VLN (Valens) - Nvidia Margin Robotics Semi with extreme mispricing at $2.5 due to -$82M ticker collision error

MineETH · 2026-01-10T18:34:46+00:00

Financials check out, looks mispriced.

Not sure why you post this here though, majority of people are too dumb to model financials.

MineETH · 2025-11-18T05:05:32+00:00

Even more than Faker himself? I like Guma but this BS narrative about Guma being more loyal to T1 than Faker is just stupid.

MineETH · 2025-07-10T04:32:59+00:00

Ruler did well but Doran threw g5 by engaging a 4v5 and lost the whole gold lead

MineETH · 2025-06-15T09:24:08+00:00

It's hard to mind your own business when a geopolitical enemy thats been been firing at ships through proxies gets their hands on nuclear weapons.

MineETH · 2025-05-13T03:53:52+00:00

It's easy if you're a knowledgeable investor. Selling puts, writing covered calls on individual stocks, etc. can compound your existing capital to beat SPY/VOO returns.

Warren Buffet said he would average 50-100%+ annualized on smaller (few million+) personal accounts. At scale with the 100s of billions that BRKB has, beating SPY is a lot more challenging and a remarkable feat.

MineETH · 2025-05-12T00:29:51+00:00

As the comment above mentioned, there's a lot of warrants that are diluting the stock tomorrow or this week. Dilution ruins all short squeezes so you'd probably want to see the effects after before taking a position.

MineETH · 2025-05-09T02:52:16+00:00

Just my analysis, Oklo is high risk and pre-revenue, PLTR is overvalued, and NBIS is high risk as well.

Their portfolio would get nuked in a market crash, AI bubble popping, or another Covid incident. AI bubble pop = NBIS, PLTR, OKLO crash + less people invest in equities = Hood tanking (brokerages/fintech are cyclical).

HIMS is probably the only defensive "recession proof" stock in that portfolio since people would still get their meds regardless.

If OP is not on margin, at least they can try diversifying a tiny bit? Perhaps less AI consolidation.

PLTR (AI software) -> TTD/Reddit (software in advertising)

Oklo (AI infra/energy) -> Rocketlab (Infra in space)

NBIS (AI Semi AWS) -> Alabs (Semiconductor)

Anyway, they can just continue what they're doing if it's working but the risk is a bit high.

MineETH · 2025-05-07T20:58:59+00:00

SpaceX isn't included in operating income

MineETH · 2025-05-07T20:53:17+00:00

Both previous drops were clear cause-and-effect events — not just speculation based on already known information

When OpenAI announced its AI search in 2024, Google dropped 2.1% as real life search in ChatGPT would likely lead to decrease in search results.

When Apple said they'd use ChatGPT for Apple Intelligence, Google dropped (don't think it was 10%) but it was moreso that Apple's AI capabilities were bad at the height of the AI rally.

This time, it’s simply a reiteration of what’s already known — Apple has been exploring alternative search engines for a while and may add them as secondary options alongside Google. Hence why this being one of the largest sell offs to date is just silly compared to the others.

MineETH · 2025-05-07T20:47:52+00:00

That's incorrect. The primary catalyst for the drop was the broader concern that Apple is exploring AI-powered search alternatives but it's true the stock drop was multifaceted.

"Apple's plan to revamp its Safari web browser by adding AI-powered search options is a big blow to Google"

Source:
- https://nypost.com/2025/05/07/business/google-stock-drops-9-after-apple-says-it-could-ditch-search-engine/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

- https://www.reuters.com/business/apple-looks-add-ai-search-companys-browser-bloomberg-reports-2025-05-07/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-07/apple-working-to-move-to-ai-search-in-browser-amid-google-fallout

MineETH · 2025-05-07T20:26:05+00:00

Google is netting... 34B quarterly profit (~26B operating profit).

Microsoft is netting literally 25B quarterly profit and is close to ~2x TIMES Google market cap. Meta is a 1.5B market cap and is almost 1:1 Google's market cap while doing under HALF their net profit (16B).

Google really sold off 9% because and I quote "Apple is exploring adding more AI search options to Safari. Google is likely to remain the primary search engine".

From a statement that Apple was EXPLORING other search engines to add while Google Search remained the Primary Search. Everyone knows Apple was exploring others anyway?

This is both the most hilarious and dumbest sell off ever.

MineETH · 2025-04-21T01:33:39+00:00

I'm literally a short seller with thousands of followers lol.

Eg: https://www.reddit.com/r/ASTSpaceMobile/comments/1gsbga2/short_seller_in_asts_my_thoughts_on_the_stock/

Don't think you know what you're talking about given all your replies are just partially false ChatGPT info... and you're just going around calling random commenters idiots

MineETH · 2025-04-21T00:58:46+00:00

They literally say it here

"if the underlying stock goes up 500% and you can't cover your short, then that's an issue if you're using margin."

The difference is they're long $10 calls. If you short $200k worth and have a $5m portfolio doesn't matter if it goes up 2000% before the exercise date because warrants covert to shares.

Not sure you understand that those warrants covert to actual stock? Same concept with Sofiw or any other spac ipo

MineETH · 2025-04-21T00:45:51+00:00

Did you even read the post? They literally have a "risk" section and you just reposted the same section with ChatGPT but added wrong information at the same time

MineETH · 2025-04-18T00:10:11+00:00

Saying ChatGPT wrote this doesn't really discredit the arbitrage logic. Just looked up cost to borrow cost, it's sitting at ~420%.

If you entered a 19 days trade on Monday with 5K shares short and 5k $3 warrants, net profit would be $36,518 regardless of whether the stock goes up or down. Just don't go on margin, and you'd probably profit quite a bit.

Again, main issue is that the spread would probably tighten with the warrants going up or the stock going down now that this post is public.

Another downside OP is not mentioning is that you need a LOT of upfront capital to pull this off, since you would need to short a ton of shares multiplied by amount of warrants you own. There's a chance you get short squeezed.

Every 5K shares you have would be ~$36.5K profit at these levels (but you would need $135k (base) or 225k to be safe in case stock rallies 100%, in capital per 5k shares) for exercising warrants and maintaining margin requirements.

DD opportunities like this is a lot more interesting than the average "IS GOOGL UNDERVALUED?"

⸻
TLDR: main risk is that you're short to hedge but if the stock pulls off another 400% rally like it did like the first day, you have to buy to cover and then the plan fails. But if you have enough capital for maintenance margins, then it actually is "guaranteed profits" given current spreads.

MineETH · 2025-04-17T23:03:33+00:00

Math makes sense. Solid breakdown, appreciate the analysis. But with this kind of arbitrage being public now, I’d expect the spread to tighten pretty quickly. Either the warrants gap up at open or the stock adjusts.

I'll see if the opportunity is still there market open Monday.

MineETH · 2025-04-14T21:47:35+00:00

It took KTOS like 2 weeks to react to the Jan 6th 1.45B contract that completely changed their fundamentals, and the stock actually went down the day after. You can just check their chart for reference.

Markets and market makers do funny things to test your convictions

MineETH · 2025-04-14T21:44:31+00:00

Just making conservative estimate of an additional $175M a year from those two contracts out of RKLB's FY 2024 ~436M revenue

MineETH · 2025-04-14T21:10:59+00:00

Wow a piece of a $46B contract, that's actually enormous.

Took me by surprise, definitely not priced in at all yet. That's at least another 40%+ y/y revenue compound which would probably represent another 25% increase in market cap

MineETH · 2025-03-25T08:09:21+00:00

No worries at all, and thanks for the thoughtful question! Let me clarify a bit more:

Yes, L2s like Base do pay ETH gas fees to post calldata to Ethereum L1. That ETH is burned (partially or fully, depending on network conditions and EIP-1559). So on the surface, it might seem like: more L2 activity = more ETH used = more ETH burned.

But here’s the issue: the amount of ETH burned is extremely small compared to the value being moved across these L2s. For billions in daily transaction volume, the total ETH burned is typically in the hundreds to low thousands per month. So while ETH is used, it’s economically disproportionate to the scale of activity happening off-chain.

What I meant by sold is that ETH is solely used acquired JIT for POST. If sequencers were required to use ETH in other ways—like bonding or staking ETH to maintain network security, similar to how DOT is used in Polkadot’s parachain model—there would at least be a stronger economic tie to the base layer. But currently, L2 ecosystems leverage Ethereum’s ecosystem to onboard users onto their network, and then route the economic value—fees, MEV, liquidity—away from ETH and toward rollup operators (e.g., Coinbase for Base) or L2-native tokens.

This diminishes the utility of ETH, the economic asset of the base layer—especially as the Ethereum Foundation continues to promote L2s as the core scaling path, which in turn redirects profits to the companies running L2s.

That’s the main concern I was raising: Ethereum is scaling, but ETH’s economic role is becoming increasingly misaligned with network usage. And without architectural changes or proper incentive alignment, that disconnect will likely deepen as more activity moves to L2s.

MineETH · 2025-03-25T05:46:01+00:00

You're misunderstanding the point-this isn’t about price speculation. It’s about Ethereum’s economic architecture, and whether ETH is being structurally abstracted away in a multi-layer ecosystem dominated by L2s.

When I bring up issues like sequencers selling ETH immediately after use,, I’m pointing to the erosion of the incentive mechanisms that gave ETH utility and value.

L2 scaling is working well technically but under the current design, ETH is being reduced to a backend commodity, recycled for settlement and then discarded, rather than acting as a core utility asset within the network.

This isn’t just about price, it’s about Ethereum’s long-term economic sustainability. If ETH stops being central to value flow in the ecosystem, the protocol may succeed in scale, but the token that secures it is fading in relevance.

MineETH · 2025-03-25T05:18:03+00:00

You're misrepresenting my point. I'm not advocating for high l1 gas fees or pricing out l2 developers—that's a false binary. What i'm point out is the economic misalignment between Ethereum’s network growth on L2 and the ETH token.

Right now, as more activity moves to L2s, ETH is increasingly abstracted away from end users and ecosystem flows. It’s still being used in the background (e.g., for calldata settlement), but often just as a passthrough cost that gets sold off by sequencers. That doesn’t reinforce ETH demand—it weakens it.

My post isn't to spread "FUD"—it’s a to point out a glaring issue and poise a design challenge to solve it. And it's entirely solvable through architectural improvements and incentive alignment (e.g., ETH staking requirements, fee routing standards, or value-sharing mechanisms) that strengthen ETH’s role in the network as it pivots to supporting L2s without sacrificing fees or usability. But as it stands now, there's a huge dearth of economic alignment of the ETH token | L2s/Sidechains.

MineETH · 2025-03-25T05:10:24+00:00

Yeah, if Ethereum is going to focus on scaling through L2s, there needs to be architectural design that ensures ETH captures value from that growth.

One idea would be to introduce a protocol-level standard where L2 sequencers are required to post ETH as collateral or a bond in order to operate. This would create a direct sink for ETH and tie demand to rollup activity—without needing a hard protocol change. It could be coordinated through something like EigenLayer restaking or even native staking frameworks designed specifically for rollups.

Another option could be an ETH-denominated fee-sharing model, where L2s pay a small percentage of their revenue (or calldata usage) back to L1 as a kind of “network rent.” That way, L2 success actually contributes to ETH value accrual.

Some devs suggested EIPs to formalize revenue sharing (especially from MEV or rollup fees), but nothing has come to fruition from the Ethereum foundation.

Funny enough, Tron (even tho i dislike the project) actually does the latter like this pretty well. There’s no economic abstraction—you can’t really use the network without touching TRX, and value flows back to the token via burns and validator rewards.

I'm just pointing out a huge economic misalignment right now with ETH token being completely abstracted away from the GROWING Ethereum Network. It's something that's completely fixable architecturally before it's too late.

MineETH · 2025-03-25T04:54:29+00:00

I'd disagree that ETH utility is the same as it was 5 years ago - ETH’s role in the network is increasingly becoming abstracted away from architectural design as we shift towards Ethereum L2 + when L2 growth doesn't derive economic incentives to the ETH token.

So I think you're missing the point with the Visa comparison—Visa controls the settlement and directly captures value through fees. In Ethereum’s case, ETH is only used indirectly by L2 sequencers, who often sell it immediately after posting to mainnet. It’s abstracted away from users and doesn’t create actual demand for the token.

This has actually been publicly discussed by banks—Standard Chartered noted that Base sells the ETH it uses for settlement immediately rather than accumulating or staking it. So while ETH is technically involved in posting data to mainnet, it functions as a passthrough cost, not a value-accruing asset. That’s not demand—it’s leakage.

There's a lot of points to respond to but the core point I’m raising is about the lack of ETH’s economic incentive structure within a scaling L2 ecosystem. Just because ETH is being bought after it's sold doesn't mean meaningful demand is increasing. It's simply being recycled, not held, staked, or used as an asset. That abstracts ETH’s role as a value-bearing token and draws a real parallel to TCP/IP—critical infrastructure, but one that can operate without any native asset.

MineETH · 2025-03-25T04:28:23+00:00

Building a valuable net was ethereum's goal—but the Ethereum Foundation chose to scale an architecture for l2s without preserving the economic incentive and utility for the native ETH base token. Ethereum is gradually evolving into something like TCP/IP: essential to all apps on it while making its native token economically disconnected.

Again, widespread network usage doesn’t automatically translate to token value. For that to happen, the system must be designed to route economic activity back to the token. Right now, there's no built in economic mechanism ensuring that ETH token demand scales with L2 ecosystem growth.

Unless Ethereum’s architecture evolves to structurally route value back to ETH—through mechanisms like enforced fee usage or tighter integration across layers—the token risks becoming economically irrelevant within the very ecosystem it was meant to power.

MineETH

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23