그리들

🚨 $INFQ | QUANTUM INVESTORS AND WALL STREET ANALYSTS, PAY ATTENTION. After watching this week’s mega cap AI earnings reactions, I’m becoming increasingly convinced that the quantum sector is heading toward a similar valuation reckoning. And I believe @Infleqtion is one of the best positioned companies for that environment. Here are my 3 reasons. 1. CAPITAL EFFICIENCY, CASH BURN, AND REAL REVENUE. Look at Microsoft. $45.2B in quarterly capital expenditures. $18.6B in POSITIVE free cash flow. Microsoft continues investing aggressively in AI infrastructure while generating substantial cash. Meanwhile, other mega-cap companies are facing increasing scrutiny as infrastructure spending places greater pressure on cash flow. The message? WALL STREET WANTS TO SEE RETURNS ON INVESTMENT. Now here’s my question. WHY AREN’T WE APPLYING THAT SAME STANDARD TO QUANTUM? Why are investors assigning enormous valuations to companies that may still need years of technological development, substantial additional spending, and potentially more shareholder dilution before reaching meaningful profitability? I’m not arguing that quantum companies shouldn’t invest aggressively. I’m arguing that investors need to start paying much closer attention to the COST of reaching commercialization. $INFQ is guiding for approximately $45.1M in 2026 revenue, with a substantial balance sheet supporting continued development. It’s still burning cash, but it has something I consider extremely valuable. Multiple potential paths toward generating commercial revenue. And that brings me to number 2. 2. REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION. LESS DEPENDENCE ON A SOMEDAY STORY. This is where I believe INFQ separates itself from much of the publicly traded quantum sector. Quantum computing. Quantum sensing. Optical atomic clocks. Navigation. RF technology. Enabling components. These aren’t all dependent on fault-tolerant quantum computing becoming commercially viable. Some of these technologies can be sold, deployed, and evaluated TODAY. Look at the October 30 announcement. INFQ’s Tiqker optical atomic clock operated continuously for OVER 2 WEEKS aboard a US Navy support vessel during a major military exercise. That’s significant operational validation. Is it a production contract? No. But it’s another step toward potential military integration, following earlier airborne and underwater demonstrations. And McKinsey estimates that quantum sensing alone could represent $7B–$10B in annual market revenue by 2035. That’s an entirely different opportunity from quantum computing. So here’s what I don’t understand. Why concentrate your exposure entirely in a quantum computing someday story when there are opportunities to invest in a company pursuing MULTIPLE commercialization pathways? To me, that diversification matters enormously. 3. MANAGEMENT, EXECUTION, AND SPACE. I believe Infleqtion has one of the strongest management teams in the quantum industry. And what impresses me most is the strategy. Management appears to recognize that commercialization doesn’t have to wait for the entire quantum computing industry to mature. But there’s something else I think investors are seriously underestimating. SPACE. @NASA @SpaceX @NASAAdmin Infleqtion isn’t merely talking about future space applications. Its technology has supported NASA’s Cold Atom Lab aboard the International Space Station. It delivered upgraded hardware for the ISS in 2026. And it’s collaborating with NASA JPL on the Quantum Gravity Gradiometer Pathfinder mission. We’re talking about quantum technologies with potential applications in orbital gravity mapping, precision timing, autonomous navigation, Earth observation, and future space infrastructure. That’s a substantial long-term opportunity that I don’t believe receives nearly enough attention. And when you combine that exposure with management’s broader commercialization strategy, I think the investment thesis becomes considerably more compelling. MY TAKE: The market appears far more interested in comparing quantum computing roadmaps than seriously examining how these companies could generate revenue, preserve capital, and eventually achieve sustainable profitability. And I think that’s a mistake. This week’s AI earnings reactions should remind investors of something important. THE COST OF GROWTH MATTERS. THE QUALITY OF REVENUE MATTERS. THE PATH TO COMMERCIALIZATION MATTERS. And management’s ability to execute matters. I don’t need INFQ to win every technological race. I need it to build valuable products, secure customers, grow revenue, and eventually generate sustainable cash flow. I believe its diversified strategy gives it a compelling opportunity to accomplish those things. WHY ARE WE STILL VALUING QUANTUM COMPANIES ALMOST ENTIRELY ON WHAT THEY MIGHT ACCOMPLISH SOMEDAY? At some point, the market needs to start rewarding what companies are actually commercializing. And that’s why $INFQ remains one of my highest conviction investments.

$INFQ Sensing: What Comes Next - Part 5 Atom Interferometry: The Quantum Engine Behind Exaqt, Q-NAV & Gravity Sensing I recommend checking out the two diagrams attached before reading this post. It should help compartmentalize this discussion. Northrop Grumman recently put quantum sensing and navigation front and center in its own discussion of future defense technology, including quantum sensors for gravity, magnetic fields, timing and navigation. That caught a lot of attention. And while I want to be careful here - I have not found evidence of a direct @northropgrumman / @infleqtion atom-interferometry partnership - Infleqtion’s quantum hardware is literally heading to the ISS aboard NASA’s Northrop Grumman NG-24 cargo mission. Infleqtion is also separately working with @voyagertech_ Voyager Technologies on quantum timing and sensing for future space infrastructure. @NASA Why bring that up? Because this is increasingly becoming much bigger than quantum companies talking to other quantum companies. Major aerospace and defense organizations are preparing for quantum sensors to become part of future operational systems. And underneath some of Infleqtion’s most ambitious sensing programs sits a technology I’ve mentioned repeatedly without really unpacking: atom interferometry In Part 4, I built out what I think an eventual full stack resilient military PNT architecture could look like. Now I want to go underneath the architecture and ask a harder investor question: Is Infleqtion choosing the right atom interferometer architecture for each mission - and can it keep optimizing those architectures until extraordinary atomic precision becomes something fast, rugged and practical enough to deploy? Because I don’t think the race anymore is simply: “Who can build the best atom interferometer?” The real competition is increasingly: Who can choose the right architecture for each mission, then repeatedly reduce its engineering overhead - noise, dead time, size, power, preparation time, optical complexity, cost and everything else standing between beautiful laboratory physics and an operational product? One important distinction before going further: atom interferometry is only one branch of Infleqtion's quantum sensing stack. Quantum Spectrum, its RF sensing platform, uses an entirely different approach based on highly excited Rydberg atoms to detect electromagnetic fields. So when I talk about Infleqtion's sensing portfolio, we're really looking at multiple atomic sensing architectures optimized for completely different jobs. This post is specifically about the atom-interferometry branch. ⸻ First: what exactly is atom interferometry? At the simplest level, atom interferometry takes advantage of something very strange but fundamental about quantum mechanics: Atoms behave like waves. Instead of using a tiny mechanical mass inside an accelerometer, an atom interferometer uses carefully prepared atoms as the inertial reference. Laser pulses manipulate those atoms and coherently split their matter-wave state into different paths. That phrase, matter-wave, sounds much more intimidating than the basic idea needs to be. Think about waves on water. Two waves can travel along different routes, come back together, and either reinforce or partially cancel one another depending on how their timing - their phase - changed along the way. Atom interferometry exploits a quantum version of that idea. Think about it like this: Prepare cold atoms ↓ Use lasers to create two quantum paths ↓ Let the atoms experience motion / gravity / rotation ↓ Bring the paths back together ↓ Measure how their relative phase changed ↓ Convert that phase shift into a physical measurement The lasers essentially perform jobs analogous to the beam splitters and mirrors in a traditional optical interferometer. But instead of interfering two beams of light, you’re exploiting the wave-like quantum behavior of atoms. And importantly, we’re not literally chopping an atom into two halves. The atom is placed into a quantum superposition involving different momentum/path states. When those possibilities are recombined, the resulting atomic populations reveal the accumulated phase difference. That phase is the measurement. ⸻ Why does this matter so much? Because atom interferometry isn’t one sensor. It’s a measurement platform. Configure the interferometer differently and you can make it sensitive to different physical quantities. Atom interferometry ↓ Acceleration ↓ Quantum accelerometer OR: Atom interferometry ↓ Rotation ↓ Quantum gyroscope OR: Atom interferometry ↓ Gravity ↓ Quantum gravimeter OR: Two separated gravity measurements ↓ Measure how gravity changes across space ↓ Quantum gravity gradiometer MILIT itself describes atom interferometry as enabling measurements of acceleration, rotation, gravity and gravity gradients. That is why essentially the same underlying technology keeps appearing throughout Exaqt, Q-NAV, gravity sensing and Infleqtion’s space work. ⸻ But there probably isn’t one “best” atom interferometer This is where I think the technology gets misunderstood. It would be easy to look for one headline sensitivity number and declare whoever has the lowest number the winner. But that’s like judging a processor entirely by clock speed. A real sensor has an enormous amount of engineering overhead around the underlying quantum measurement. You have to: produce the atoms, cool them, control them, maintain vacuum, deliver stable lasers, suppress environmental noise, perform the measurement, read the atoms out, process the result, repeat it quickly, and somehow make that entire machine survive vibration, temperature changes and real vehicle motion. So the competitive scorecard becomes much broader: Precision / stability ↓ Measurement speed / bandwidth ↓ Dead time ↓ Dynamic range ↓ Noise rejection ↓ Physical size + weight + power consumption ↓ Ruggedness ↓ Multi-axis capability ↓ Manufacturing + cost ↓ Integration into an actual navigation system This is why I don’t think Infleqtion’s different atom interferometry programs should necessarily be judged against one another. They appear to be solving different optimization problems. ⸻ Lane 1: Military navigation - continuous atomic beams This is where Q-NAV becomes particularly important. A conventional cold atom interferometer often works cyclically. Conceptually: Prepare atoms ↓ Interrogate ↓ Measure ↓ Prepare another cloud ↓ Repeat The problem becomes obvious once you put the system on a moving platform. The aircraft doesn't stop accelerating while the sensor prepares its next atomic sample. Neither does a ship. Neither does an autonomous vehicle. Those gaps between atomic measurements - often referred to as dead time - become much more important in dynamic navigation. This is one reason continuous cold atom architectures are so interesting. Instead of preparing one isolated cloud, measuring it, discarding that sample and starting again, the goal is to maintain a flowing atomic source through the interferometer. Conceptually: Continuous flow of cold atoms ↓ Interferometer measurement region ↓ Repeated / high-availability inertial measurements That potentially improves things like measurement availability, bandwidth and the ability to operate under rapidly changing motion. And that appears to be central to Infleqtion's Q-NAV work. The point isn't necessarily: “Let's obtain the world's prettiest single atom-interferometer measurement.” The systems problem is harder: Can atomic precision be delivered continuously enough, quickly enough and robustly enough to matter while the vehicle is actually moving? For military PNT, that may matter enormously. ⸻ Why continuous-beam work is strategically interesting This isn't some isolated Infleqtion idea. Other major research organizations, including the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, have independently pursued continuous cold-atom interferometry as a route toward high-bandwidth inertial sensing. That matters because it suggests the architecture is being taken seriously across the field. The broad goal is relatively intuitive: Classical inertial sensors are extremely fast. Quantum atomic sensors can potentially provide extraordinary long-term stability. So the ideal architecture may be hybrid: Classical IMU ↓ Fast / continuous motion measurements ↓ Quantum inertial reference ↓ High stability / drift correction ↓ Sensor fusion ↓ Better navigation solution That connects directly back to my Part 4 post in this series. The quantum sensor does not necessarily need to replace every classical accelerometer and gyroscope. It may instead become the highly stable reference that helps prevent the classical navigation solution from wandering farther and farther away over time. But there is another branch: ultracold atoms and BECs This is where the architecture changes again. A Bose Einstein condensate, or BEC, is an extremely cold atomic ensemble in which many atoms occupy a highly coherent quantum state. BECs can offer attractive properties for atom interferometry, including very narrow momentum distributions, strong coherence and tightly controlled matter wave behavior. That can make them extremely attractive for certain precision sensing applications. But this is important: BEC does not automatically mean “better sensor.” Preparing a BEC introduces additional complexity. More cooling. More control. More preparation. More demanding hardware. More money. Potentially more time between usable measurements. So the engineering question isn't: “Can I make the atoms colder?” It's: Does making the atoms colder improve this particular mission enough to justify everything it costs me? And that's where the distinction between Infleqtion's different sensing programs starts making much more sense. ⸻ BEC vs continuous beam is actually the wrong comparison This was one of the most important things I had to straighten out while researching this. These are actually two different design dimensions. One question is: What atomic source/state am I using? ↓ Cold thermal atoms ↓ Ultracold atoms ↓ BEC The other question is: How does the sensor operate? Pulsed / batch OR Continuous beam So a BEC describes the state/source quality of the atoms. A continuous beam describes the operating/delivery architecture of the sensor. That distinction matters because different Infleqtion programs may optimize these two dimensions differently depending on what they're actually trying to accomplish. ⸻ Lane 2: Space and gravity - maximize sensitivity Now change the mission completely. Instead of putting the sensor aboard an aircraft maneuvering through a GPS denied environment, put it in space or use it for extremely precise gravity measurements. Suddenly the optimization problem changes. For gravity science, you may care much more about allowing the atomic matter waves to evolve for longer periods so incredibly small gravitational effects have more time to accumulate a measurable phase difference. This is one reason microgravity is so attractive. Microgravity is not required to create a BEC - BECs are routinely produced on Earth. What microgravity can provide is much longer free fall time. On Earth, your atoms eventually fall into the bottom of the apparatus. In orbit, the atoms and the spacecraft are falling together. That can allow much longer interrogation periods without requiring an enormous terrestrial apparatus. And longer interrogation can dramatically improve sensitivity to tiny accelerations. So the priorities start looking very different. Dynamic military navigation ↓ Bandwidth ↓ Low dead time ↓ Dynamic range ↓ Motion tolerance ↓ Ruggedness VERSUS: Space / precision gravity sensing ↓ Extreme sensitivity ↓ Long interrogation time ↓ Highly controlled ultracold atoms ↓ Long coherence ↓ Precision Neither architecture is automatically better. They're being optimized for different jobs. This is where Infleqtion's NASA gravity work becomes particularly important NASA/JPL's Quantum Gravity Gradiometer Pathfinder is a very different application of the same broad atom interferometry physics. Rather than asking: “How is my aircraft moving?” the gravity system is asking something closer to: “How does gravitational acceleration differ between two locations?” Two separated atomic test masses can experience very slightly different gravitational acceleration. Measure that difference precisely enough and you obtain a gravity gradient. That can reveal extremely subtle variations in the distribution of mass. Conceptually: Ultracold atomic cloud #1 ↓ Measure gravitational acceleration AND Ultracold atomic cloud #2 ↓ Measure gravitational acceleration ↓ Compare the two measurements ↓ Gravity gradient ↓ Information about mass distribution This is potentially useful for Earth science, geology and eventually other gravity-mapping applications. And Infleqtion's role here matters because it demonstrates expertise at the high sensitivity end of the atom interferometry spectrum, not just the high-bandwidth navigation end. So Lane 1 and Lane 2 are really optimizing opposite ends of the problem This is probably the most important takeaway from these two sections. For Q-NAV, you're asking: How do I make atom interferometry fast, continuous, rugged and dynamically useful enough for a moving military platform? For space/gravity sensing, you're asking: How do I give the atoms enough control (e.g. highest control with BEC), coherence and interrogation time to extract extraordinarily tiny gravitational signals? Same underlying quantum physics. Very different engineering priorities. And that is precisely why I don't think investors should ask: “Which Infleqtion atom interferometer is the best?” The better question is: “Is Infleqtion choosing the right interferometer architecture for each mission - and how effectively can it optimize each one from here?” That leads naturally into Lane 3. ⸻ Lane 3: Exaqt — where the science has to become a deployable commercial product. Then there is Exaqt. This is arguably one of the most important branches from an investor perspective because this is where Infleqtion ultimately has to translate atomic physics into deployable inertial and gravity sensors. But this is where public disclosure still leaves some very important questions unanswered. We should not assume: Exaqt = BEC. We should also not assume: Exaqt = continuous beam. Exaqt is a family of inertial and gravity sensors, remember. Exaqt appears to span multiple inertial and gravitational sensing missions, and different configurations could reasonably require different atomic sources and operating architectures. It also describes chip-scale photonics as part of its roadmap for shrinking and ruggedizing inertial sensors. That would actually make sense. A commercial gravity sensor used for geophysical surveying does not necessarily need the same design as an inertial navigation sensor installed on an aircraft. The unresolved investor question is therefore: Which atom source and interferometer architectures ultimately power each Exaqt configuration? Because that's where all this physics eventually has to turn into hardware somebody can buy and deploy. ⸻ This is where Infleqtion’s space position gets really interesting There is also a larger ecosystem forming around them. Infleqtion launched America’s Quantum Space Initiative this summer with Voyager Technologies and other partners to accelerate quantum sensing, timing, navigation, communications and computing for space systems. Its separate Voyager partnership explicitly discusses demonstrating how quantum timing and sensing could improve the reliability and resilience of space infrastructure. And the Cold Atom Laboratory work is already putting Infleqtion-built ultracold-atom hardware in orbit, while QGGPf takes the next step toward an actual spaceborne quantum gravity sensor. That’s the part I’d watch closely. Today, Infleqtion’s most obvious near term commercial space story may still lean heavily toward timing. But its BEC, ultracold atom and gravity sensing heritage gives it a much broader technological base if space-based quantum sensing becomes a meaningful market. ⸻ So does Infleqtion have the “best” atom interferometer? I don’t think that’s even the right question anymore. The better question is: Can Infleqtion identify the right architecture for each mission, and then keep optimizing it? Reduce noise. Reduce dead time. Increase bandwidth. Increase dynamic range. Shrink the vacuum and laser systems. Reduce power. Reduce atom preparation overhead. Increase reliability. Improve photonic integration. Add axes. Reduce cost. Improve manufacturability. Integrate everything into the classical systems customers already operate. It’s almost analogous to the overhead problem in quantum computing. Showing that the underlying physics works is only the beginning. The commercial value comes from repeatedly removing all of the engineering overhead surrounding it until the useful quantum advantage survives inside a practical machine. ⸻ And that is why I think Infleqtion’s breadth matters I increasingly see Infleqtion's sensing portfolio as a broader atomic technology tree. Atom interferometry forms the inertial/gravity branch I'm focusing on here, while Rydberg-atom sensing powers the RF side through Quantum Spectrum. Even within the interferometry branch, Q-NAV, Exaqt and NASA's gravity work aren't necessarily three attempts at building the same sensor. Likewise, the overall atom-interferometry portfolio looks more like a technology tree: ATOM INTERFEROMETRY ↓ Dynamic inertial sensing ↓ Q-NAV ↓ Continuous-beam / high-bandwidth development — ATOM INTERFEROMETRY ↓ Gravity + ultracold sensing ↓ NASA / space programs ↓ Long-interrogation / high-sensitivity development — ATOM INTERFEROMETRY ↓ Commercial products ↓ Exaqt ↓ Navigation + gravity commercialization These aren’t necessarily three attempts at building the same sensor. They’re different branches of the same core technology being pushed toward different operating environments. As mentioned in the beginning, I don’t think the question anymore is: “Does Infleqtion know how to build the best atom interferometer?” It’s: Can Infleqtion repeatedly choose the right atomic architecture for each mission, then optimize the hell out of it - reducing noise, complexity, dead time, size, power, cost and every other form of engineering overhead until quantum precision becomes genuinely deployable? If they can, then the full stack resilient PNT architecture from Part 4 starts looking considerably less hypothetical. And if they can carry the same underlying atom-control expertise into gravity, resource exploration and space, the opportunity becomes considerably broader than navigation alone. Summary Investor questions I’m watching on this topic: • Which atom source/interferometer architecture is actually being used across each Exaqt inertial and gravity configuration? • How far has Q-NAV progressed toward a rugged, multi-axis quantum inertial system capable of sustained operation on a moving platform? • What improvements are Infleqtion seeing in bandwidth, dead time, dynamic range, noise reduction, size/weight/power and overall system complexity as these architectures mature? • How does Infleqtion ultimately envision dividing BEC/ultracold and continuous-beam architectures across commercial, military and space applications? • And perhaps most importantly: when does the technology cross the line from successful demonstrations and trials into repeatable, manufacturable commercial deployment? Do your own DD. Not financial advice.

$INFQ $CRML @infleqtion @CriticalMet My read right now: The 10-year Treasury moving back above 4.5% has triggered another round of de-risking in speculative, future-dependent stocks. This is the second time we’ve seen it happen in a relatively short period. The first move pressured small caps more broadly. This time, the Russell is holding up (even trading positive), while the selling is concentrated in quantum, pre-production critical minerals and other high-beta names. This is no longer a broad small-cap selloff. It is targeted de-risking at the speculative end of the market. For $INFQ, this reset could ultimately be constructive. Despite the elevated short interest, much of the momentum-long money that had been chasing and fading the stock has likely been flushed out. The company has real revenue and a strong balance sheet, and meaningful contracts could rebuild the valuation on firmer ground. For $CRML, the strategic thesis remains strong, but the market is unlikely to fully credit Tanbreez until the pilot work supports updated economics, the BFS and ultimately greater financing visibility. The August pilot-plant milestone matters big time. Execution matters more than ever for both companies. Financing visibility matters for $CRML. Converting the media and Washington spotlight into real contracts matters for $INFQ.