$NUAI price action has absolutely sucked over the past 14 days, along with the rest of the sector. No sugarcoating it. Has the thesis changed? Absolutely not. Look at the valuations of some of NUAI’s peers: $WULF: ~$5.8B | 839 MW contracted $HUT: ~$8.4B | 949 MW contracted $APLD: ~$5.5B | 1,410 MW contracted Meanwhile, $NUAI sits at just ~$331M, with 207 MW gross (~148 MW IT) in P1 and another ~550 MW gross (~393 MW IT) in P2. Much of these peers’ contracted capacity is still under construction or awaiting delivery. Yet the market already assigns billions in value to these developments. We still believe BOTH phases of $NUAI will be contracted. That’s ~541 MW of potential IT capacity. And with lease economics improving dramatically, we believe NUAI could secure even more attractive terms. Yes, we still need signed leases, financing and execution. But that’s precisely where we see the valuation opportunity. 14 days of red haven’t changed the story. @optionology @fnitefiend

$NUAI - Meta vs. Anthropic: Who’s the mystery tenant? @LovedropV @optionology and I have been digging into the filings, management commentary, analyst reports, and industry lease comps to piece together who might be behind TCDC. We decided to put our research together and make the strongest case for both candidates, including the evidence against each. Our collective read: 🟢 Anthropic: 75% 🔵 Meta: 20% ⚪ Other: 5% The breadcrumbs increasingly point toward Anthropic, but Meta remains a legitimate contender.

Despite the sector weakness, the news from $NUAI yesterday was super bullish! They filed an 8K confirming major progress and a huge vote of confidence from Macquarrie. Here are details put together with @fnitefiend and @LovedropV...

Did some digging into $NUAI. It reads more like a 2028 story to me. The valuation math is easy to get excited about until you look at what happened with $CIFR and $WULF. A major lease can re-rate the stock immediately. Then the market starts underwriting what actually matters: capex, financing, dilution, tenant credit, delivery timing and when rent actually starts. And $CIFR is probably the best example. Cipher signed its first major HPC lease with Fluidstack in September 2025: 168 MW, roughly $3B of contracted revenue, with Google backstopping $1.4B of Fluidstack's obligations. It then followed that with a 15-year ~$5.5B direct AWS lease and additional contracted capacity. Cipher eventually had something NUAI doesn't have today: multiple executed leases, hyperscaler validation, access to billions in project capital and an established data center development platform. Yet after trading around $30 at its highs, $CIFR eventually came back toward the ~$14 area—roughly around where it was when that first major Fluidstack/Google lease was announced. That doesn't mean the leases were bad. They materially improved CIFR's fundamentals. The point is that even after the market gets the lease headlines it wants, eventually it comes back to the economics. NUAI hasn't even reached that point yet. Phase 1 is 200–207 MW supplied by Vistra's Luminant subsidiary at the Odessa site. The 20-year PPA was signed September 18, with power targeted for Q3 2027. The site itself is real. Odessa P&Z approved the 63.42-acre Phase 1 plat 4–0, and NUAI already had grading-related approvals in place. The power, however, is not online yet. The PPA still has conditions precedent that have to be satisfied by December 31, 2027, including the agreement covering the Phase 1 substation and related equipment. NUAI is also required to provide a $116M letter of credit, originally due within 15 business days of signing, plus up to another $82.8M of security by the delivery date. That's potentially $198.8M of credit support associated with getting Phase 1 power delivered. As of this writing, I haven't found public confirmation that the $116M LC has been posted. And there is still no binding tenant. NUAI says it is negotiating with multiple potential tenants, including what it describes as one of the world's largest AI infrastructure consumers. But even if an LOI gets announced, an LOI isn't a lease. That distinction matters. And this is where I think comparisons to $CIFR and $WULF need context. Yes, established developers have signed major AI/hyperscale leases before their campuses were fully energized. But I haven't found a clean comp for a company in NUAI's position. NUAI only pivoted into dedicated data center development in the second half of 2025. TCDC is its first hyperscale campus. It doesn't have CIFR's execution history, multiple completed financings or existing hyperscaler relationships. That doesn't mean NUAI can't sign a hyperscaler before energization. But the burden of proof is different. A Microsoft, Amazon or Google signing today isn't simply reserving 200 MW of future capacity. They're underwriting NUAI and its development partners successfully posting the required credit support, completing the substation transaction, raising billions in project financing, constructing the campus and delivering that capacity on schedule. Maybe a hyperscaler signs before energization. But every milestone NUAI clears—the $116M LC, substation agreement, financing, permits and construction progress—makes the project easier for an investment-grade tenant to underwrite. If NUAI lands Microsoft, Amazon, Google or another investment-grade tenant before those milestones, that's a major de-risking event and I'd adjust the thesis accordingly. Until then, I don't think CIFR signing AWS early proves NUAI can automatically do the same. And without a binding lease or sufficiently creditworthy development structure, financing a multi-billion-dollar shell becomes much harder. That's the part of the valuation people skip. Recent powered-shell/colocation transactions roughly support annual economics around $1.7–2.4M per critical IT MW. Use $1.8M/MW as a conservative illustrative assumption for Phase 1. 200 MW × $1.8M = roughly $360M of annual rent. That's: $3.6B over 10 years. $5.4B over 15 years. Sounds huge. But NUAI doesn't keep $360M. The lease rate determines the size of the pie. The financing structure determines NUAI's slice. And the fully diluted share count determines each shareholder's slice of NUAI. Vistra receives a 5% non-voting interest in the project company associated with the PPA-powered portion once delivery begins. NUAI management has also discussed an illustrative structure involving roughly a 50/50 development JV financed with approximately 80% project debt and 20% equity. That helps solve the capital problem. But it also means sharing the economics. Take $360M of headline annual rent. A roughly 50% interest gets you closer to $180M of attributable rent before operating expenses, interest, debt amortization, development economics and other costs. The lender gets paid first. NUAI common shareholders own the residual, not the headline rent. And tenant quality changes the value of that residual. A 15–20 year lease with Microsoft, Amazon or Google can support cheaper debt and a higher valuation multiple. A shorter lease with a weaker-credit neocloud can mean more expensive financing, more required equity and a lower multiple. Same MW. Same building. Very different equity value. The construction math matters too. Shell and core for modern hyperscale capacity can run roughly $11–13M per MW. At 200 MW, that's approximately $2.2–2.6B before the full tenant technology stack. AI infrastructure can push total deployed capital substantially higher, although GPUs and much of the IT equipment are typically tenant-funded. NUAI isn't building Vistra's generating plant. But somebody still has to fund the campus, substation infrastructure, electrical systems, cooling and shell. At June 30, NUAI reported roughly $84.8M of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash. It also cites $270M of undrawn Macquarie capacity, although much of that availability remains discretionary. Then NUAI filed a $100M ATM on September 24. Even if the entire ATM were used, $100M is only a fraction of the capital required for a multi-billion-dollar Phase 1 development. That's why the financing structure matters so much. A well-financed 49–50% interest in a contracted 200 MW campus can create significant equity value. But trying to retain substantially more ownership means writing a substantially larger equity check. If NUAI has to fund a $200–400M equity requirement primarily by selling stock at $6, that's roughly 33–67M new shares. Same project. Completely different per-share outcome. That's also why I wouldn't treat the current $10–$13 analyst targets as simply: 200 MW × lease rate × multiple = stock price. B. Riley recently raised its target from $10 to $13, and the broader JV economics behind a partially owned Phase 1 are plausible. But the equity value ultimately depends on the tenant, lease duration, financing cost, development partner, leverage, construction cost and dilution required to actually get the campus built. Then there's timing. Q3 2027 is a targeted POWER DELIVERY date. It isn't a guaranteed rent commencement date. Power delivery still has conditions. The tenant has to sign. The project has to be financed. The shell has to be constructed. The capacity has to be energized. The tenant has to accept it. Then rent starts. That's why this feels more like a 2028 story to me. Best case, NUAI lands a strong investment-grade tenant earlier, project financing follows, construction progresses on schedule, power arrives around late 2027 and initial rent begins in 2028. If the LC, substation transaction, tenant, financing or construction schedule slips, you're potentially pushing those economics further into 2028–2029. A lease announcement can obviously move the stock long before then. But a lease headline isn't revenue. And a $3B–$5B TCV headline isn't $3B–$5B of equity value. Go back to $CIFR. Cipher got its first major Fluidstack/Google-backed lease. Then AWS. Then more capacity. It gained the credibility, counterparties and financing access that NUAI is still trying to establish. And the stock still went from around $30 back toward ~$14. Again, that doesn't mean CIFR failed. It shows that after the market prices the excitement, it eventually asks: How much does the build cost? Who funds it? How much debt can it support? How much equity has to be raised? When does rent actually start? What return does the project generate on invested capital? And what percentage of those economics still belongs to common shareholders when everything is finished? If an experienced developer with Google-backed and AWS leases can experience that kind of valuation compression, I think you have to be especially careful assigning full lease economics to NUAI before it has even signed its first tenant. The regulatory side adds another variable. Abbott's TCEQ permitting pause creates additional uncertainty for Texas data center development. Phase 1 already has several important local/grading approvals, reducing some of that risk. Phase 2 is more exposed because its roughly 550 MW standard air permit was still pending when the statewide pause was imposed. That's another reason I wouldn't give full value today to the entire ~757 MW plan, let alone the eventual 1.4 GW vision. Phase 2 should earn its valuation as Phase 1 gets financed and de-risked. So my framework is pretty simple: Lease rate = size of the pie. Financing/JV structure = NUAI's slice. Dilution = each shareholder's slice of NUAI. Tenant quality + lease duration = the multiple. Execution = when any of it actually becomes real. A well-financed ~50% interest in 200 MW leased long term to Microsoft, Amazon, Google or another investment-grade counterparty can justify $10–$13 and potentially more. A weaker tenant deserves a different multiple. Heavy dilution produces a different per-share value. And a lease that never closes produces no rental economics at all. I'm not saying NUAI can't execute. I'm saying investors are looking at a chain of future events that shouldn't be treated as one event: PPA → $116M LC → substation → tenant → binding lease → project financing → JV/equity structure → construction → energization → tenant acceptance → rent. Every arrow matters. The site is real. The PPA is real. The opportunity is real. But Q3 2027 is a power target—not a 200 MW data center full of paying customers. For me, $10–$13 makes more sense as a successfully executed Phase 1 valuation than something I automatically assign today. The point where those economics become substantially easier to underwrite looks more like 2028. And if Phase 2 eventually gets financed and leased too, that's where the real bull case begins.

Next part of our $NUAI work with @optionology and @LovedropV: How the Letter of Credit Deadline Could Play Out With the Oct. 9 deadline approaching, we mapped the potential outcomes, our estimated odds, and what each could mean for shareholders. A letter of credit is a bank-backed guarantee protecting Vistra if NUAI’s project company fails to meet specified obligations under the power agreement. It’s an important milestone, but who backs it, how it’s funded, and what comes alongside it could tell us much more. Does it arrive on its own? Alongside a tenant LOI? Could Macquarie or Vistra extend the relevant deadlines while lease talks progress? Our estimates lean heavily toward neutral-to-positive outcomes. The bigger commercial catalyst remains a binding tenant lease, but this milestone could offer clues about how the pieces are coming together. One thing to keep in mind: posting the LOC may not require a standalone 8-K, so silence alone wouldn’t prove the deadline was missed. These probabilities are our estimates, not company guidance. Stay tuned for our next post, where we’ll share our top 2 tenant guesses and the reasoning behind each.

Is Anthropic about to become $NUAI's anchor tenant? The paper trail is remarkable. I'll let you decide. Anthropic has committed more than $500B to AI infrastructure. It signed a $19B lease with TeraWulf. It's reported behind a $9.1B lease in Texas. In August it went further and co-founded its own data center company: Theseus. The CEO's job description, in his words: "build, run, and lease the data centers Anthropic needs to keep up with demand for Claude." Theseus is owned by funds managed by Macquarie's asset management arm, alongside GIC. They fund the majority of equity for every project. Here's where it gets interesting. Macquarie is also NUAI's lender. Same financial group, both sides of the table. And they didn't stop at lending. Macquarie bought $NUAI shares too. Debt exposure and equity upside. Now meet the man in the middle: Trent Yang. Yang sits on NUAI's board. Before that, he co-founded an investment firm called Galway. Who funded Galway? Macquarie's asset management arm put in $250M. The same arm whose funds now own Theseus. In other words: the people funding Anthropic's data center buildout spent years as Trent Yang's backers. And Yang has held a seat in NUAI's boardroom since June 2025, before Theseus existed. He is the bridge between NUAI and Anthropic's infrastructure capital. Now the timing. Theseus launched August 10. On September 18, NUAI signed a 20 year power deal with Vistra. Six days later it told the SEC it's negotiating a direct anchor lease with "one of the world's largest consumers of AI infrastructure." Not a hyperscaler. A consumer. That's how you describe an AI lab. One more detail worth watching: the credit. TeraWulf says its Anthropic lease comes with investment-grade credit support. Riot says the same structure is being finalised for its AI lab lease. And NUAI's own financing requires an investment-grade counterparty behind its lease. The name on the lease matters. So does who stands behind the rent. These structures fit together. One financial group connecting everything. One board member inside that network for years. One tenant signing $10B+ leases every few weeks. One developer holding freshly contracted Texas power. This post builds on @bitcoinbutcher1's thread connecting Theseus to the Sep 24 filing. He found the door. The board seat and the bank are what's behind it.

We heard big news from the Ector County Commissioners Court today about $NUAI and its TCDC project! The judge said that now that the 200 MW power deal is signed, "this is starting to become a reality." New Era asked for no tax breaks and will pay the full rate, which could mean HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in property taxes, back to the community. The county is getting ready for this to be built, and it's a huge win for the local community. @LovedropV @fnitefiend

Super bullish for $NUAI. We created a detailed summary of the company's stock ownership, including management incentives and short interest. You can do the math, and then position yourself accordingly. 🔥🔥 @LovedropV @fnitefiend

Built a $NUAI TCDC valuation model with @optionology & @lovedropv. We modeled 3 lease rates across P1+P2, using 12x after signing & 15x stabilized. Base case: $22.99 → $33.69/share. Directional model, not a PT. Assumptions below 👇