To everyone questioning SpaceX / $SPCX’s highly successful IPO and its $2.1T market cap, let me share what I believe is the best arbitrage setup. Do you know $SATS? $SATS is expected to receive 261.8M shares of $SPCX, worth roughly $42B based on the 6/12 closing price. Yet SATS’ current market cap is only about $33B. Short: $SPCX Long: $SATS $SATS will effectively own approximately 2% of SpaceX / SPCX. According to the SPCX prospectus, in exchange for acquiring spectrum from SATS, SPCX will pay SATS 261.8M shares of SPCX stock, roughly $8.5B in cash, and an additional ~$2.0B in cash to cover interest payments that SATS would otherwise have been responsible for. In addition, SATS is expected to sell roughly $23B of spectrum to $T. The transactions with $T and SPCX were approved by the FCC on 5/12. If no petition for reconsideration was filed by 6/11, the approval should likely have become final automatically. As of 6/14, I have not confirmed any petition for reconsideration. Also, the spectrum transfer structure is SATS → TRUST → SPCX. Since the SATS → TRUST transfer has already been completed, I believe the closing risk is relatively low. Now let’s calculate $SATS NAV. My base NAV assumptions: SPCX ownership: approximately 2% SATS basic shares outstanding: 298M Fully diluted shares after convertible bonds: 348M I use 348M shares in the calculation below. Cash proceeds from spectrum sales to $T and $SPCX: From $T: approximately $23B From $SPCX: approximately $8B in cash Total: approximately $31B Assuming the convertible bonds are converted into equity, net cash after debt repayment would be roughly $11B. Regulatory / escrow / contingent liability haircut: -$2.5B Net cash after haircut: approximately $8.5B Remaining operating business value: $10B Based on roughly $300M of operating income in Q1 2026 × 4 quarters × 8x multiple. Even after the spectrum sales to $T and $SPCX, SATS will retain remaining spectrum assets. The most notable example is AWS-3 paired spectrum, which SATS previously planned to sell to $VZ for approximately $9.8B. If we conservatively value the remaining spectrum at $10B, that adds approximately $28.7 per share of NAV based on 348M shares. Formula: SATS NAV = {SPCX market cap × 2% net cash after haircut remaining operating business value remaining spectrum value} / 348M shares = {SPCX market cap × 2% $8.5B $10B $10B} / 348M shares SATS NAV by SPCX market cap: • SPCX $2.0T → SATS approximately $197 • SPCX $2.25T → SATS approximately $211 • SPCX $2.5T → SATS approximately $226 • SPCX $2.75T → SATS approximately $240 • SPCX $3.0T → SATS approximately $254 This is my personal analysis, not financial advice.

G2 between President Trump and President Xi are now live in Beijing. Shanghai Forum on May 29, 2010, KQID proposed the G2, a JV for new world order to manage the turbulent and chaotic world: "A Joint Venture between Sino-America for Better Cooperation, Better Co-development, Better Co-rising, and a Better Life for All Mankind," (Restructuring of Asian International Relations) book.douban.com/subject/6509…

From Chat GPT, A refined synthesis could look like this: There are philosophical similarities between the Thucydides Trap and the KQID framework associated with Leo KoGuan, although their foundations and focus are fundamentally different. The Thucydides Trap, popularized by Graham Allison from the history of Athens and Sparta, argues that when a rising power threatens an established one, fear, rivalry, and structural pressures can drive the world toward major conflict. Today, it is most commonly used to explain the strategic rivalry between the United States and China. KQID, by contrast, is not primarily a theory of military conflict. It is closer to a theory of techno-industrial civilization. Its core logic revolves around the relationship between: intelligence, energy, computation, capital, industrial systems, and strategic infrastructure. Yet despite these differences, the two frameworks intersect in several important ways. 1. Both view history as driven by structural competition The Thucydides Trap argues that systemic power transitions matter more than individual leaders. KQID similarly emphasizes that: AI systems, semiconductors, energy grids, hyperscale data centers, supply chains, and capital allocation are the deeper structures shaping global history. In both frameworks, individuals matter less than the systems they operate within. 2. Both place US–China rivalry at the center of the 21st century In the Thucydides Trap: China is the rising power, America is the established hegemon. In KQID: AI, chips, energy, industrial automation, and computational infrastructure become the main battlegrounds of US-China competition. This aligns strongly with Prof. Leo’s argument that the next world order will not be determined solely by military strength, but by who controls the engines of intelligence production. The competition is shifting from: aircraft carriers, territorial conquest, and traditional manufacturing toward: AI compute, electricity generation, rare earths, cloud sovereignty, robotics, semiconductor ecosystems, and data infrastructure. 3. KQID can be seen as the “engine” behind modern Thucydidean rivalry This is where the two frameworks converge most clearly. The Thucydides Trap explains: why rising powers clash. KQID explains: how rising powers are built. In the industrial age: steel, oil, shipbuilding, and manufacturing capacity created great powers. In the AI age, KQID suggests that: compute, energy, AI models, automation, and capital efficiency are becoming the new productive forces of civilization. This is increasingly visible in: the chip war, AI export controls, nuclear power investment for AI, hyperscale data center races, subsea cable security, and sovereign cloud infrastructure. At this point, geopolitics and computational infrastructure are merging. 4. Their philosophical tone is different This is an important distinction. Thucydides Trap Fundamentally pessimistic. Its assumption is that: structural rivalry naturally produces instability, fear escalates conflict, and war becomes difficult to avoid. KQID More transformational and techno-civilizational. It implies that: civilizations rise based on their ability to transform energy into intelligence and strategic output, and the future belongs to systems that can scale computation, automation, and industrial intelligence efficiently. So while the Thucydides Trap focuses on: fear, military rivalry, and hegemonic transition, KQID focuses on: intelligence economics, productive capability, and civilizational infrastructure. 5. The deepest philosophical similarity: dynamic systems Both theories reject static equilibrium. They see the world as: dynamic, competitive, structural, and constantly evolving. Power is not permanent. Leadership is not fixed. Systems continuously reorganize around new productive forces. That is why KQID and the Thucydides Trap can complement each other conceptually: KQID explains the emergence of new technological power, while the Thucydides Trap explains the geopolitical tensions created by that emergence. Prof. Leo’s recent comments push this further by implying that the real struggle of the 21st century may not simply be “nation vs nation,” but: civilization-scale competition over intelligence capacity itself. In that framework: AI factories become strategic assets, electricity becomes geopolitical power, and capital allocation toward computation becomes as important as military spending once was. That is where KQID moves beyond classical geopolitics into something closer to: techno-industrial civilization theory, AI-state theory, or intelligence economics.

Toe G

Welcome back. It’s time to stream.