Wider context on the share of spend vs the share of tokens across the 3 major American labs This is aggregate data across OpenRouter and the split between spend and tokens is pretty stark. The 3 labs still attract ~70% of all spend while only seeing 27% of tokens used

all neoclouds rent out gpus, and gpus are the most expensive part. it feels like the other parts like the land, power, and building itself would cost more as they feel so large but for a 1 GW data center, it’s said that the gpu servers cost almost 2x as much as everything else combined neoclouds have different ways to go about this. a pretty stark difference is the nebius model and the coreweave model - coreweave doesn't own many data centers. they rent space. their customers have paid ~15–25% of what they owe for the contract upfront - nebius owns some data centers and rents space too. ~70% of the deals it signed recently included upfront payments. for large deals, these payments covered a much larger amount (50–60%) of what it needed to build clusters this comes down to needing to borrow $. nebius doesn't have to borrow much money because their customers can fund most of it. and, since they own land and power, customers are probably more comfortable paying (even if they know the cluster hasn't been built yet). neoclouds have different financing models, yet clearly both nebius and coreweave are doing great!! (though if demand stays this high, neoclouds may have to rethink how they do financing)

Aero's multichain expansion is off to a pretty impressive start. Just look at how DEX volume has evolved since October 22: > Ethereum: $10M → $56M (+460%) > Robinhood Chain: $24M → $59M (+146%) > Arbitrum: $3M → $14M (+367%) Base still dominates in terms of fees, but what's particularly interesting is that Ethereum and Robinhood Chain are already generating more activity than Optimism, where @VelodromeFi has been operating for years. The chart uses a logarithmic scale, but the growth is still pretty insane. Really impressive to see how quickly @aeroxyz is gaining traction across multiple chains.

SpaceX uses ARGON ION PROPULSION to move Starlink satellites through space And the engineering is pretty wild Starlink satellites use argon Hall-effect thrusters electric engines that ionize argon gas and accelerate the charged particles at extremely high speed They allow Starlink satellites to: • Raise themselves into operational orbit • Maneuver around other spacecraft and debris • Maintain their position in space • Deorbit themselves at the end of their life SpaceX originally used krypton, but switched its next-generation Starlink satellites to argon The V2 Mini argon thruster produces: • 170 mN of thrust • 2.4X the thrust of the first-generation system • 1.5X the specific impulse And Starlink became the first spacecraft system to fly using argon propulsion in space A Falcon 9 gets Starlink into space Then these tiny electric engines keep thousands of satellites exactly where they need to be

Continuing today’s memecoin recap series, and the first one I want to talk about is $STOCKER I spent some time going through Stockereum again, from platform activity and the fee mechanism to buyback/burn, holder distribution, and the tokens currently running across the ecosystem After roughly a month of operation, I think $STOCKER is entering a stage where the thesis is worth revisiting, especially with Stockereum approaching $100M in volume and already having its first $30M+ runner 1. Stockereum is getting real traction Stockereum is a launchpad on Ethereum mainnet, but the concept is slightly different from the typical memecoin launchpad Tokens launch with a fixed 1B supply and can be paired with ETH or Ondo tokenized stocks such as NVDAon, TSLAon, AAPLon, and SPYon I think this is one of the more interesting differentiators here. Instead of simply creating another place to launch memes, Stockereum is combining meme speculation with the tokenized equities/RWA narrative directly on Ethereum The main liquidity runs through Uniswap v4. Tokens have no owner, cannot mint additional supply or be paused, while the main LP uses hooks so the creator/platform can’t simply pull liquidity after launch More importantly, there’s actual activity The latest dashboard numbers I checked showed roughly : > $97M total volume > $13M+ 24H volume > 1,550+ tokens launched > 72 tokens graduated > 250K+ transactions > Around $544K paid in holder/creator rewards > 40+ ETH used across 870+ buyback/burn transactions For a platform that’s only around a month old, I think these are meaningful numbers Stockereum is no longer just a narrative. There are real users, real volume, and real fees behind it 2. The $STOCKER fee flywheel is already running This is the part I care about most Creators can choose a 1%, 2%, or 3% trading fee Depending on the configuration, fees are then split between creator/holder rewards and the platform For ETH pairs, part of the platform fees are routed back into the market to buy back and burn tokens For $STOCKER specifically, around 38.2M tokens have already been burned, equal to nearly 3.8% of the total supply The dashboard valued the burned $STOCKER at roughly $246K when I checked So the flywheel : Trading volume => fees => buyback => burn is already happening on-chain rather than just being a roadmap promise Holder rewards are live as well. Creators can redirect part of their fees toward holders, with eligible rewards distributed automatically That’s what I like about the model: platform volume is actually generating economic activity across the ecosystem 3. But don’t misunderstand the buyback mechanism This is probably the most important thing to clarify about $STOCKER Not all of Stockereum’s revenue is used to buy $STOCKER Burn allocation is spread across multiple tokens, and the team can rotate these slots. Besides $STOCKER, tokens such as $ZC, $VERIDIA, and $AP have also received allocations Most recently, on October 4, the team rotated the 5% slot from $AP into $SC There has also been an important change involving $ZC On October 2, Zipcoin and Stockereum announced that the 10% fee allocation previously used for $ZC buybacks would be redirected toward funding Zipcoin’s development and ecosystem However, the dashboard was still showing some $ZC burns from the previous mechanism that same day. So I’m treating this as an announced transition rather than assuming the entire routing changed instantly This tells us something important: fee allocation can change That’s why I don’t view $STOCKER as a revenue-sharing token There’s currently no staking or meaningful governance mechanism that automatically passes all of Stockereum’s value creation back to holders Its main utility is still buyback and burn The flywheel is real, but how much value is captured specifically by $STOCKER still needs to be monitored 4. $ZC is creating an interesting setup Stockereum already has its first real breakout runner: $ZC $ZC previously pushed above the $35M area and is still sitting around $30M+, while $STOCKER is only around $6–7M In other words, a token launched on Stockereum is currently valued around 4–5x higher than the platform token itself This is also the narrative I’ve seen some Chinese KOLs starting to trade : Runner moves first => attention returns to the launchpad => volume increases => the market reprices the platform token later There’s logic behind this, but I wouldn’t simplify it into “$ZC is $30M, therefore $STOCKER should also be $30M” The market is valuing these two tokens for different reasons $ZC has its own Snowmoon/privacy narrative, community, and development $STOCKER depends much more on Stockereum continuing to grow as a platform Another thing worth noting: Stockereum already has 72 graduated tokens, but most are still sitting at relatively small market caps $ZC remains the clear outlier So Stockereum has proven that it can produce one major runner, but it hasn’t yet proven that it can do it consistently That’s why the question for me isn’t : “If $ZC is already $30M, why is $STOCKER only $6–7M?” It’s : If Stockereum can produce a second and third $ZC, does the market still keep valuing the infrastructure behind them at only $6–7M? That’s where I see the asymmetric part of the $STOCKER thesis If we start seeing more $10M–$20M+ runners after $ZC, the thesis changes significantly At that point, Stockereum is no longer a launchpad with one winner. It starts proving that it can repeatedly produce runners 5. On-chain looks relatively healthy, but there are still risks I also checked the holder distribution The largest wallet at roughly 12.8% is the Uniswap v4 Pool Manager, meaning it represents liquidity rather than a team wallet The next largest individual wallets hold around 3.3% and 2.7%. The top 100 holders control roughly 70% of supply, with around 2.4K–2.7K holders when I checked I haven’t found a single dev wallet holding an unusually large percentage of supply Some analytics tools also label a relatively high percentage as smart money, but I’m not using that as a core part of the thesis because tool labels don’t necessarily mean every wallet has been independently verified What I’m watching more closely is liquidity routing Stockereum’s main pool uses a Uniswap v4 hook with roughly a 1% fee, but secondary pools with higher fees also exist In some cases, a router can send trades through a less efficient pool, resulting in noticeably worse execution This isn’t the same as the team pulling LP, but it’s still something worth checking before taking a larger position 6. Competition is starting to appear Another name increasingly being compared with Stockereum is $SEND If I’m looking purely at traction right now, I still lean toward Stockereum It’s approaching $100M in volume, has more than 1,500 launches, and most importantly, has already produced a $30M+ runner On the other hand, some traders prefer SEND’s tokenomics/value capture because they see its buyback structure as stronger And that highlights exactly what $STOCKER still needs to prove Stockereum is currently ahead in traction But $STOCKER doesn’t necessarily capture all of the value generated by the platform Long term, a strong platform token needs both 7. The chart $STOCKER ran from a very low base to a peak of roughly $9.6M MC on September 29 A figure around $11M was mentioned by one caller, but I couldn’t verify that from market data, so I’m not using it as the ATH The chart then reset hard to around $2.8M before starting to rebuild From there, $STOCKER reclaimed $4M and $5M, then recently expanded back into the $8–9M area before retracing to roughly $6–7M now The structure still looks fine to me, but I wouldn’t call $6–7M a deep dip If the market gives us $4–5M again while Stockereum volume keeps growing, $ZC maintains its structure, and buyback/burn continues, I think the risk/reward becomes much more interesting On the other hand, if it falls back below $3M while the ecosystem itself starts cooling off, the thesis needs to be reassessed A few ETH of daily buybacks won’t save the chart if organic demand disappears 8. My current thesis I’m not betting on $STOCKER simply because “$ZC reached $30M, so the platform token has to catch up” The thesis I’m watching is : Stockereum maintains volume => volume generates fees => buyback/burn continues => the ecosystem produces more runners => attention flows back to the platform => the market starts repricing $STOCKER Right now, we already have nearly $100M in volume, 1,500+ launches, 72 graduated tokens, more than $500K in rewards, roughly 38M $STOCKER burned, and one $30M+ runner That’s a pretty strong start for a platform that’s only around a month old But there are still three things I want to see next : Volume breaks $100M and, more importantly, continues growing afterward The buyback allocation toward $STOCKER remains meaningful as the team continues rotating burn slots And most importantly, Stockereum produces a second real runner after $ZC If all three start happening at the same time, I think the gap between an ecosystem generating close to $100M in volume and a platform token sitting around only $6–7M becomes much more interesting For now, I’d still rather watch for dips than chase pumps 0x75E2Fc69Ff2ac12aF65Ba7D321bBf4f878c535d2