Friday, October 23, 2026

Back to today

From X

@StableBread

Fajasy on X

One AI data labeling contract could be worth multiples of the $500,586 of revenue Nubeva Technologies $NBVAF (TSXV: $NBVA) booked in FY2026. Its CEO said in a new interview that data labeling companies (firms that turn experts’ knowledge into training data for AI labs) have asked the company to help label malware, and that most of its engineering focus is now on training its own AI model to read malware binaries. Nubeva now has three ways to pay off, up from two: → Having AI write the decryptors for its key-capture software, Ransomware Reversal (NuRR), so Nubeva can grow again or attract a partner/buyer. → A partnership or sale following the approval of all four AI patents. → Selling binary analysis (labeling what malware programs do) to data labeling companies, which could also attract a partner/buyer. Moreover, a data labeling contract wouldn’t depend on NuRR’s sales or on AI writing its decryptors, so it could come before either of the other two routes. CEO Randy Chou gave no price, volume, or timeline for a contract. But if you were to extrapolate the $200-250/hour that Mercor, one of the largest data labeling companies, pays its security experts, one full-time contractor (~2,000 hours/year) would earn $400-500K/year, just about Nubeva’s FY2026 revenue of $500,586. That implies Nubeva could earn multiples of its revenue from a single data labeling contract if its engineers and model can do the work of several contractors. A contract worth three of Mercor’s full-time experts ($1.2-1.5M/year) would be 2.4-3.0x its FY2026 revenue.
@convequity 3 clicks

Convequity on X

$META bulls say its ad cash flow lets it undercut the AI labs on price. The Muse Wonder launch shows Meta matching their prices instead. Meta released Muse Wonder and Muse Wonder Full on Monday and says they score level with Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra on its own tests. Three details from the launch. 1. Wonder costs $4 per million input tokens and $20 per million output tokens on Meta's API. TechCrunch puts that in the same price band as GPT-6 Sol and Opus 5.5. Meta is pricing with the labs, not under them. 2. The stronger model, Wonder Full, is not on the API at all. It is only available to Muse Code subscribers. A developer comparing API models is not buying the model Meta uses to claim the frontier. 3. Both models are distributed only through Meta's own API and Muse Code subscriptions, and the launch says nothing about releasing the weights. I read this as Meta adopting the labs' business model rather than attacking it. The frontier model is a subscription product, and the API is priced at the labs' level rather than below it. That weakens one part of the bull case. If Meta is not undercutting, the price pressure on the labs that bulls expected has not arrived with this launch. The question for the results on 21 October is what Muse subscriptions, Muse Code and the API are earning against the spend on the Prometheus data centre that trained these models, not whether Meta can take the labs' customers on price.

Capital Wars

CoreWeave’s $35 billion to $39 billion 2026 spending plan relies on debt as unsecured yields reach 15%, making its GPU cloud expansion a…

Putting bear cases to rest

Medpace authorized $1 billion of buybacks through 2028 after Q3 revenue rose 8.5% to $716 million; service revenue grew roughly 12% as…

PYPD · long

Polypid LTD

PolyPid, an $80 million Israeli biotech, fell nearly 30% despite solving a clinical problem.

Publications we follow

Every publication on this site, hand-picked.

129 publications

Newsletters 109

X accounts we follow

Every account on this site, hand-picked.

91 accounts

Investor letters we follow

190 firms

Sectors

Ordered by how often our editor reaches for them.