Orbit: Crypto Community Feed
Influential Creator
#AI基建融资升温，英伟达英特尔路径分化
The AI race has entered a capital-intensive phase, and the market's focus is no longer just on chip performance but also on who has the greater ability to raise funds for expansion.
NVIDIA, together with BlackRock, Blackstone, Goldman Sachs, and other institutions, plans to establish an AI computing power financing platform to leverage over $500 billion in third-party capital long-term, providing funding for customers to build data centers and purchase GPUs.
This essentially means NVIDIA is using external capital to expand customer purchasing power: the financial pressure is mainly borne by financing institutions and customers, while NVIDIA continues to earn from GPU sales and CUDA ecosystem expansion.
Intel has chosen to directly issue common stock, increasing its financing scale from $15 billion to $20 billion, with funds allocated for capital expenditures, working capital, AI chips, and advanced manufacturing.
Both companies are raising money for AI infrastructure, but their positions are completely different:
NVIDIA is helping customers leverage to expand market demand; Intel is supplementing capital with its own equity to buy time for building factories, expanding production, and catching up technologically, while also facing equity dilution pressure.
AI infrastructure is becoming a long-term competition with massive capital scale. The next phase's winners must not only have technology and customers but also the ability to mobilize capital.
NVIDIA uses its ecosystem to finance expansion, while Intel still has to pay for its own expansion.
$NVDA $INTC #AI #美股 #科技股
$OKB has returned near $95 today, and this level is actually more worth observing than simply continuing to rise.
Previously, $95 was the short-term resistance level we have been watching. Now that the price has come back here, it indicates that the support near $90 is effective, and the pullback has not destroyed the upward structure.
Currently, I see it this way:
* $95: The first resistance level. If it holds firmly with volume, it means the validity of this breakout is further confirmed.
* $100: The next key resistance level, a round number and a psychological level after the previous rise, where significant profit-taking is expected.
* $90: Key support. If it can still hold on a retest later, the overall trend remains strong.
If $95 can be effectively broken through, I will focus on the $100-$105 range in the next phase; if it fails to break higher again, it will most likely continue to oscillate and digest between $90 and $95.
So now, it’s not simply about whether it can still rise, but whether $95 can turn from resistance into new support.
My own OKB dollar-cost averaging has already made a profit, and I still won’t chase the price at this level. I will look for confirmation on the breakout and support on the pullback.
#英伟达推动5000亿美元AI基建融资
Snapshot at 11 Aug 2026, 09:58
Just scrolled through the planet.
CORE is still quite lively.
Some are bullish.
Some are bearish.
And some ask every day when it will take off.
What I want to know most now is.
Those guys who shout zero every day.
How much CORE do they actually have left. $CORE #本周三CPI公布，9月加息定价会改写吗？ #交易之声：你的经验值得被听到
Snapshot at 11 Aug 2026, 11:03
$CAP is rebounding today, is it time to short now?
$CAP 今天从底部反弹上来了。 我昨天写的文章里讲到了这个，我说要慎重做空，因为可能会在这边磨一磨。 今天我看它反弹了，然后我又去看了一下它数据。 数据其实没有那么支持现在做空，但是我个人最后还是做空了。 —————————————————— 我们看一下它的合约数据。 可以发现，它的合约持仓量在稳步的上涨，多空比在稳步下降。 常看我文章的人应该知道，这说明有资金在做空。 确确实实也是这样的，因为它毕竟反弹上来了嘛。 一般来说，上涨就会吸引很多做空的资金，下跌就会吸引很多做多的资金。 我们再来看一下它近期的合约数据。 可以发现，它的持仓量是呈现一个先下跌后上涨的趋势，多空比是呈现一个先上升后下降的趋势。 目前来看，那持仓量并没有上升到上一次暴跌前的位置，多空比也并没有下降到上一次暴跌前的位置。 我看到这个数据，做空的时候其实是比较犹豫的。 不过，我最后还是做空了。 —————————————————— 我个人认为，目前$CAP 短期应该是见顶或者接近顶部了。 我在$0.05 左右的位置做空的，我认为这个位置应该是短期的高位了。 而且，它从底部到现在也已经翻了三四倍了，涨得已经很多了。
Key points: Some thoughts on this altcoin season:
Playing this altcoin cycle with the logic of the last altcoin cycle will inevitably lead to a mental breakdown.
What everyone thinks about the altcoin season:
1. Like the last cycle, all coins rise, whether new or old coins.
2. The increase matches the last cycle's rise; only then is it called a rise, only then is it called an altcoin season.
In fact, many altcoin sectors in this bull market are already relatively large. If you haven't made money, it's because:
1. You missed the rhythm and missed the explosive sectors.
2. You entered late, with a high cost basis.
For example, if you bought wld at 9u or ordi at 70u and call them trash, saying there's no altcoin season, look at how much they've risen from the bottom to the highest point. Why didn't you buy earlier?
The two altcoins above belong to the local hotspot altcoin season.
Those holding onto old coins shouldn't fantasize that all old coins will reach or even break their previous highs; not every coin is inj.
Most old coins have already exited the historical stage, but in the final phase of the bull market, they will still have a spike to show respect to the bull market.
Influential Creator
When everyone starts going crazy
$SPCX will give a big surprise
Some are already seeing 150-170, which is really absurd
Tesla's stock is already ignored, but SPCX is very hot
Can you keep hyping it just because it's hot? What if the hype cools down?
Many people are already getting carried away, but I still remain bearish
Don't worry about whether I'll get liquidated, worry about whether you can make money
The less capital and the smaller the courage and vision, the more you act like a clown
If you think you can short, then short; if you think you can go long, then go long
I'm just expressing my personal opinion
Good stocks need to go through trials; relying on hype will end badly sooner or later
#财报观察员：空头回补成焦点，SpaceX后续怎么看？
Snapshot at 11 Aug 2026, 09:34
$GRVT currently has 3 short positions
BICO floating profit nearly 500%
BEAT floating profit nearly 600%
Right now, the only short position still floating a loss of 150%➕ is your uncooperative $GRVT
Snapshot at 11 Aug 2026, 18:59
Orbit Media Partner
When a very busy big shot suddenly posts a long article, there’s usually a reason.
First, Huang went on Twitter to post, then Zuckerberg wrote a 6,500-word long article in one go. Recently, both have been emphasizing the same thing: open source.
Yesterday, Zuckerberg published a long article titled "The Future Belongs to Everyone," and on the same day, Meta open-sourced the new model Muse Glimmer, also previewing that stronger model weights will be released soon.
The core of the long article is one sentence: superintelligence should not be concentrated in the hands of a few companies; it should be distributed to everyone, becoming a personal super assistant.
It sounds great. But looking at Meta’s overall actions, it’s very clear.
Open-sourcing model weights means actively lowering the barrier for others to make products;
At the same time, they continue to lock in computing power, glasses, social data, and advertising systems. The easier it is for others to use your model, the harder it becomes to bypass your ecosystem for monetization in the end.
This is completely opposite to OpenAI and Anthropic’s insistence on closed source and emphasis on "safe and controllable" approaches. Both sides use the "safety" narrative to serve their own business models: one says centralization is safe, the other says decentralization is safe.
The louder they say "The future belongs to everyone," the more you need to see clearly who is defining the rules and who is collecting the toll.
Techflow
The big shot started the account, and the effect was immediate.
Jensen Huang posted his first-ever post on X, and within a few hours, it had already reached 17.42 million views.
The post was a repost of an open letter signed by NVIDIA titled "Why AI Needs Open Weights."
The stance of this letter is almost directly opposed to the one Google DeepMind CEO @demishassabis posted ten days ago.
Hassabis advocates for establishing a standard organization where all cutting-edge models, including China's DeepSeek and Qwen, must pass safety assessments set by the U.S. before going public.
Jensen Huang's letter, on the other hand, argues that open weights are the right direction and that restrictions should not be imposed.
There is a passage in the letter that I think is quite good, roughly stating that relying solely on closed-source models is not inherently safer; they can also be hacked, misused, or fail in ways undetectable to outsiders. Concentrating advanced AI in a few closed-source models only creates more single points of failure.
Additionally, the letter defends "distillation," saying it is a legitimate model improvement technique, consistent with the tradition of open-source software, and should not be confused with theft. Those who understand know who this is defending.
If you still don’t get it, just look at the list of signatories of this open letter.
Signatories include NVIDIA, Meta, Microsoft, a16z, Hugging Face, Mistral, Y Combinator.
Non-signatories include OpenAI, Anthropic, Google.
The two camps of AI openness vs. closed-source models have now publicly taken sides.
Influential Creator
$BTC Is the sentiment really this bad now? Yesterday I saw BTC stagnating, and I thought maybe all the funds were waiting on the CPI. But the CPI hasn't even been released yet, and it already dropped below 64,000 last night? I guess some institutions are betting on the CPI exceeding expectations.
1. This week's market mainly depends on tomorrow's CPI data: the expectation is a year-over-year 3.42%, core 2.52%. If it's below expectations, it could mean no rate hike or even a rate cut, and BTC would go up; if it exceeds expectations, it will break below 62,000.
2. Institutions had net inflows yesterday, indicating some funds are withdrawing, probably because some institutions speculate the CPI data will exceed expectations. The current fear and greed index is 31, sentiment is positive, so retail investors probably won't run.
3. Regarding the CPI data and last week's non-farm payroll data, some friends asked if there could be falsification. It's actually quite possible, but consider this: government falsification is also to serve monetary policy. Non-farm payroll and CPI data themselves are meant to serve normal monetary functions, so even if falsified, interpreting policy from the data is still reasonable.
But I don't recommend betting on the CPI in advance, because retail investors' information sources are still much worse than institutions. Don't turn investing into a game of betting on size or luck. #本周三CPI公布，9月加息定价会改写吗？
Influential Creator
A few days ago, I said Elon Musk was going to sell the Tesla Shanghai factory, and the comment section said it was all debunked.
That's because you don't understand Musk; his denials are even more genuine than confirmations 😂
In-depth analysis: Why Tesla Shanghai won't be sold, and why Musk can't achieve a closed loop from chips to satellites, from ground to space?
On August 6, SpaceX and Tesla jointly announced the construction of a super chip factory. One of these companies has US defense contracts, and the other is a giant with 45% of global production based in Shanghai.
A military aerospace company that completely excludes Chinese factors is going to deeply bind with an automaker that owns the largest single factory in China. The security reviews between the two countries can delay or kill the project.
There are also three actions that are more sincere than words:
First, restricting Chinese employees' access to global data.
According to multiple media reports, Tesla may be separating the office systems of China and the US businesses, restricting Chinese employees from directly accessing business data and systems in other regions.
Second, initiating supply chain relocation; SpaceX is completely excluding Chinese factors from its global supply chain.
Third, Tesla invested $2 billion to purchase SpaceX shares.
In March this year, Tesla spent $2 billion to buy SpaceX shares. Although the stake is less than 1%, the significance of this transaction lies not in the shareholding ratio but in the upgrade from business cooperation to capital connection between the two companies.
So these two companies are not only deeply cooperating in business but may even merge in the future. Musk's response to the merger question was that it is not suitable to discuss on a conference call and must follow proper procedures. This is not a denial; it is not a denial.
The Shanghai factory is too important, which is why it is even more dangerous.
In the first half of 2026, the Shanghai factory will deliver nearly 468,000 vehicles, accounting for more than 54% of global production. Such an important asset, how could Tesla possibly give it up?
But on the other hand, precisely because the Shanghai factory is so important and deeply connected to the Chinese supply chain, it becomes more sensitive in the context of Tesla and SpaceX integration.
The larger the Shanghai factory, the higher the future cost of separation, and the "institutional distance" that must be maintained between it and sensitive businesses like SpaceX must also be greater.
Musk's chip empire blueprint is clear and grand: use Terafab to achieve high-end chip self-supply, use SpaceX's military orders and Starlink network to build space AI infrastructure, and use Tesla's autonomous driving and robots to consume computing power. This is a closed loop from chips to satellites, from ground to space.
But this closed loop has one premise: it must pass US national security review.
0xkevin00
Is Musk just painting a big picture? This would scare the shorts to death 😁
Silicon Valley investor David believes that SpaceX's Starlink could become a standalone trillion-dollar company. Starlink's annual revenue is expected to reach $40 billion, with annual free cash flow possibly hitting $30 billion.
Musk responded: "Far more than that."
He believes AI and robotics will drive a surge in global bandwidth demand. Starlink could capture over 25% market share outside China in the future, corresponding to annual revenue exceeding $500 billion, and in the long term, it might even carry more than 50% of global internet traffic, with revenue surpassing $1 trillion