Brad Gerstner

How could it possibly be that you were pricing your competitors' chips at zero, given the expense of your chips, and it still is a better bet?

So I heard this from one of the CFOs at one of the hyperscalers that given the performance improvement,

that's coming out of your chips, again, precisely to that point, tokens per gig, and power being the limiting factor, that they had to upgrade to the new cycle.

So when you look ahead at Rubin, at Rubin Ultra, at Feynman, does that trajectory continue?

This does bring me back to where we started about the competitive moat.

We've been covering this and investors for a while, we're investors throughout the ecosystem and competitors of yours, you know, from Google to Broadcom.

But when I really just first principles around this and say, are you increasing or decreasing your competitive moat?

You move to an annual cadence.

You're co-developing with a supply chain.

The scale is massively bigger than anybody anticipated, which requires scale both of balance sheet and of development.

Right?

The moves you made both through acquisition and organically with things like NV Fusion, CPX, which we just talked about, all of those things together caused me to believe that your competitive mode is increasing vis-a-vis, at least in so far as building out the factory or the system.

But I think it's interesting that your multiple is much lower than most of those other people.

And I think part of that has to do with this law of large numbers.

A $4.5 trillion company couldn't possibly get any bigger.

But I asked you this a year and a half ago.

As you sit here today, if the market's going to AI workloads are going to 10x or 5x, we know what CapEx is doing, et cetera.

Is there any conceivable world in your mind

where your top line in five years isn't two or three X bigger than it is in 2025?

Like, what's the probability that it's actually not much higher than it is today, given those advantages?