double the Street average of around $33. It also leads TeraWulf's credit line, which just got upsized to about $400M. They might be biased. And Galaxy's only Helios tenant is CoreWeave, whose funding gap banks put anywhere from $23B to $76B. The next tenant will definitely help. For all the noise, the market is pricing these PSPs at levels, and with implied upside, that are hard to look past. This is not a free lunch, but the asset base puts a floor under the downside, while the ceiling is essentially set by how much pricing power they can extract at the table. Galaxy reports Q3 tomorrow before the open. I want to see a profitable crypto business and any news on a second Helios tenant. PSPs are 13.6% of my portfolio on Milk Road. You can see the rest here: link.milkroad.com/Martin

SK hynix is reportedly weighing a special dividend of about 16T won (~$12B). If it happens, SK Square holders would get a bigger slice than direct SK Hynix shareholders. The payout would be about 23,000 won per share, roughly 1.8% of SK hynix's market value. Nice, not life-changing. SK Square owns 20.68% of SK hynix, so it would collect about 3.31T won (~$2.5B). But SK Square trades at a 46.6% discount to its holdings. So that same cash equals about 3.2% of SK Square's market value, close to double what a direct holder gets. For scale, SK Square's whole 2026 shareholder return plan is 310B won. This one payment would be about 10x that. The money would come from SK Hynix's old Kioxia stake, roughly 80% of an estimated 20T won gain. Nothing is decided yet. SK Hynix says it's reviewing options; nothing is final, and the board will decide on Wednesday with Q3 results. Back in August I wrote that special dividends could land on top of the record buyback, with the full plan coming at Q3. That's this week. The bear case is that the market won't pay for peak-cycle earnings, and a big one-off payout is what companies do at the top. Goldman just cut its KOSPI target from 12,000 to 9,000, though it stayed overweight, and says memory stocks are priced for a ~65% drop in 2027 earnings. Goldman calls that too pessimistic. I agree. In a flat-stock scenario, SK hynix trades under 2x forward earnings by the end of 2027. The catch for SK Square is that the cash lands at the holding company first. Shareholders only see it if SK Square passes it on or buys back stock, and so far its return plan says nothing about special dividends. I think this is about to change. Wednesday's SK Hynix board decision, alongside its buyback program, will be a key thing to watch. The second is whether SK Square says what it does with the money. I’m still firmly bullish on memory. It’s the largest slice of my Milk Road portfolio. See the full breakdown here: link.milkroad.com/Martin

Companies keep using more AI every month, but for two months now, they haven't paid more for it. Spending on AI tokens (what businesses pay the labs to run their models) grew just 1% in August and 0.2% in September, the slowest since last November. And it doesn't look like a summer lull. The price per token is down about 41% from the March peak, so companies run a lot more through the models while the bill barely moves. No surprise that once AI got cheaper, people started relying on it far more; that is the predictable twist known as the Jevons paradox. What bugs me is who's paying. Apollo found that 80% of the top 1% of AI spenders are VC-backed. So the biggest token buyers are mostly paying with investors' money, not profits. The bull side says this is fine. A cheap token burns roughly the same compute as an expensive one, so more usage on a flat bill is great news for chips and memory. I mostly agree. Volume is what memory sells into.. But volume only keeps growing if someone keeps funding it. If VC money slows, flat spend turns into falling spend, and the first to feel it are the neoclouds renting GPUs to labs and startups. The questions I keep coming back to is who is going to spend hundreds of billions on AI? Hyperscalers use most of their compute today for their own products, and EPS growth has been strong every quarter. But the rest of the market hasn't caught up yet. One caveat: the data below comes from a small sample of companies, so I'd treat the exact numbers loosely and the direction seriously. Microsoft and Google report Wednesday; Amazon on Thursday. I want to hear whether cloud growth is holding and who is actually renting all that compute. It is less about the backlog number and more about the quality of that customer, and how that contract is financed. Follow me @m0xt_ for more market updates and insights.

Tesla is sitting on its biggest pile of cash ever. The real question is what it's for. Cash and short-term investments hit a record $45.4B in Q3, just above the $44.7B high from March. Take out about $9.3B of debt, most of which isn't backed by Tesla itself, and that's roughly $36B of net cash. Free cash flow came in positive at $1.53B, but about $2.6B of that was timing: bills not paid yet and deposits coming in. Without it, free cash flow was about -$1.1B. Honestly, plus or minus a billion doesn't change the game for me. What matters more is that Tesla cut this year's capex to about $20B, down from "over $25B". That's interesting, though it's fair to note capex is guided up again for 2027 and 2028. Now here's where it gets interesting. Raising money is getting expensive, because everyone is out in the markets asking for it right now, and Tesla and SpaceX are no exception. But among the biggest companies, only Alphabet and Toyota hold more net cash than Tesla, while Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta all carry net debt at this point. On top of that, Tesla just signed $30B of new credit lines with banks that it hasn't used yet. So the money for Optimus/Cybercab production, factory buildout, and maybe a SpaceX deal (a merger committee is confirmed, no terms yet) is already lined up, rather than something it has to go out and raise. Tesla has never been a cheap multiple. It is still hovering near 218x trailing adjusted earnings, but it has a track record of turning bold forecasts into lived reality. While everyone else scrambles for fresh capital, Tesla appears to have financing largely under control, so its momentum likely will not be what breaks. Don’t expect their profits to suddenly jump over the next few quarters, but it’s hard to ignore where Tesla seems to be headed. A deal with SpaceX feels more like a matter of when, not if. If they end up together, the company could be worth tens of billions sooner than a lot of people expect. Keep investing little by little, and don’t count on getting rich overnight. That’s exactly what I’m about to pull off with my Milk Road portfolio: link.milkroad.com/Martin

Mastercard, Stripe and Coinbase have all paid billions for crypto plumbing. Galaxy owns one too. Look at the price tags. Mastercard closed its BVNK deal in August for up to $1.8B. Stripe paid $1.1B for Bridge. Coinbase paid $2.9B for Deribit, and Ripple paid $1.25B for Hidden Road. This week Visa was reported to be in talks for Fireblocks at about $2.5B, which Fireblocks denies. Big payment companies and banks keep paying $1-3B for crypto infrastructure with recurring fees and institutional clients. Now apply that to Galaxy. Leave Helios out, and Galaxy still runs a trading and lending desk with over 1,700 counterparties, plus $7.1B in assets it manages or stakes. BlackRock and Morgan Stanley both picked it as a validator for their staked ETH funds, and BNY signed it up as a design partner for staking. Last quarter, that business made about $66M in gross profit, about $17M of it from fees, staking, and custody. Here's where it gets interesting. Run that business for a full year, and it makes roughly $160-195M of gross profit from trading and lending, plus about $70M from fees, staking, and custody. Put about 5x on the trading side and 8x on the fee side, in line with the deals above, and you get roughly $0.8-1B plus about $0.55B. That's about $1.3-1.5B in total. One broker says the stock gives the crypto business "effectively no value", because everyone is staring at the data center campus. For context, they still bled $9M last quarter and crypto deal flow slowed in Q3. But earnings hit Tuesday, and I’m betting the crypto segment finally turns profitable and catches the market off guard. Galaxy is still my largest position on Milk Road PRO. See my portfolio here: link.milkroad.com/Martin

There's a lot of noise about NEAR right now, so let me break it down. NEAR has two products worth knowing: NEAR Intents, a cross-chain swap engine that just had its biggest month ever, and NEAR AI, which keeps your AI prompts private in a way you can actually check. Now here's where it gets interesting. One of them doesn't even need a blockchain. And then there's the bigger question: does any of this matter for the token? A lot of people seem to be buying NEAR simply because it sits where AI, crypto, and privacy meet, probably three of the year's hottest stories. But a good story and a token that earns from it aren't the same thing. Start with Near Intents. You just state the result you want, like "swap my USDT on Ethereum into ZEC." Professional trading firms compete to fill it, and NEAR settles it. You never hold or even see NEAR. Wallets like Ledger, Brave, Rabby, and Solflare already support it. September hit a record $4.80B, about 10x what it was a year earlier, and roughly $160M a day. October has cooled to about $132M a day. Here's the catch for holders. In the last 30 days, Intents made about $7.33M in fees. About $2.34M of that goes to NEAR, and it buys NEAR on the market. But new NEAR is issued at 2.5% a year, so the buyback covers only about a sixth of the new supply. Meanwhile, daily active accounts on NEAR itself are down 79% from a year ago. The bear case is real too. The volume spikes line up with ZEC privacy trading, an exploit of about $3.8M on Oct 1, paused Intents, and September was one parabolic month. You can't ignore these things either.

Aave doesn't need to find its next million users. Coinbase, Circle and Lido are bringing them. That's the real idea behind Aave V4. Instead of one lender building every market itself, V4 is a platform. There's one shared pool of money, the Hub, and separate lending markets, the Spokes, that plug into it. Each Spoke has its own collateral and risk rules, but they all draw on the same liquidity. Now here's where it gets interesting. Every partner that plugs in brings its own users, and those users tap money that's already sitting in the pool. Lido, EtherFi, Ethena and Tether's gold token are live. Coinbase's tokenized stocks on Base, like Apple, Nvidia and Tesla, can now be used as collateral to borrow USDC. Circle went live on its own chain, Arc, in September. In other words, Aave doesn't have to build each market from scratch. Partners bring the users, and the shared pool gets deeper with every one that joins. That's the flywheel. And it's working. V4 went from zero at launch in March to over $1.1B deposited and about $426M borrowed. In the last month alone, deposits grew about 30% and loans about 50%. To be fair, there are real catches. This isn't open to everyone: each new Spoke needs an Aave DAO vote, while Morpho lets anyone create a market. Rewards are still being used to kick-start some markets. And V4 is still a small slice of Aave. On risk, each Spoke carries only the risk it signs up for: its own collateral, its own limits, its own liquidation rules. The Hub gives every Spoke a capped credit line, so a bad market can't empty the whole pool. I’m excited to see V4 keep scaling. This feels like Aave’s next big growth lever. Tokenized equities could be a compelling adoption wedge too, since they will likely be lent out for yield in the end, value that brokers mostly capture today. Follow me @m0xt_ for more market updates.

SK hynix fell 52%. Bitcoin didn't move. Now it's happening again. From June 22 to July 29, Bitcoin was flat. Over the same stretch, the Nasdaq 100 fell 10%, chip stocks fell 29%, Micron fell 39%, Korea's KOSPI fell 38%, and SK hynix fell 52%. Now here's where it gets interesting. Since October 2, bitcoin is down 3%, about the same as the Nasdaq 100, down 4%. Meanwhile, chips are down 14%, Micron 16%, the KOSPI 21%, and SK hynix 31%. Coinbase's own line is that "the market is no longer treating bitcoin as a leveraged proxy for technology." In other words, for years bitcoin traded like a high-beta tech stock. In the last two AI drawdowns, it didn't. To be fair, there's a less flattering read. Bitcoin sat out the AI rally before all this: from April 22 to June 22, it fell 18% while SK hynix rose 139%. So it may have held up simply because nobody was crowded into it, not because it suddenly got strong. It's still about 34% below its record close, and two windows aren't a trend yet. Still, when the AI trade cracks, bitcoin isn't falling with it anymore. That makes it a very different thing to own. On top of that, J.P. Morgan projects bitcoin will return about 10% a year over the next 10 years, ahead of REITs, gold, stocks, a 60/40 portfolio, and bonds. So the key question is: were the last two drawdowns just a coincidence, with bitcoin bouncing back after its own big drop earlier, or has the link between bitcoin and the AI trade really broken? If it's the second, I want a lot more bitcoin in my portfolio. You can see my portfolio in real time here: link.milkroad.com/Martin

Solana wins in tokenized stock trading. The bigger prize is where the money stays. Yesterday I noted that Solana leads weekly tokenized-stock trading with roughly 31% of volume, but volume share alone isn’t the most important metric. Solana took back the #1 spot in trading after 14 weeks behind, ahead of BNB Chain at 26% and Robinhood Chain at 25%. Its stocks change hands fast: about 18% of all tokenized stocks on Solana trade every single day. Solana got there by being first. xStocks launched on Solana in June 2025 with Kraken and Bybit, and the big Solana apps and wallets supported it from day one. Now look where the value is actually sitting. Of the $4.4B in tokenized stocks, BNB Chain holds $1.6B, Solana $1.1B, and Ethereum $841M. Solana is growing fast and just moved past Ethereum, but BNB Chain still holds the most, even though it trades less. In other words, leading the trading doesn't mean leading the money. And Solana's trading lead is shrinking too: from clear market dominance in January to 31% now. The reason is distribution. Binance put its stocks on BNB Chain. Robinhood built its own chain. Coinbase launched stocks on Base. The firms that own the customer relationship choose the rails, and unsurprisingly, they often choose their own. Also, some of the existing volume is paid for with trading incentives, and very fast turnover isn't the same as people holding stocks. The whole market is still small at $4.4B. Volume matters, but distribution is king. Whoever owns the customer decides where the stocks live, and that's a huge advantage. The real prize is the chain where the money stays, and the liquidity piles up. Right now that's BNB Chain, with Solana closing in. Will that hold up over time? If you’re launching from zero with barely any users, the pragmatic move is to use an existing blockchain. But once you’ve already built an audience, you’re motivated to keep them on your own rails. Why let activity and value spill over to someone else’s chain? In the end, we’re probably heading toward a landscape of many chains that are tightly linked and truly interoperable. I can anchor my community on my own chain while still tapping into the full menu of what the broader crypto ecosystem offers. That’s likely why Coinbase and Robinhood chose to build on Ethereum, since it matches the direction Ethereum is heading. And here's what could change the game: agents. Right now BNB Chain leads because Binance brings massive distribution and a huge user base. Solana leads the trading because it's probably the most technically advanced chain, with a big base of developers, users, and liquidity. But as AI agents start doing more and more of the activity for us, the reasons people stick to one chain (brand, habit, plain laziness) start to fade. An agent just goes where the liquidity and the tech are best. If Solana becomes that neutral layer agents actually choose, that's a big win for it. So which chain do you think ends up as the ultimate winner, the one agents use and where the deepest ecosystem and liquidity end up?

Stablecoins have quietly become a payment network that never closes, and AI agents are starting to use it. The problem is that almost nobody is paying real money through it yet. A new report from Coinbase and The Block, "The Always-On Dollar", puts some hard numbers on the first part. Stablecoins now move about $400M an hour in organic transfers, every hour of every day. Adjusted volume hit $891B in Q3 2026 and has been growing roughly 50% a year. Now here's where it gets interesting. AI agents can pay online in two ways, and they're the two lines on this chart. The first is x402. It started at Coinbase and now sits under the Linux Foundation, with members like Visa, Mastercard, Google, AWS, Cloudflare, and Stripe. It's pay-per-request: an agent buys a single API call, a bit of data, or a few seconds of compute, pays in stablecoins (mostly USDC) on any chain, and needs no account or subscription. It has processed 249M payments since launch, and 18.8M in September alone, after filtering out self-dealing, circular, and incentivized transfers. The second is MPP, the Machine Payments Protocol from Stripe and Tempo, a blockchain Stripe incubated. It launched on March 18 and is at 3.6M payments. It can charge per request too, but it also has a session mode: the agent locks up money upfront, racks up lots of tiny payments off-chain, and settles once at the end. It runs on Tempo stablecoins and has expanded to cards and Bitcoin's Lightning Network. Don't read 249M vs 3.6M as a knockout. x402's count is filtered while MPP's counts every charge; MPP is only about five months old, and Stripe and Visa back both. And on Oct 20, Mastercard opened early access to agent payments built on x402, after pilots with Coinbase, Base, and Cloudflare. It's still early access, and nothing has launched commercially. Still, when one of the biggest card networks builds on a standard born at a crypto company, the plumbing question is basically settled. In other words, the rail works. The open question is whether anyone has much to spend on it. The bear case here is strong because the numbers are small. Organic x402 spend was about $793k over the last 30 days, down 32% from the month before. Only 91 sellers clear a basic bar for real revenue, and the top 10 wallets take 76% of the volume. When Visa and Artemis filtered out wash and test activity, $135.7M of volume shrank to $15M, and Artemis called the boom "mostly a mirage". The big spike on this chart in late 2025 was meme-coin farming. So you get hundreds of millions of transactions, but not much money moving yet. The bigger story is still stablecoins themselves, with agent payments as an option sitting on top. When agents start spending real money at scale, I think most of it goes to what they're buying (plus compute), and the payment rail takes a tiny toll. The plumbing’s in place and proven; now it’s just a matter of scaling this use case to the masses.

An activist fund just went after one of the most undervalued holding companies in Korea, and I think it makes the case for SK Square even stronger. Align Partners disclosed a ~1.5% stake in SK Inc., the holding company at the top of the SK group, and the stock closed up 11.8% on the news. Their argument is simple. SK Inc. owns roughly 100T won worth of stakes in other companies, yet the market values the entire thing at just 24.9T won. That's a ~75% discount, roughly 1x 2027 earnings, which makes it the cheapest stock in the KOSPI 200. That gap is what's called a holding company discount. A company that mostly owns shares in other companies trades for far less than those shares are actually worth, and Korea is full of them. Now here's where it gets interesting. SK Inc. owns 32.2% of SK Square, and SK Square owns 20% of SK hynix, rising to about 20.7% once hynix cancels the shares it bought back. So if you buy SK Inc., you're buying a discount sitting on top of another discount. And what's Align's main proof that these gaps can actually close? SK Square itself. Once SK Square tied management pay to closing its discount, the gap shrank from 61.4% to 45.2%. Today it still trades at about 45% below the value of what it owns, and the company is targeting 30% by 2028. Simple math says going from ~47% to 30% at a flat NAV would mean roughly 32% upside, before SK hynix earns a single extra dollar. In other words, the activist isn't just betting on SK Inc. It's pointing at SK Square as the playbook that already works. To be fair, the bear case is real. There are two holding layers, tax on every hop, and the Chey family controls the whole chain with little reason to unwind it. The Korea discount has also outlasted plenty of activists before, so these gaps can stay open for years. But the direction is clear, and the next test is SK hynix's Q3 results on October 28, plus how much cash it plans to return to shareholders. I own SK Square, and I'm not going anywhere. Follow me @m0xt_ for more updates and market insights.

J.P. Morgan just called the memory selloff "perplexing", and I agree. The world's top three memory stocks are down 42% on average from their September peaks. From the peak, Samsung is down 42%, SK hynix 59%, and Micron 25%. J.P. Morgan thinks the market is already pricing in a downturn as early as 2027, when quarterly memory prices would start falling. Now here's where it gets interesting. J.P. Morgan says it sees no signs of cracks in the actual business. Spot prices are still rising, price talks for HBM (the memory that sits next to AI chips) are leaning higher, and customers are signing longer supply deals. The forecasts tell the same story. In July, the Q4 call forecast was DRAM up 3-8% and NAND up 0-5%. By the end of September, it was DRAM up 10-15% and NAND up 15-20%. In other words, the DRAM price hike is now expected to be more than twice as big as in July, and for NAND it's about 7x bigger. Yet 2027 profit estimates barely moved. Samsung went from 544.7T won to 561T won, SK hynix from 391.8T won to 404T won, and Micron's FY27 EPS from about $155 to about $176.55. To be fair, the bear case exists. Price gains are slowing compared to Q1 and Q2, more supply is coming, and J.P. Morgan itself asks what happens if AI spending slows to under $1.5T in 2027. In past downcycles, memory stocks fell 49% from peak to bottom on average. SK hynix has already fallen more than that. That is why I think memory is the most attractive layer right now, and the market still doesn't believe these companies can hold their pricing. That's exactly why I own Micron, SK Square, and Samsung. Want to see more of my work? View the full portfolio here: link.milkroad.com/Martin

Wall Street is chasing Galaxy's stock price down. I looked at every price target change since it listed in the US last year. In October 2025, banks raised their targets 25–40% in a single week. Through 2026, they cut them back as the stock fell. Today Piper Sandler cut its target from $33 to $25. The stock is at ~$15.7. Morgan Stanley is the most bullish, at $43. In September it raised its target to $48. It said Helios II had a 95% chance of getting grid power, Caspian 50%, Helios III and Selene 20%. In October it cut to $43. Nothing changed at the sites. Borrowing for AI data centers just got more expensive, so it marked down the future sites. Goldman is the only bank whose target sits close to the price: $21, rated Neutral, down from $39. Fair point on the debt. Galaxy needs a lot of it to build out future sites, and it just got more expensive. But Helios I is different. It's already funded, and CoreWeave signed the 15-year lease. And the debt math can flip. If Galaxy signs a second tenant with better credit than CoreWeave, it won't depend on one customer. With Helios I already paying rent, lenders should charge less for the next sites. The real question isn't whether the banks are right. It's whether Galaxy can still raise money cheaply enough for the next sites. So far, nobody has called Galaxy's next move. Banks raised the top and cut the bottom. Take every price target here with a big grain of salt, bullish and bearish alike. Follow me @m0xt_ for more updates on GLXY.

Galaxy fell 30% in two weeks on CoreWeave fears. It now costs less than one of its data centers alone. What are you truly getting for today’s price? Let’s break Galaxy down to the bones: what you’re actually paying for, what Helios is worth on its own, and what that leaves for the rest of the crypto operation. We’ll start with the price. Market cap: ~$6.1B Plus debt: ~$6.9B Plus building Helios Phase III: ~$2B (my estimate, not raised yet) Minus cash and stablecoins: ~$2.5B Minus its crypto holdings: ~$1.4B That's ~$11.3B for the business and what it's building. Next: what that ~$11.3B buys. 🧵

When a bank raises its Tesla price target, it feels like news. Usually it's old news. I pulled the data on about 500 Wall Street target changes on Tesla since 2021. A price target is where a bank thinks the stock will be in a year. Here's the pattern. By the time a bank raised its target, Tesla had usually already gone up about 25% over the previous few months. Over the next few months, it went nowhere. In other words, most banks move their target after the stock moves. They follow the price. JPMorgan is the clearest example: bearish for years until recently. For three years, its target sat far below the stock, even while Tesla climbed to $490. Then, in June 2026, it raised its target from $145 to $475, with the stock at $418. Tesla dropped 29% over the next two months. On the other hand, a target is meant as a one-year view, so judging it over a few months is a bit harsh. Fair enough. But if the raise mostly shows up after the move, it tells you little about what comes next. Take every price target with a healthy grain of salt unless you have done the legwork and can vouch that the bank or analyst consistently delivers sharp coverage for that particular company/sector, setting the target rather than simply chasing the stock’s last move.

TeraWulf fell 15% last week, right alongside every neocloud. But TeraWulf isn't a neocloud, so why the selloff? Because the market sold everything with an AI infrastructure label first and asked questions later. TeraWulf owns the power, the land, and the buildings. It rents finished data halls to AI companies on long leases. The tenant buys the chips, runs them, and carries the risk if they lose value. That's a landlord model. TeraWulf gets paid rent whether AI chip prices rise or fall. So the whole business comes down to two numbers: what it costs to secure the power and build the hall, and what a tenant will pay to rent it. And tenants keep paying up. Hyperscalers, AI labs, and neoclouds need more capacity now than ever, and most of them can't build it themselves, or fast enough. Money doesn't fix that. Even with unlimited cash, you can't connect a giant site to the grid and build it in two years. That's the bull case for data center landlords. They sell grid connections on their own land, under their roofs. TeraWulf's CEO said tenants must be investment grade or bring backing from someone who is. In New York, that's Google. If Fluidstack stops paying, Google either pays a termination fee or takes over the lease. That backstop is about $3.2B in total, but it switches on hall by hall, and only about $600M is live today. For Kentucky, he says the backstop is committed. No filing names of who's providing it yet, so we're waiting for that. The other part of his pitch is "no surprises": the next hall this quarter, the one after in Q1 2027. One rent start has already slipped once, so I'm watching delivery most. Ultimately, this comes down to execution. My take: the landlord pitch holds up on structure, and the stock is trading like it doesn't. I love companies with predictable and durable cash flows. I own WULF in my portfolio. You can see the rest of my book here: link.milkroad.com/Martin

AppLovin pixel stores jumped 11.5% in one week. Biggest add ever. The hockey-stick charts are everywhere. I own $APP, but that number needs some air let out. Quick primer: the pixel is a small piece of code a web store adds so AppLovin can see who buys after seeing an ad. It's free to install. It tells you a store signed up. Whether that store spends a dollar is a separate question. Last week the count went from 16,550 to 18,450. About three-quarters of the +1,900 came from Hong Kong and China. That pattern has held for a month. Hong Kong and China drove 62% to 87% of every weekly jump, and their share of all pixel stores roughly doubled, from about 17% to about 35%. A lot of those are drop shippers: sellers who list a product, take the order and have a factory ship it, often running dozens of storefronts at once. Wells Fargo found about 85% of new pixel stores show no measurable traffic. Needham calls it lower-quality Asian drop shippers. Strip out Hong Kong and China, and the rest grew about 4% last week. Now the bull side, because the growth is real. That 4% is speeding up: 1.8%, 1.6%, 2.8%, 4.0% over the last four counts. Over the summer, the whole count grew 1% to 3% a week, including Hong Kong and China. So the core alone is now beating that pace. US stores grew about 3.9%, their best week of this run. Real brands are joining too, like Steve Madden, Quince and Thorne. Citi reportedly thinks about 70% of the Hong Kong growth is genuine new customers. And self-serve only opened to everyone in June. So the core is growing around 4% a week and accelerating. That's a good sign. It's just not a hockey stick. Yet. My take: still long, still like the setup. I'd just stop overindexing pixel counts. Plus likely none of this growth will be seen in Q3 numbers. I’m trying to keep this grounded and not dress it up as a hockey-stick “growth story.” Sure, momentum is great, but not all growth carries the same weight. All eyes are on the Nov. 4 earnings report. I’m expecting a beat-and-raise, and if that happens, the stock could reprice fast. I’m also watching for more color on e-commerce growth and any buyback signals. If you're a $APP holder, follow me @m0xt_ for more updates.

Micron just fell back under $1T. Down 19% in seven trading days. I added on Friday. Here's why: from December, Micron's earnings per share get a second engine. Engine 1 is profit growth. Micron guided next quarter to about $61.5B of revenue and about $38 of earnings per share. Both records. Engine 2 is a shrinking share count. The board approved $35B of buybacks, its biggest ever. A buyback means Micron buys its own shares and retires them, so every share that's left owns a bigger slice of the profit. Buying can start Dec. 9, when limits tied to its US chip subsidies ease. At $879, $35B retires about 3.5% of the shares. That's just the start. On the earnings call, Bank of America noted Micron could generate $100B+ in cash over the next three quarters and asked why it shouldn't all go back to shareholders. Management said it has "the ability and the intent" to step up buybacks starting Dec. 9. JPMorgan puts that cash at about $108B. UBS expects Micron to start with about $20B of buybacks in the December–February quarter, then ramp to $40–50B a quarter. Add that up through next August, and you get roughly $100B. That's nearly all the spare cash Micron is expected to make, and about 10% of today's shares. All else equal, 10% fewer shares means about 11% more earnings per share. And they'd be buying at a low price. Next year's earnings are expected at about $176 per share, so the stock trades at about 5x. You don’t need a new retail narrative or every fund piling into the stock. The company will buy it because the economics make it the obvious move. I own Micron. You can see the rest of my book here: link.milkroad.com/Martin