Bluechip

I'm bullish because:
The company has incredible fundamentals that I think have been overlooked (meaning the company is undervalued imo). They've been cooking on their tech and vertical integration, while critics wrongly dismiss them as a sleeping giant or a relic of the pandemic era. This is the big mistake, imo.They have a fantastic team & very intelligent leadership (Carl Hansen is a big thinker and gives every indication of being a great leader).They are averse to share dilution.Biotech in general is a hot sector right now (most major biotech ETFs are breaking out, such as GNOM, IBB, XBI [SPDR S&P Biotech])$ABCL.US 's chart looks fantastic (see attached). From a TA-perspective, the chart has clearly bottomed, confirmed by the breakout of a massive, multi-year inverse head-and-shoulders pattern. This foretells a big move ahead, assuming the right shoulder holds (that's the invalidation point-- around $2.90).
In crypto terms, this is like a rare altcoin that actually has strong fundamentals and isn't just a picture of a dog on a coin.
This is not a short-term hold for me. It's a multi-year hold, minimum, and maybe a decade-long hold. They have a drug called "ABCL635" that is close to its phase 2 results (see the vertical line I drew on the chart where I think this may be announced). If it's a success, this will be incredibly validating and positive for the company and price. If it fails then expect a big pull-back-- perhaps a drop of 50%. Even if this drug's phase 2 results are sub-par, the company still looks strong to me. The company is a powerful machine that is going to pump out drugs with innovative technology. This is all my opinion of course.
I'm aware this isn't crypto-related, so I won't frequently post about it, in order to keep my channel crypto-focused. But just thought I'd share that I like the company and I have a position in it.
Obviously this is not financial advice. I'm just sharing what I see here.
I noticed you are into biotech as well,
Income Sharks. This is one of the hotter plays in the biotech sector-- if not the hottest-- imo.
$ABCL.US

Selling a record 32,000 coins and signing 70 billion dollars in contracts to walk away and build AI instead.

Bitcoin did not flinch.

Its computing power dipped for a moment, then climbed back to an all-time high. No attack came.

The network that was supposed to depend on these miners just proved it never needed them, and that is the real remarkable story almost nobody is telling right now.

Why they left is quite brutal and rational. It costs a public $BTC miner around $80k to produce one Bitcoin, and for a stretch this year Bitcoin traded below that, so they were manufacturing at a loss.

Meanwhile a megawatt pointed at training AI earns three to five times what it earns mining, with multi-year contracts from the likes of Microsoft and Google instead of the lottery of block rewards.

So they did what any business would. BTC miners sold their Bitcoin, more in one quarter than in all of last year, more than the industry dumped in the entire Terra collapse, and began converting their power plants into AI data centers.

The equity market cheered, paying up to 500 percent more for the biggest pivoters.

By every old assumption, this should have been a major crisis.

Bitcoin's security was always described as a fortress built by miners who spend real energy to defend it.

Pull that many out that fast and it should crack. For a few weeks it looked like it might.

Hashrate, the total computing power guarding the network, posted its first drop in six years.

Then the machine did the thing its naysayers and critics forget it can do. It adjusted. Bitcoin has a rule in its core: when miners leave and blocks come slower, the network automatically makes mining easier and more profitable for everyone still plugged in.

So as the deserters powered down, the math handed their reward to the miners who stayed, and to the private and “lower-cost” operators who rushed into the gap.

Hashrate did not keep falling. It recovered to a record high. The security budget refilled itself from a different set of pockets, without a vote, a bailout, or a single missed block.

This should reframe how you see the whole system.

Jamie’s JPMorgan measured the new fragility, and it is real short term: the network's difficulty now moves with the price at a sensitivity they put at 0.62, so a falling price does pull machines offline faster than before.

But the deeper lesson runs the other way.

Bitcoin just absorbed the single largest exit of its own miners ever recorded, driven by the most powerful capital magnet on earth, and never stopped producing a block every ten minutes. The system was not weakened by the desertion. It was tested by it, and it passed.

This matters more than any price. Both sides misread what secures this thing. Bulls said belief, bears said fragile hype, and both were wrong.

Bitcoin's security was never built on loyalty or faith or the specific companies everyone calls essential.

Rather, it was built on cold hard math that assumes miners are mercenaries who leave the instant something pays better, and it is designed to shrug when they do.

AI just proved the assumption correct at the largest scale in history, and the network treated a 70 billion dollar defection as a routine difficulty adjustment.

The Bitcoin miners everyone said were the foundation turned out to be tenants.

They came for the yield, left for a better one, and the building did not move.

That is not Bitcoin's weakness being exposed. It is the strangest kind of strength, a network so indifferent to who runs it that it watched its biggest operators leave to join the very technology draining its capital, and kept humming.

AI won the auction for the energy.

Bitcoin never needed to win it. It only needed the miners to be replaceable, and it built that in from the first block.