Aaron Burnett (@aaronburnett)

Grok 4.5 is looking like a success with help from Cursor data but underneath the surface we expect future Grok/Cursor model training is likely to speed up in the coming months. We've spent several months getting up to speed on the SpaceXAI business, especially the tech underneath it. The C rewrite was under appreciated by the investor community so we dug in to quantify its impact. including building a physics first model that functions as a stopwatch for the SpaceXAI model factory. Bottomline: C-rewrite gets SpaceXAI faster model cycles, leveraging 33% more tokens/second/GPU against SOTA competition resulting in the potential to shipping new models every ~3.5 weeks. two core learnings from this modeling exercise: 1: the training cycle speed up is primarily coming from RL (not pretraining) where the increased tokens/second/GPU advantage can shave up 2+ weeks off full model training cycle. 2: the rewrite itself should compound the time savings as model sizes grow. at ~2T shaving off 2-3 weeks, ~8 weeks at 6T, and 15 weeks at 10T. Note: a 20T parameter model likely runs into a data bottleneck prior to a training speed bottleneck but the directional advantage stands. Also we assume tokens/second/gpu advantage will melt over time as competitors try to match it. when you do the math, in true SpaceX and Elon fashion, it looks like they are attempting to build a SOTA model factory that can pump out bigger models faster than anyone else. Full analysis here for the public:

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.