Ffs I had an alert on this that didn’t quite meet it last week

---

These crypto miner scams cant even meet the insane demand of the mag 7, but yes lets pretend they can fulfill 20 billion in a year. Then Jensen releases a new chip and everyone will rush to buy capacity from whoever is getting those but still limited supply. Its all a headline scam

---

Let us all meet up for one big sex orgy

---

Analysis of Broker/Market Maker Collusion 1. The Legal Conflict (High Likelihood: 90%+) The entire PFOF structure is a legal conflict of interest, and the evidence suggests this conflict is exploited, even if it's not "collusion" in a criminal sense. Evidence: A 2022 Wharton academic study suggested that one major broker's arrangements with market makers appeared to sacrifice price improvement (a better price for the customer) in exchange for increased PFOF. Conclusion: This isn't illegal collusion, but it's a systematic breach of the spirit of the Best Execution duty. The broker is legally allowed to choose the venue, and they choose the one that benefits them most, leading to a suboptimal result for me. 2. Regulatory Enforcement (Likelihood: 100% Happened) Regulators have found brokers did not meet their Best Execution obligations, leading to large fines. This proves that the conflict has led to harm. Evidence: In December 2020, the SEC charged a major retail broker with failing to satisfy its Duty of Best Execution and providing "inferior trade prices" that cost customers tens of millions of dollars. The SEC explicitly stated the broker was misleading customers about its PFOF revenue and execution quality. The broker was fined $65 million. Conclusion: The broker was caught prioritizing its own financial self-interest over the client's, proving the system is susceptible to abuse. 3. True "Collusion" (Likelihood: Unknown but Low/Medium) "Collusion" typically means market makers agreeing with brokers to set a PFOF rate or to intentionally withhold better prices across the board. Evidence: Public reports from Congressional and SEC reviews following the meme stock events found no public evidence of illegal collusion between market makers and broker-dealers to stop trading. Conclusion: While direct evidence is lacking, the industry is dominated by a few large wholesalers who collectively pay most of the PFOF. When few players dominate, it increases the opportunity for tacit understanding or parallel behavior, but without a smoking gun, it remains a heavily debated theory. The Final Takeaway The question isn't whether brokers are criminally colluding, but whether they are structurally incentivized to exploit the legal conflict of interest. The likelihood is very high (90%+) that the broker's PFOF revenue motive systematically results in me receiving suboptimal execution, even if the execution is technically within the vague legal boundaries of "Best Execution."

---

Nvda is suppose to meet with China about selling them other chips apparently but it could be all chatter

---

Need to rebrand AI capex as White House meet and greet fee

---

Is SPY $700 Call 11/7 a good idea? I think it can meet that target

---

>[https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/insuring-against-an-oracle-default-is-getting-costlier-is-it-a-bad-omen-for-ai/ar-AA1Pmh5l](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/insuring-against-an-oracle-default-is-getting-costlier-is-it-a-bad-omen-for-ai/ar-AA1Pmh5l) >**Insuring Against an Oracle Default Is Getting Costlier. Is It a Bad Omen for AI?** >The price of Oracle’s five-year credit default swaps hit their highest point in more than two years earlier this month and now sit just below that peak. Spreads have nearly doubled since their six-month low in mid-June. >Financing the infrastructure to meet the AI GPU demand will require taking on [plenty of debt](https://www.barrons.com/articles/larry-ellison-oracle-56e03912).  **Warning to neocloud stock holders:** ORCL, NBIS, IREN, CIFR - these companies are taking on massive amount of debt for depreciating assets (GPUs) with high run costs (electricity) + debt interest payments. They have low margin business (like car dealerships) with absurd valuations. On the other hand, highly profitable companies like NVDA, AMD, AVGO, TSMC are selling to the neoclouds and hyperscalers and don't have that debt risk and have lower valuations. You have been warned about neocloud stocks - someone will be left holding the bag and it will not be pretty

---

CFTC takes longer than expected to grant approval giving more time for competitors to enter the market. But I can't imagine it takes more than a couple more months and competitors would need years to catch up. I suppose the other risk is that the tech doesn't meet others expectations but thats why the exchange is still a nice safety buffer. I think LNG benchmark with gold is a given which provides a 5-10x from here. Another concern is buyout. They have a big vision to change the financial sector, but someone with big money bags could just buy them out. Although I think they would need to offer significant premium. At the stage they are at, i'm more worried about it not going high enough for the risk I took way earlier in the company (was down 50% at one point) than I am that it goes down again.

---

Meta closed meet 650, watch for huge gap up Monday morning when they have 5 million in trading volume to fill.

---