Sheemm

SpaceX 自行建立行動網路可能成本過高且耗時過長。但各大無線電信業者只能寄望競爭對手不會出賣自己。馬斯克的 SpaceX 公司一直在大力宣傳其在電信市場的宏偉藍圖。自 2020 年 T-Mobile 和 Sprint 合併以來，美國無線通訊市場一直保持著穩定的寡占格局。但近來，投資人擔心馬斯克的 SpaceX 計畫會顛覆電信服務市場原本穩定的格局。 SpaceX (SPCX) 的星鏈業務目前主要面向農村地區。但該公司 5 月的首次公開募股招股說明書顯示，星鏈移動計畫也雄心勃勃地想要大規模滲透郊區和城市市場，目標是提供比地面基地台更好的網路連接。建造這樣的網路說來容易做來難，需要大量的時間和頻譜資源。而且，這也假設SpaceX願意自行完成大量的採購和建設工作；它的另一個選擇是與現有主要營運商之一達成協議，購買網路容量。這樣的協議很可能會引發全行業的激烈價格戰和客戶爭奪戰——這也是三大業者誓言不簽署此類合作協議的主要原因。傳統無線電信業者的高階主管普遍對星鏈的威脅不以為然。 T-Mobile US (TMUS) 財務長彼得奧斯瓦爾迪克本週稍早告訴MarketWatch：「SpaceX的直接面向小區的衛星星座永遠不可能成為行動網路的有效競爭對手。」Verizon Communications (VZ) 執行長丹舒爾曼在周五的公司財報電話會議上補充道：「這基本上是不可能的，因為物理定律的限制。」 「衛星供應商很難提供與我們寬頻服務相提並論的服務。」儘管如此，近幾個月來投資者的不安情緒顯而易見。自SpaceX於5月公開提交IPO申請文件以來，AT&T (T) 的股價已下跌8%，Verizon的股價同期也下跌了8%，T-Mobile的股價則下跌了10%。 SpaceX並非這些無線營運商面臨的唯一威脅，它們還必須應對更高的利率和營運商之間的激烈價格競爭。但晨星分析師表示，他們懷疑SpaceX的威脅是造成估價壓力的主要原因。電信公司不害怕。電信業由少數幾家大型企業主導是有原因的。有效競爭成本高昂，需持續參與頻譜拍賣並持續投資提升網路競爭力。據MoffettNathanson分析師稱，SpaceX實現其星鏈宏偉連接願景的道路充滿數十億美元的難題，需要數十年才能迎頭趕上。他們最近的研究強調，星鏈的衛星頻譜容量遠遠無法滿足地面連接速度的要求。即使SpaceX去年秋天斥資196億美元從EchoStar (ECHO)購買了65MHz的頻譜，其低頻段和中頻段的頻譜能力仍然遠落後於三大運營商，MoffettNathanson估計，三大運營商的頻譜能力仍然是SpaceX的十倍。低頻段頻譜傳輸距離遠，穿透力強，但速度較慢。中頻段速度較快，資料傳輸量較大，但傳輸距離較短，穿透厚牆的能力也較弱。無線營運商需要均衡的頻譜組合才能有效滿足客戶需求。
據MoffettNathanson稱，SpaceX需要花費數十億美元參加聯邦通訊委員會（FCC）的頻譜拍賣，才能獲得頻譜並建立可靠連接所需的頻段。 T-Mobile財務長奧斯瓦爾迪克（Osvaldik）懷疑SpaceX能否獲得低頻段頻譜，因為即將舉行的拍賣主要集中在中高頻段。同時，營運純衛星網路會受到地理位置和訊號強度的限制。 MoffettNathanson的研究表明，在不考慮天花板或牆壁等關鍵障礙物的情況下，近地軌道衛星的訊號強度比一英里外的地面基地台訊號強度弱約48400倍。正是由於這些限制，大型業者才願意與Starlink或其競爭對手AST SpaceMobile（ASTS）合作，將它們提供的直接到設備的衛星移動服務視為現有地面網路覆蓋的補充。 T-Mobile於2025年2月與Starlink合作，向其用戶提供這些服務，但該公司表示，除了國家公園以外，這項服務幾乎沒有被使用。據奧斯瓦爾迪克稱，今年夏天，T-Mobile的衛星網路使用量僅佔其網路總使用量的0.0003%，他表示隨著冬季的到來，這一比例還會進一步下降。 「我們從根本上明白，衛星網路永遠無法成為替代產品，」他說。要想在無線市場迅速崛起，更快捷的方法是與三大營運商之一合併。但專家表示，這並非一個可行的選擇，因為任何此類合併都將面臨監管和財務方面的障礙。莫菲特納森公司的分析師指出，一個重要的前提是，三大無線營運商都必須確信，他們的競爭對手不會同意讓星鏈以行動虛擬網路營運商（MVNO）的身份與他們合作。
這指的是一種模式，即公司可以從現有營運商那裡租用網路容量，並以自有品牌銷售無線套餐。像Consumer Cellular這樣的廉價營運商正是透過這種方式，無需大規模的基礎設施建設，從而將成本節約回饋給客戶。如果SpaceX與大型無線網路營運商達成協議，它將能夠為客戶提供地面網路覆蓋，並克服阻礙其在美國無線市場有效競爭的主要障礙。正因如此，三大業者似乎達成了一項不成文的協議，以防止市場動盪：絕不與Starlink達成MVNO協議。這三家公司的高階主管在5月都明確表示，他們無意與Starlink達成此類協議。 Verizon已經嚐到了讓有線電視競爭對手租用網路容量的苦果。 2011年，Verizon分別與Comcast (CMCSA)和Charter Communications (CHTR)簽署了MVNO協議。之後，這兩家公司紛紛推出自己的無線品牌，以更低的價格搶佔了市場份額，超越了Verizon。莫菲特納森公司（MoffettNathanson）高級研究員朱莉·朱（Julie Zhu）指出，SpaceX的立場在大型營運商之間造成了典型的囚徒困境。她告訴MarketWatch，如果一家行動網路營運商最終妥協並與SpaceX簽署MVNO協議，整個行業都將蒙受損失，因為一個咄咄逼人的競爭對手將進入市場並大幅降低價格門檻。朱指出，合作公司也會遭受損失，只是損失可能沒那麼大。莫菲特納森表示，電信投資者可能不會樂見SpaceX與MVNO合作，這將進一步降低此類交易達成的可能性。儘管三大業者已表示不願以這種方式與SpaceX開展業務，但這未必能阻止馬斯克的公司試圖迫使他們就範。
根據晨星公司報告，SpaceX 可以嘗試的一種方法是利用其雄厚的財力在聯邦通訊委員會 (FCC) 的頻譜拍賣中出價過高。朱指出，該公司可能會在拍賣中採取激進策略，不僅將頻譜作為潛在的談判籌碼，還會提高價格，增加競爭對手的營運成本。然而，這項策略是否奏效仍是未知數。 SpaceX 能否累積足夠的頻譜資源，從而吸引大型網路營運商考慮其未來的頻寬需求，目前還很難說。但無論 SpaceX 能否成為行動通訊領域的競爭對手，無線投資者仍可能擔心這家以波動性著稱的公司何時會再次出現問題。沃爾夫研究公司分析師彼得·蘇皮諾 (Peter Supino) 在本週早些時候將 AT&T 的股票評級上調至「增持」時也表達了類似的觀點。他寫道：「沒錯，星鏈 (Starlink) 或許能夠強勢進軍行動通訊領域，但獲取和清理合適的頻譜需要數年時間。除非星鏈採取非常激進的行動，否則三大運營商可能不會提供行動虛擬網路營運商 (MVNO) 服務。」然而，蘇皮諾補充說，他現在對AT&T股票的估值是基於歷史性股票的估值是基於歷史性的價值水準。 ——朱利安‧托雷斯 本文由道瓊斯公司旗下的MarketWatch撰寫。 MarketWatch獨立於道瓊斯通訊社和《華爾街日報》發布。

When I first started learning about Bitcoin, I thought the biggest story would always be people buying BTC.



Every headline seemed to be about the Bitcoin price.

Every discussion was about the next bull run.

Every prediction was about how high Bitcoin could go.

But after spending more time watching how large companies and institutions operate, I realized something.

The biggest changes often happen quietly.

They don't always begin with a massive price rally.

They don't always make the front page.

Sometimes they start with products that most retail investors never pay attention to.

That is exactly why Michael Saylor's latest strategy caught my attention.

Most people are still looking at Bitcoin itself.

Meanwhile, Wall Street seems to be paying attention to something else.

Not instead of Bitcoin, but alongside it.

That difference matters.

Recently, STRC became the largest holding inside three major US preferred stock exchange-traded funds (ETFs). These include products managed by BlackRock, Virtus, and VanEck.

Together, these funds now hold around $756 million worth of STRC.

That number made me stop for a moment.

This isn't a small investment made by a few traders trying to chase the latest trend.

These are some of the largest asset managers in the world.

Their job is to manage money carefully.

They don't usually make investment decisions based on social media excitement.

They spend months studying companies, risks, regulations, cash flow, market demand, and long-term opportunities before increasing exposure.

That doesn't mean every decision they make will be right.

Large institutions can make mistakes too.

But when several major firms start holding the same asset, I think it's worth paying attention.

Another number also stood out to me.

Back in March, retail investors owned around 78% of STRC.

By July, that number had fallen to about 71%.

At first glance, someone might think that's negative.

I actually looked at it differently.

Retail ownership didn't disappear.

Instead, institutional ownership increased.

The average institutional position reportedly grew by about 105%, reaching roughly $3.5 million.

That tells a different story.

It suggests that professional investors are slowly becoming larger participants.

Again, this doesn't guarantee future success.

But it does suggest that the investor base is changing.

I think this change is important because it reflects how traditional finance is beginning to look at digital assets.

For years, many institutions treated Bitcoin as something unusual.

Some ignored it completely.

Others believed it was too risky.

Many waited on the sidelines.

Slowly, that attitude started changing.

First, institutions began buying Bitcoin.

Then came Bitcoin ETFs.

Then companies added Bitcoin to their balance sheets.

Now we are starting to see new financial products connected to digital assets attracting institutional attention.

To me, this feels like another step in the market's evolution.

It reminds me that adoption rarely happens all at once.

It usually happens layer by layer.

First comes curiosity.

Then small investments.

Then larger allocations.

Eventually, something that once looked unusual starts becoming normal.

I think we may be watching that process happen again.

One reason I find this interesting is because Wall Street doesn't only look for growth.

It also looks for income.

Many investors manage pension funds.

Others manage retirement portfolios.

Some focus on preserving wealth rather than chasing huge returns.

Their goals are different from many retail traders.

Retail investors often look for the next coin that could double in value.

Institutions often ask different questions.

Can this fit inside a diversified portfolio?

Can we understand the risks?

Does it generate income?

How liquid is it?

How stable is the structure?

Can we explain it to clients?

Those questions shape investment decisions.

If more institutions begin viewing digital credit products as serious financial instruments, that could create a completely different kind of demand.

Instead of buying because prices are rising, they may buy because the product fits their investment strategy.

That difference is huge.

Speculative demand can disappear quickly.

Portfolio demand often lasts much longer.

Of course, this doesn't mean prices only go up.

Markets never work that way.

Every investment has risks.

Regulations can change.

Interest rates can change.

Economic conditions can change.

Investor sentiment can change.

Nothing is guaranteed.

But I think it is important to separate excitement from structural change.

Prices move every day.

Market structure changes much more slowly.

When ownership shifts from mostly retail investors toward larger institutions, I pay attention because that can influence how an asset behaves over time.

Large funds often invest with longer time horizons.

They don't usually react to every hourly price movement.

Many hold positions for years.

That can reduce some of the short-term noise that retail markets often experience.

Again, that's not a guarantee.

But it changes the character of the market.

Another thing I find interesting is what this says about confidence.

Institutional investors have access to teams of analysts.

They study financial statements.

They speak with management teams.

They hire legal experts.

They examine regulations.

They build financial models.

Before making a large allocation, they usually perform extensive research.

Retail investors rarely have those resources.

That doesn't mean institutions always know more.

Retail investors have identified many opportunities before Wall Street noticed them.

Crypto itself is proof of that.

But institutional participation still matters because of the amount of capital involved.

A single large fund can invest more money than thousands of individual investors combined.

When that capital begins flowing into a new area, markets notice.

Another reason I think this matters is because financial history often follows similar patterns.

Many innovations begin with individuals.

Eventually businesses adopt them.

Then institutions arrive.

Finally regulators build clearer frameworks around them.

We've seen versions of this process in technology, internet companies, smartphones, cloud computing, and many other industries.

Crypto may be following a similar path.

The technology appeared first.

Retail investors embraced it early.

Companies slowly entered.

Now institutions are becoming more comfortable participating.

That doesn't mean every crypto-related product will succeed.

Many won't.

Competition is strong.

Business models evolve.

Markets change.

But the direction of institutional interest itself is worth watching.

I also think people sometimes underestimate how important financial products can be.

Everyone watches Bitcoin.

Far fewer people watch the products built around Bitcoin.

Yet those products often determine how traditional investors gain exposure.

Not every pension fund will buy Bitcoin directly.

Not every institution wants to manage private keys.

Many prefer familiar financial structures.

If products connected to digital assets continue growing, they may become the bridge between traditional finance and the crypto economy.

That bridge could bring entirely new pools of capital into the ecosystem.

Again, that won't happen overnight.

These changes usually take years.

Financial markets move slowly until suddenly they don't.

Looking back, many of the biggest shifts seem obvious.

While they're happening, they often go unnoticed.

That's why I enjoy watching ownership data.

Sometimes numbers reveal changes before headlines do.

When retail ownership falls while institutional ownership grows, I don't automatically see weakness.

Sometimes I see maturation.

The market begins attracting different types of investors.

Different investors bring different expectations.

Different investment horizons.

Different risk management strategies.

Different sources of capital.

That combination can reshape an entire asset class.

Another thing I keep thinking about is confidence.

If institutions continue increasing exposure, other institutions may start paying closer attention.

Large investors often observe each other.

Nobody wants to be completely left behind if a new asset class becomes important.

At the same time, nobody wants unnecessary risk.

So adoption often happens gradually.

One fund invests.

Another studies the results.

Then another follows.

Years later, something that once looked unusual becomes part of mainstream investing.

We've seen this before.

Whether STRC eventually reaches that point is impossible to know today.

There are still many questions.

Will institutional demand continue growing?

Will retail investors remain interested?

Will regulations remain supportive?

Will the underlying strategy continue delivering results?

Those questions matter.

Nobody has all the answers.

Personally, I don't think the most interesting story is simply whether STRC's price goes higher.

Prices rise and fall.

The more interesting question is whether financial institutions begin treating products connected to digital assets as normal portfolio holdings.

If that happens, it could represent another important step in the relationship between Wall Street and the crypto market.

Bitcoin opened the door.

Now different financial products are walking through it.

Some will succeed.

Some won't.

That's normal.

Innovation always involves experimentation.

Only time reveals which ideas become permanent.

For now, I think the ownership trends are worth watching.

The increase in institutional positions.

The presence inside major preferred stock ETFs.

The gradual shift in investor composition.

None of these numbers guarantee future performance.

But together, they tell a story.

A story that may be less about speculation and more about integration.

For years, many people asked whether Wall Street would ever embrace digital assets.

Today, I think the question is becoming more specific.

It is no longer just about buying Bitcoin.

It is about building financial products that traditional investors feel comfortable owning alongside the rest of their portfolios.

That feels like a meaningful change.

Whether STRC becomes one of the biggest examples of that shift remains to be seen.

But I believe it is now a conversation worth having.

Markets evolve one step at a time.

Sometimes those steps are small.

Sometimes they completely change the future.

Right now, it feels like we may be watching one of those early steps unfold.

So I'm curious to hear what others think.

Do you believe STRC could grow into a major Wall Street asset over the coming years?

Or do you think institutional interest will remain limited while Bitcoin continues to be the primary focus?

I'd love to hear different perspectives because these shifts rarely happen in a straight line, and understanding them often requires looking beyond today's price chart.
#MichaelSaylor
#btc $BNB $SOL