CORE(CORE) Regular Invest

SpaceX is set for its historic IPO on June 12 at $135 per share, with a paper valuation of $1.75 trillion. A key insight from analyst Alexandra Mertz highlights the IPO's unique structure, where an extremely low initial public float of only 4.3% is expected to create a significant supply vacuum. This scarcity is set to collide with massive forced buying from index funds like Vanguard, CRSP, and FTSE Russell, which are scheduled to start adding SpaceX to their indices as early as June 18/22 and July 7 (NASDAQ 100 inclusion). This could propel the stock price sharply higher, with AI models like Grok predicting a potential doubling from the IPO price around July 7. Another critical date is the post-Q2 earnings call (estimated late July), when early insider shareholders (excluding Elon Musk, who has a 366-day lock-up) become eligible to sell. However, actual selling pressure may be only 10-15% of shares, as major holders like Ron Baron and BlackRock have expressed intentions to hold or buy more. The discussion introduces a compelling "Goldilocks scenario": a potential stock-for-stock merger announcement between SpaceX and Tesla in the window between the July 7 price peak and the late-July unlock period. This timing could help Elon Musk manage a personal $7 billion tax liability related to exercising Tesla stock options by August 15, while leveraging high valuations for both companies. Furthermore, the inclusion of former Tesla adversaries like Charles Schwab, Morgan Stanley, and J.P. Morgan as SpaceX IPO underwriters is seen as a strategic move to secure their "yes" votes for a potential Tesla merger approval in a November shareholder vote. The rationale for SpaceX acquiring Tesla, rather than the reverse, centers on SpaceX's superior governance structure, which offers Musk stronger control through super-voting shares and mandatory arbitration clauses, protecting the combined entity from activist investors and legal challenges.

IC3 researchers from leading universities analyze the convergence of AI and crypto. They argue meaningful integration is still nascent, with hype often outstripping progress. The report frames AI as a "translation middleware" making blockchain accessible, while crypto serves as a "trust middleware" via tools like ZK proofs and TEEs for integrity, availability, and confidentiality. Two main directions are examined: 1) **Crypto x AI**: Using AI to enhance blockchain via analysis (fraud detection), algorithmic design, and AI oracles (with accuracy varying by task). New risks include AI-driven malicious smart contracts. 2) **AI x Crypto**: Using crypto to enhance AI via decentralized infrastructure (DePIN), data markets, agent micropayments, governance, and securing AI pipelines (training/federated learning, secure inference). The "Protected Pipeline" (Props) framework combines oracles and trusted computation for secure use of private data. Key challenges are highlighted: The industry must rigorously prove decentralized AI's cost competitiveness and crypto's utility for agent payments. Major research gaps include providing systemic security for autonomous agents and addressing novel threats like unstoppable AI agents. The report concludes by debunking five common misconceptions: blockchain cannot inherently detect AI content, solve algorithmic bias, grant true AI autonomy, ensure AI trustworthiness through mere transparency, or guarantee that decentralization is always cheaper for AI tasks. The field remains in an early, evidence-seeking phase.

After Alphabet's announcement of an $84.75 billion equity financing round, market focus for AI investment is shifting from pure growth narratives to capital efficiency and payback periods. The core argument is that AI is being re-priced from a software-like growth story into a heavy-asset infrastructure cycle, requiring massive capital expenditure (CapEx) on chips, data centers, and power grids. While Alphabet's financing itself is not a distress signal—part of it is for administrative purposes like tax obligations on stock compensation—it highlights the enormous capital demands of AI infrastructure. This demand extends beyond tech giants to pure-play AI model companies (like OpenAI, Anthropic), data center REITs, and utilities. Major tech firms are projected to spend heavily on AI data centers in 2026, signaling a broad-based capital cycle the market must absorb. Consequently, valuation logic is changing. Investors are moving away from questions about who has the strongest AI narrative and are now prioritizing clear visibility into orders, stable cash flows, and the cost of capital. This has led to recent pressure on high-multiple AI software and semiconductor stocks, while "picks-and-shovels" hardware, data center, and power assets with firmer near-term demand may see relative support. The key going forward will be monitoring whether rising CapEx guidance across companies is matched by a timely monetization of AI investments into revenue and cash flow. The market's tolerance for high spending depends on demonstrable returns. While the long-term AI thesis remains intact, the valuation framework has fundamentally shifted to emphasize capital discipline and payback speed.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has voted to propose repealing Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the "order protection rule" that has been a cornerstone of U.S. equity market structure since 2005. This move, while a story of traditional finance, represents a major potential policy shift for tokenized U.S. stocks, removing a key structural barrier. Rule 611 mandates that trading centers cannot execute trades at prices inferior to protected quotes displayed on other exchanges. This framework is fundamentally incompatible with Automated Market Makers (AMMs) used in decentralized finance (DeFi). AMMs execute trades along bonding curves with price slippage and cannot comply with the rule's real-time, price-by-price requirements, meaning any tokenized stock liquidity pool would be in violation. The proposed repeal would replace the prescriptive rule with a principles-based "best execution" obligation on broker-dealers. This allows brokers to route orders to on-chain liquidity pools like AMMs, fulfilling their duty through periodic review rather than per-trade enforcement. The proposal is backed by significant historical context. SEC Chair Atkins, who voted against Reg NMS in 2005 alongside Commissioner Glassman, is now acting on his decades-old dissent. They argued Rule 611 would distort markets and push liquidity into dark pools rather than improve transparency—a prediction validated by current SEC data showing nearly half of trading now occurs off-exchange. The SEC's proposal explicitly connects to the crypto industry, citing academic work that Rule 611 has prevented innovation like AMMs and atomic settlement in stock markets. The process has been deliberate, following public roundtables and comments. While tokenized securities face other regulatory hurdles, this repeal is seen as a critical first step in clearing the path for next-generation market structure innovation.

The core thesis for 2026 investment is a shift from traditional growth-inflation analysis towards a geopolitical framework of strategic blocs, supply chain reconfiguration, and capital expenditure (capex) direction. The US is moving from a global guarantor role towards a more bounded "camp system," reshaping trade, security, and technology flows. Key investment themes emerge from this realignment: production-capable US-aligned economies (e.g., Japan, South Korea), regional security focusing on Latin America, and the hard constraint of energy/grid capacity enabling reshoring. Europe's strength lies not in macro growth but in its high-quality "pick-and-shovel" industrial, electrical, and automation exporters serving the global capex cycle. AI remains the central US-China strategic battleground, driving massive investment in compute, power, and manufacturing stacks, with robotics gaining prominence. The investment implication is a rotation away from crowded US mega-cap tech momentum toward global beneficiaries of this restructuring: electrification equipment, industrial automation, energy storage, grid infrastructure, and select non-US markets. 2026 will be defined by investment intensity driven by geopolitical repositioning, not near-term commercial maturity.