ASIC
Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company Holdings
Mentions (24Hr)
0.00% Today
Reddit Posts
Diversifying out of NVDA position & putting ~10 to 20% into AVGO and MRVL?
Electro Optical Systems (EOS) potential short squeeze incoming.
$GCTS Full Breakdown as to Why I Believe Starlink or Amazon Got a Contract With GCT
Mentions
Do you still like TSM? I think it's one of the safer AI plays out there. Whether it's ASIC's or GPU's TSM wins either way. I've been buying anytime it goes near $400. In 2-3 years I think it can be $800+.
I’m rooting for them, and I hold a position too, but idk. I pay a lot of attention to what people wear, and Nike is being worn by few. All I see is OC, Hoka, ASIC and New Balance on people’s feet these days.
Broadcom and Marvell come with their own set of risks compared to Nvidia. Their costumer concentration is even more extreme and it's not like they can sell the ASIC's to other companies if say Google for example decides to switch vendors or even one day do the chip design in house. They are heavily reliant on retaining a small number of hypsercaler commitments. Nvidia is also heavily reliant on the hyperscalers but they have the ability to diversify their customer base (which they slowly are) in a way that Broadcom or Marvell can't.
ASIC demand is super high for the inference buildout. That’s why AVGO trades at a higher PE ratio than NVDA.
It’s baffling to say the least AVGO is a key player in AI. They have their hands in the networking side and AI ASIC design side. I don’t own them myself because I’m all in on NVDA and MSFT.
AVGO has to hit 92% yoy in ASIC and networking otherwise everything you hold dearly will be red. Aside from Netflix, the anti stock.
Nike Vomero are more comfy than any asic, hokac, new balance, or on cloud shoe I’ve tried. I own over 20 pairs of sneakers for running, walking, and daily life. I just don’t think the statement that Nike doesn’t have shoes that compete on comfort is accurate. Of course Nike Dunks or AF1 don’t compete on comfort with ASIC Nimbus tho, and that’s what I think people are comparing and is just a dumb comparison.
Robots don't all use LLM based AI. A lot of the processing is done by good old algorithms. I'm an electronics engineer. I've been in satellite development, drone development, FPGA and semiconductors. For anything that requires latency, you need something like an ASIC, FPGA or Microcontroller. You don't need a datacenter kilometers away. "AI Robots need more data centers for latency" is a dumb argument by OP. Robots will always need their hardware on their person (metaphorically). For example, IMUs used for Attitude Control by robots need kilohertz or even megahertz of polling data to correct position in a 3D space. No self respecting roboticist will build a robot that needs a datacenter to operate.
Well, rather than have general purpose hardware (memory, etc), they baked the model weights into the chip structure itself, which is a bit different than eg making an ASIC that specializes in one algorithm. That lets it run at wire speed, almost like one of the old analog computers, rather than iterating over it at the clock speed to come out with the final result. Downside is that models are changing fast, and the whole line of model specific chips would be stuck with the model they were built with for all time.
It's a totally different kind of chip, OpenAI are ASICs which are custom hardware explicitly designed for a particular workload while NVDA chips are general purpose chips. The ASIC is probably tailored for very specific LLM architectures.
That facility is a bitcoin mining center. You can’t use bitcoin miners for AI, they’re specific ASIC chipsets that can only run specific calculations that only work for bitcoin, they literally can process nothing else. They’re also lower in power, 30MW for AI would be like a 10K sqft building. This thing is MASSIVE for its power consumption, which means it’s crap tons of low energy devices, the only thing that fits that footprint is ASIC miners.
This is why I'm glad I'm diversified and hold both: Marvell (2% of portfolio) & Broadcom (4%) It's so easy for hyperscalers to choose who they want for a custom ASIC program.
too many hobbyist miners running an ASIC in their basement, spread all over the world. good luck to mr. state actor. gonna cost him billions just to try. perhaps he overrides a single block. not a good investment.
ASIC ( application specific integrated circuit) miner
New models are released frequently, but flagship ones like Fable don't come along as often. If they put Fable on an ASIC, I'd wager that would be "good enough" for most development purposes for many years to come for most people. When it comes to cybersecurity on the other hand, organizations that want the latest and greatest can always subscribe to SOTA models. I have a feeling the future will be a hybrid of local hardware users and SOTA users, kind of like how we have companies that have moved all of their servers to the cloud while others remain on-prem.
Sure bro, that is why they buy up all the overflow and expose themselves to constant criticism. Its not a conspiracy when you can look up the list of fines incurred by Citadel Securities and Citadel Advisors. US regulatory fines: 1. In 2007, Citadel Securities was fined $22,500 by FINRA for failing to properly report short interest positions. 2. In 2009, Citadel Securities was fined $3 million by the SEC for allegedly engaging in improper trading practices that artificially impacted the price of securities. 3. In 2014, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fined Citadel Securities $800,000 for allegedly violating the market access rule, which requires firms to have adequate risk controls and supervisory procedures in place when providing direct market access to customers. 4. In 2015, Citadel Securities was fined $800,000 by the SEC for violating the Market Access Rule. 5. In 2015, Citadel Securities was fined $1.5 million by FINRA for violating various rules related to trading activities. 6. In 2016, Citadel Securities was fined $3.5 million by the SEC for violating the National Market System Plan governing the consolidated data feeds that disseminate stock prices and trades to the public. 7. In 2017, Citadel Securities was fined $22.6 million by the SEC for misleading customers about the quality of its pricing and execution. 8. In 2017, the US Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) fined Citadel Securities $1.5 million for allegedly providing inaccurate information to customers and for failing to report trades to the appropriate regulatory entities. 9. In 2018, Citadel Securities was fined $3.5 million by the SEC for failing to provide customers with accurate trade data. 10. In 2019, Citadel Securities was fined $100,000 by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for exceeding speculative position limits in wheat futures. 11. In 2020, Citadel Securities was fined $97,000 by FINRA for failing to properly report certain equity trades. 12. In 2020, the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fined Citadel Securities $700,000 for allegedly violating swap data reporting requirements. 13. In 2021, Citadel Securities was fined $700,000 by FINRA for failing to report a significant number of trades to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE). International regulatory fines: 14. In 2017, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) fined Citadel Securities €1.1 million for breaching market-making obligations and engaging in algo-trading activity that may have contributed to market disorder. 15. In 2017, the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) in France fined Citadel Securities €5 million for allegedly manipulating French government bond futures. 16. In 2018, Citadel Securities was fined €1.6 million by the Italian securities regulator (CONSOB) for market manipulation and insider trading in the Italian government bond market. 18. In 2018, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) fined Citadel Securities AUD 360,000 for alleged trading violations related to market integrity. 19. In 2018, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) fined Citadel Securities $230,000 for market manipulation related to its trading activities on the Singapore Exchange (SGX). 20. In 2020, the French financial regulator, Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), fined Citadel Securities €2 million for allegedly manipulating the bond market and breaching its best execution obligations. 21. In 2020, the UK's Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) fined Citadel Securities £1.2 million for failing to provide accurate and timely transaction reports to the regulator. 22. In 2020, the Swiss financial regulator, Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), fined Citadel Securities CHF 1.12 million for violating trading rules and engaging in market manipulation on the SIX Swiss Exchange. 23. In 2020, Citadel Securities was fined £1,445,000 by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for inaccurate transaction reporting and failing to take reasonable care to organize and control its affairs responsibly and effectively. 24. In 2021, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) fined Citadel Securities £1.4 million for failing to adequately report certain trades to the regulator. 25. In 2021, Citadel Securities was fined $97,000,000 in China for alleged "malicious" short-selling practices. 26. In 2021, the Korea Financial Investment Association (KFIA) reportedly fined Citadel Securities 175 million won ($155,000) for allegedly engaging in high-frequency trading activities that violated local laws. 27. In 2022, Citadel Advisors LLC was fined $20,000 by the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) for violating position-limit rules involving November 2021 Henry Hub natural-gas contracts. NYMEX found that Citadel held 2,365 short contracts—365 above the standard 2,000-contract limit—and lost the benefit of a conditional limit when it established a position in the underlying Henry Hub Natural Gas futures contract. The settlement became effective September 12, 2022; Citadel neither admitted nor denied the rule violation. 28. In 2023, South Korean regulators imposed approximately ₩12.98 billion in penalties—about $10.55 million at the time—on Citadel Securities (Hong Kong) Limited. This consisted of ₩11.88 billion, roughly $9.66 million, relating to findings that its high-frequency algorithmic trading disrupted the Korean stock market, plus approximately ₩1.1 billion, roughly $890,000, relating to short-sale violations. Reuters reported the principal ₩11.88 billion sanction in January 2023. Citadel disputed the market-disruption findings and appealed them; its current FINRA BrokerCheck affiliate disclosure reports that portion as “On Appeal,” while stating that the firm did not contest the short-sale findings. 29. In 2023, the SEC fined Citadel Securities $7 million for violations of Regulation SHO's order-marking requirements. The SEC estimated that over a five-year period Citadel incorrectly marked millions of orders, including short sales marked as long and long sales marked as short, because of a coding error in its automated trading system. The inaccurate information was also transmitted to regulators. Citadel accepted a censure, cease-and-desist order, $7 million penalty and remedial undertakings without admitting or denying the findings. 30. In 2024, FINRA fined Citadel Securities $1 million for widespread Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) reporting violations. FINRA found that from June 2020 through August 2024 the firm failed to timely or accurately report tens of billions of equity and options order events to the CAT Central Repository, involving numerous different types of reporting errors. Citadel was censured and fined $1 million in an October 9, 2024 AWC. Nothing to see here folks, were just not good enough to cheat enough for it not to even matter when you get caught.
I'm not one for hyperbole, but Lisa Su will literally have a fucking picnic on the graves of her competitors. Current monolithic chip designs will max out, pushing design towards low friction networks of heterogeneous compute architecture (CPU + GPU + FPGA + custom ASIC). The world economy is leaning on dreams about the taste of theoretical AI fruit, and the fabled tree grows out of hardware. Hardware scaling is a prime motivator, our power grids are maxed out, we are cranking out and stockpiling hardware that we can't even use, we have to because it could theoretically be super valuable and we as humans can't fucking help ourselves. The further expansion, I think, will be in the form of more efficient chip/server architecture as a proxy for more energy (trading complexity of manufacturing/organization for both grid buildout time and literal electricity generation/delivery), likely a shift to photonics will shift the numbers dramatically. With photonic interconnects at least we could put the copper stuff to work without losing a huge chunk of it to thermal/interference issues and signal processing, its essentially necessary past 1.6T speeds anyways (and for quantum). Google the lead time on ordering an industrial transformer, think about how many we need, now remember that lead time is using existing orders/demand estimates. I could, of course, be completely wrong, but look at Lisa and ask yourself what she would do.
Everybody knows this, they can't stop talking about Blackwell, rubin, cerebras, tenstorrent, jalapeno, TPU, GPU, ASIC, Maia, whatever Meta has, Trainium. "Hardware is the real benefactor of AI" has been the main narrative for the entirety of 2026 so far
I'm an analyst, I've been looking into this; its an accounting debate that's legitimate to question, especially for the datacentre/neocloud dynamic. Many industries in the past have gamed the system in ways that allowed them to transmute capital investment into operating expenses, effectively creating a financial engineering mechanism to keep the balance sheet clean. Airlines, telecom companies, Energy during the Enron SPV era. There's a long history of companies exploiting gaps in accounting standards, they eventually get closed, but in the interim, yes they create legitimate risk. Under modern GAAP and IFRS, the loopholes exploited in the past have been aggressively closed. Most companies cannot move finance/capital leases off their balance sheets, because if they use the majority of the economic life of an asset, there's ownership transfer, purchase or buyback options, or the asset is custom to the user (eg an ASIC), if any of these are true, it becomes a finance lease liability directly on the balance sheet of the user (eg META, MSFT), which is treated like debt. As of 2019, even operating leases have to be recorded as a ROU asset and liability on day one, making it even harder for companies to play this game. Everything I spoke about though, only applies when the assets in question are fixed. eg, If your company leases you a car for work, that's treated as though they bought it for you. It shows up as an asset that depreciates, and debt if they took any on. If, however, your company pays for car rentals, that's an expense, because you get a different car each time. As you can see, this creates a legitimate path for neoclouds/ hyperscalers to play this game once again: they commit to buying compute, but it doesn't have to come from the same silicon. That means, by current accounting regulations, they are not leasing (i.e. buying) a server, they're renting it.
OpenAI: "be careful he's got an ai chip" NVDA (brandishes Blackwell): "give me all ya Capex" CBRS: (chickling) "that's not an inference chip" (pulls out dinner-plate sized WSE-3 mega-ASIC) "*that's* a chip."