I had the honour of modelling for @artofwarrenlouw as Harley Quinn for a comic book cover?!!!! Oh my gosh?!!!! Link in comments to grab one! I am so excited about this holy moly!
There has been a lot of hand wringing on the appropriate valuation of SpaceX. Some large institutions believe SpaceX can only be valued at half what the market seems to be willing to pay for it. Others are claiming it has 15X appreciation ahead of it.
Almost all of this difference of opinion comes down to how comfortable you are modeling beyond 2030 and what valuation method you use.
2030 valuation using a traditional Gordan DCF produces a very different result than a 2040 EV/EBITDA Multiple. Both have pros and cons. Most analysts don’t really discuss this and lead with a headline number.
We are very comfortable modeling out to 2040, as large portions of what SpaceX is proposing is real world infrastructure, which provides modelable physics constraints to anchor against.
The analysis we released today explores this in-depth, its open to the public all the way through IPO. I highly encourage you check it out prior to then.
We’ve run 5,000 monte carlo runs across 500 variables (real number, even though it sounds fake) and three valuation methods.
This video is of a 3D cloud chart showing every simulation outcome expected in valuation output across two of the most impactful variables to the model when using an EV/EBITDA multiple from 2026 to 2040.
The horizontal axis is the steepness of the orbital data center demand S-curve.
The vertical axis is the rate at which chip compute efficiency becomes cheaper.
Each of the 5,000 dots is one simulated future; green dots are the ones where SpaceX's 2040 value clears the $1.77T IPO line, over time.
Under EV/EBITDA valuation through 2040, 96% of our simulated futures clear the expected IPO price once the bell rings Friday.
We aren’t publishing this publicly to tell investors what the stock is worth, we’re publishing this to help investors understand the world of outcomes, what the fundamentals suggest through 2040, and what frankly most analysis simply won’t share.
SpaceX is a generational company working on long term infrastructure harnessing a domain no one has been able to tap in so far: space.
It deserves doing the work as an investor. because this in not financial advice.
The cleanest way to hold SpaceX is a bond stapled to a call option (AI-Compute); Starlink is the bond, the near term SatCom annuity that funds the next flywheel.
Understand the world of outcomes and take your position accordingly.
Comparables and P/E won't take you far enough.
Most docking and cofolding methods assume the protein pocket is roughly fixed: place the ligand into a shape that's already there. That assumption breaks on a lot of real targets, and EV-A71 2A protease is a clear example. When a ligand binds, a loop next to the site moves about 4 Å. Every one of the 802 structures in OpenBind's benchmark needs that rearrangement, which is why classical docking into the unbound structure has only 5% success rate.
Turns out, the real problem isn't "where does the ligand needs to go" it's "what shape does the protein become when this specific ligand shows up." Ligand and protein are coupled, and you have to solve them together.
Pearl predicts that motion from sequence and the ligand alone. On one compound that no other zero-shot method in the benchmark solves, it placed the ligand within 0.28 Å of the crystal structure and got the loop rearrangement right. Modeling induced fit instead of assuming a rigid pocket is a big part of why this holds up on actual programs.
While showbiz bickers over AI video continuity glitches and educators remain stuck debating AI-generated PPTs, World Models are quietly disrupting non-tech sectors, igniting a radical paradigm shift in clinical medicine and surgical simulation.
Why healthcare and not Hollywood?
Because Hollywood demands visual perfection, but healthcare mandates absolute physical causality.
Traditional medical AI could only act as a static periscope—pinpointing a lesion on an existing scan.
Yet disease is inherently dynamic. When a physician prescribes a treatment, they historically lacked a patient-specific, long-term window into the exact downstream changes after the patient ingests the drug.
Recent breakthroughs showcased at elite computing summits like ICCV have elevated medical AI from passive visual recognition to a predictive, generative "World Simulator" tailored for prognosis and treatment optimization.
In validated clinical applications, this technology leverages potent counterfactual reasoning.
Take transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for liver cancer and advanced radiotherapy as prime examples: before finalizing an intervention, a Medical World Model (MeWM) ingests a patient’s current CT imagery to simulate months of dynamic disease progression within its latent space.
It cross-aligns multimodal parameters to synthesize high-fidelity visual representations of post-treatment tumor trajectories. Simultaneously, its inverse dynamics model quantifies how varying embolic agents or drug cocktails shift long-term survival curves. Empirically, this "future-simulation" paradigm has propelled clinical decision success rates (F1-score) by 13%, cementing its role as an indispensable AI co-pilot.
Today, multimodal medical models are rapidly embedding into hospital HIS/EMR nervous systems, as specialized prognosis simulators push past theoretical boundaries into raw performance validation.
The ultimate utility of a World Model isn't coding text or animating fantasy; it is evolving into a rigorous, low-cost simulation infrastructure—serving as a high-stakes safeguard for human decision-making.
【The Grand Forecast】
The successful clinical deployment of Medical World Models proves their unique capacity to "simulate future outcomes before executing current actions." This technical paradigm—trading pure aesthetic appeal for rigid physical and biological causality—is sprawling beyond tech ecosystems at a breakneck speed.
Stripping away healthcare, autonomous driving, and media entertainment, which trial-and-error heavy traditional industry do you predict World Models will infiltrate and disrupt next?
Will it be macro-climate disaster modeling in modern agriculture, dynamic supply-chain evolution in urban planning, extreme stress-testing in deep-sea aerospace engineering, or an entirely unmapped frontier?
Drop your sharpest thesis and reasoning in the comments below. Let’s chart the hidden industrial landscape of the next generation of World Models!