Hardware wallets were always regarded to me. Maybe just me but I’d rather take counter party risk of Coinbase than trust some coder in his moms basement considering all edge cases when developing firmware. Better yet, just buy the etf if you want exposure…

Rarely play unhedged options anymore after blowing up too many times lol… but $BE was too compelling of a setup into earnings to not throw a few schmeckles around for fun. Thought I was cooked yesterday but figured there was a chance for a relief rally before expiry. BOOM

Morgan Stanley on CPO today Cool to see $SIVE $SIVEF get a mention "Key participants include Broadcom and NVIDIA in switch platforms, Lightmatter, Ayar Labs, Marvell/Celestial AI, and POET in optical engines and photonics, TSMC, GlobalFoundries, and Tower in silicon photonics foundry capacity, and Lumentum, Coherent, and Sivers in laser supply." $AVGO $NVDA $POET $GFS $LITE $COHR

Some of yall haven’t spent enough time with career engineering nerds: the far more probable explanation is that he cashed out and de-risked 25 years of work at a peak, not that he’s lost confidence in the future of photonics. $SIVE

$IREN The board’s case for the $694M founder grant is that Dan & Will have a “proven ability” to secure power, build data centers, and monetize them. In reality ~100% of operating, revenue-generating capacity sits on bitcoin-era land they bought before power was scarce. The proof comes from a market that no longer exists. Credit where due, they’ve out-originated peers post-bottleneck with ~2.9GW added in H1 2026 alone. But securing land is the easy half now, and they’ve monetized $0 of those new assets. Oklahoma doesn’t even energize until 2028. Yes the Microsoft and NVIDIA deals are real, but both sit entirely on the 2022 legacy footprint. Meanwhile TeraWulf bought a brownfield site in Feb 2026 and signed a $19B, 20-year Anthropic lease on it by July. Actual competitive-era monetization of a new asset, no $694M retention grant required. So the claim that “the market for people like Dan and Will has never been more aggressive” falls flat. Aggressive relative to what? Peers are running the identical pivot playbook, some faster and at lower capex. And a softer hypothesis the board should sit with: their own letter admits the old performance hurdles failed to vest during macro headwinds. Arguably that’s when the incentive structure was working. Hungry founders with unvested equity made the early, aggressive pivot to AI. Now they hold a fixed grant that vests on employment alone. If macro turns against the AI buildout, what incentive do they have to fight through it? There are no hurdles to miss. Just show up, and at worst walk away with nine figures each for tenure. The board is paying $694M for a skill whose proof came from a market that no longer exists, through a structure that pays out even if the skill was never there.

Today I published an open letter to David Bartholomew, Chairman of $IREN. Two requests: an independent review of the 18.2M RSU grant to the co-CEOs — time-vested, no performance conditions, ~5% dilution — and a board-level review of director conduct on this platform. Written constructively. I'll publish the Board's response with the same prominence. Full letter below. 👇

The $IREN grant isn’t just big. Look at who recommended it. The comp committee that blessed ~5% of the company to the co-CEOs (no hurdles, no vote) includes the stock’s most vocal online promoter, who the proxy shows is separately paid $50K to represent IREN at investor conferences. Independent director, per Nasdaq rules. You decide. @danroberts0101 @mikealfred

Quick reminder since you’re on the board and should seemingly have some influence: opacity + continual shareholder value erosion isn’t good management. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

$IREN : we need to talk. This concern comes from a whale who has held $IREN since $7. Worth taking seriously. The issue - Mike Alfred sits on both the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee at IREN. Audit Committee - appointed October 2021. Compensation Committee - appointed November 2025. His background - founder of Alpine Fox LP, co-founder of BrightScope and Digital Assets Data. He has an activist investing background, previously challenging management at Barnes & Noble Education to demand tighter corporate governance and secure board seats. The observation - an investor with an activist background who has publicly championed performance accountability approved a compensation structure that moves away from performance hurdles for IREN’s Co-CEOs toward pure time based vesting. Whether that’s a contradiction or a pragmatic decision during a complex business pivot is open to debate. Let’s look at what has happened during his tenure on each committee. Audit Committee - since October 2021: IREN heavily promoted a public market narrative that its Childress Texas facility was being aggressively prepared for High Performance Computing and AI data centres. In July 2024 an activist report by Culper Research alleged that IREN’s facilities were built strictly for Bitcoin mining and were entirely ill-equipped for HPC without billions in unexpected capital costs. Multiple securities fraud class action lawsuits filed by Pomerantz, The Gross Law Firm and Levi & Korsinsky regarding IREN’s HPC and data centre disclosures are currently ongoing and moving through the court system. No settlement or dismissal has been reached on these specific claims. The Audit Committee’s role is to ensure public disclosures match financial realities and that risks are properly vetted and transparently accounted for. During the same period IREN has executed significant capital raises including a $2.6B convertible bond offering and extensive ATM share issuance. Share count has nearly tripled from roughly 100 million to over 357 million. Compensation Committee - since November 2025: The most recent decision - June 30 2026. The board and Compensation Committee approved 9,099,328 RSUs each for Co-CEOs William and Daniel Roberts. Pure time based vesting through 2033. No ARR targets. No operational milestones. No stock price hurdles. This follows a pattern. In May 2025 the board modified existing performance RSUs, which had failed to hit their milestones, into time based awards. The second time the compensation goalposts have shifted in management’s favour. The Compensation Committee’s role is to protect shareholders from executive overreach and design rigorous hurdles that force management to perform before they get paid. A separate observation - Alfred is notably active on X for a sitting public company board member. His commentary across crypto markets, short sellers and market dynamics is more publicly visible and opinionated than most directors would typically maintain. The structural concern governance experts raise - Audit and Compensation Committee members are designed to be the objective check on management. Their role requires impartiality behind closed doors. When a director maintains a high profile public presence visibly aligned with the company’s stock narrative, some investors question whether that impartiality is preserved. Did he personally benefit from the RSU decision? Not directly - he received 6,657 ordinary shares as standard director compensation. He holds roughly 878,000 shares between his personal stake and Alpine Fox LP. His interests are tied to long term stock performance either way. The questions worth asking as a shareholder: Does his public conduct sit comfortably alongside his fiduciary duties on the Audit and Compensation Committees? Does approving time based vesting align with the activist governance principles he built his reputation on? … TBC