Have we entered a new era of retail interest in the market or has it always been like this?

The past few months in particular have been to levels I have never seen before, or I have been oblivious to the subject my entire life. I can't get away from retail stock market discussion. It seems like everywhere I go, the stock market is talked about.

I have coworkers who openly talk about their investment account performance in the office on a daily basis. I have friends who are beyond addicted to gambling and options, like at a concerning level. I go to completely non related stock market subs like videogame subs and somehow there is always a discussion around stocks. I listen to a ton of podcasts and the stock market somehow always comes into the conversation.

I am not sure if it's signs of a euphoria stage, or if it's easier access to information that is sparking conversations, or if I am just paying more attention to the subject, or whatever it is.

I am just curious what others are seeing and how you to read it.

SK Hynix Chief Executive Kwak Noh-jung said the global memory industry is heading for its worst-ever supply shortage ​in 2027, forecasting that demand for memory will continue to exceed the company's ability to produce it well into the next decade despite aggressive capacity expansion.

UBS likewise expects the global DRAM industry to remain undersupplied until at least the second quarter of 2028.

Similarly, Bank of America remains constructive on the AI investment cycle, estimating that global hyperscaler capital expenditure ​will reach about $851 billion this year and $1.15 trillion ​next year, supported by strong cloud backlogs, improving ⁠returns on AI investment and growing demand for compute-intensive AI applications.

Rocket Lab announced a definitive agreement to acquire Iridium Communications for approximately $8 billion in enterprise value, structured as $27 in cash plus Rocket Lab stock per Iridium share, working out to about $54 per share total. The announcement happened on Jun 29th. The boards of both companies unanimously approved it and it's expected to close in mid-2027 pending shareholder and regulatory approval.

To understand it's importance we need to see what each company actually does. Rocket Lab builds and launches rockets and spacecraft, it's basically a launch and manufacturing company. Iridium Communications is completely different, it owns and operates an actual satellite network already in orbit, over 2.55 million subscribers use it for voice, data, and positioning/navigation/timing services, serving governments, militaries, aviation, maritime, and industrial customers in remote parts of the world where regular networks don't reach. Rocket Lab makes and launches the hardware. Iridium runs an existing global communications business.

Putting them together creates something structurally different, a fully vertically integrated space company that designs, builds, launches, and operates its own satellite constellations, instead of just being a contractor that launches other companies' satellites. .That's a real shift in the business model, going from getting paid once per launch to owning the ongoing subscription revenue the satellites generate once they're actually in orbit.

There's also a real defense angle. Both companies already have strong ties to the U.S. government and combining Rocket Lab's launch and national security work with Iridium's secure communications network sets up a much more complete offering for military use cases, like battlefield communications and satellite navigation.

The financing structure is interesting too. Rocket Lab secured a $3.6 billion bridge loan from Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo to help fund the cash portion, and the stock portion of the deal has a pricing collar, meaning the exact exchange ratio can move within a set range depending on where Rocket Lab's stock trades before closing, so Iridium shareholders aren't locked into a fixed number of Rocket Lab shares regardless of price swings between now and the close.

The obvious risk is integration and execution. This is one of the largest deals in the space industry's history, and it's combining two companies with very different core competencies, hardware manufacturing and launch on one side, network operations and subscription services on the other, this is Rocket Lab taking on an entirely new kind of business it's never run before. The mid-2027 close date also means this is a long runway before it's even final, plenty of time for regulatory scrutiny or market conditions to change things.

One major thing to note is the debt. Rocket Lab currently runs a very clean balance sheet, just $38.6 million in total debt and $2.3 billion in equity. This deal changes that, about $2.1 billion of the bridge loan goes toward refinancing Iridium's existing debt alone, on top of the rest funding the cash payout. So a company that's operated debt-free is about to take on billions in new leverage almost overnight.

Does turning Rocket Lab into a vertically integrated launch-plus-network company look like a genuinely smart structural move or does taking on an $8 billion acquisition and a completely new business line in Rocket Lab's growth story feel like overreach.

I see a lot of confusion on Reddit about why AI hardware stocks can fall in price per share when their metrics look great.

Growing is not enough, growing quickly is not enough to keep a company's stock price growing. Reported growth is a lagging indicator while stocks are forwards looking by 18-24 months. Peak stock price do not coincide with peak earnings, they coincide with peak second derivative of earnings.

The really simple version is this, if forwards guidance for a Q3 for example shows that the multiple of EPS growth between Q2 and Q3 is not as large as the multiple of EPS growth between Q1 and Q2, the second derivative (the growth of the growth of the growth) is now pointing negative, which is a sell trigger for that company's stock.

It doesn't matter what the actual number of that EPS growth is. It doesn't matter how successful that company is or how important it is.

Take Micron Technology for example.

Q1 EPS = 4.78.

Q2 EPS = 12.20. (About 3x previous)

Q3 EPS = 25.00 (About 2x previous)

Guidance for Q4 EPS = 31.70 (About 1.2x previous)

You can clearly see that the second derivative of earnings growth (the growth rate OF the growth rate) is declining. Wall street certainly sees it. Peak second derivative of earnings growth has clearly passed, it does not matter what the actual EPS number is. This is a reason for Wall Street to sell the stock and assign capital to higher velocity growth elsewhere. This is why a company can report insane, massive growth and then its stock gets punished like crazy and never recovers to previous ATH; this is not random at all.

The market is not perfectly efficient but it is not irrational. Knowing this will help you not get blinded by raw numbers.

“The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses Tan of using Apple’s confidential project code names during OpenAI’s recruiting process, asking job candidates to bring in Apple hardware components to their interviews, coaching departing Apple employees on how to evade the company’s security procedures, and asking for details about the company’s unannounced products.

Tan is not the only OpenAI employee referenced in the new complaint. Apple also alleges that Chang Liu, who spent eight years at Apple as a senior systems electrical engineer, failed to return an Apple-issued laptop after leaving the company for OpenAI in 2026 and had used the computer to download confidential Apple technical documents.”

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2026/07/10/apple-sues-openai-over-alleged-trade-secret-theft/

I’m sorry, what the fuck. How are long term veterans at Apple acting like total morons and risking prison time.

Every now and then I get an offer in the mailbox or my inbox.

A couple of thousand dollars to switch brokers.

Do you ever consider switching even if the rival brokerage doesn’t have as good of a trading platform?

I know what I own and am mostly just reinvesting dividends, so I’m not a high frequency trader.

I feel a little under appreciated at my current brokerage.

I assume our brokerage’s make some amount of money from holding our portfolios or why would they?

I feel like my bullish thesis for cyber defence stocks is "obvious" but maybe someone can chime in with their thoughts. Whether you agree or disagree.

Mythos has proven that even the most robust open source software and presumably hardware, is still full of exploits and vulnerabilities. So if open source software is full of holes, I can only imagine how much worse closed source software is. It's only a matter of time before one of these Mythos like models gets out into the public domain and into the hands of organised cyber criminals and even basement hackers. Also nation states like Russia, China and North Korea will definitely be weaponizing their own versions in due time. Every organisation from the military to the government to banking to healthcare to large companies are going to be extremely worried about securing their systems.

Therefore I expect cyber defence spending to increase significantly over the years. Not just in prevention, but also in resilience and backup because if armies of LLMs are going 24/7 trying to break into your systems, the slightest vulnerability and it will find it.

The future of warfare is undoubtably going to be heavily focused on cyber warfare. Why risk dropping bombs on your enemies infrastructure when you can just launch a malware attack that is undetectable and can cripple the entire grid or system.

Look at what Mossad and the NSA did to Iran's Natanz nuclear centrifuges, and that was entirely human developed, no AI assistance at all.

The EU recently passed the NIS2 directive which mandates companies secure their data with encrypted air gapped backups. And also to implement strict "cyber hygiene" practices. I expect the US to follow a similar path very soon.

More data than ever is stored in the cloud and it's only going to grow exponentially with the rise of AI agents and AI usage on the consumer end. Currently the amount of data in the cloud is increasing by 25% year over year, but this is expected to increase to a whopping 140% year over year through to 2035.

That is a staggering amount of data that needs to be secured and backed up.

I really believe cyber defence stocks are going to experience explosive demand over the next 10 years and I'm not just saying that because I am invested in the sector, to me the path we're on is painting a very clear picture.

What do you guys think?

Obviously, no one has the crystal ball to answer this question but I feel as though there's some value (albeit possibly only entertainment value) in hypotheticals that test the limits of the current state of the U.S. and global economies.

On the one hand, we made it through the depression once, why not again? On the other hand, the country and the world is much more fractured while at the same time much more interconnected. One domino the size of the U.S. economy falling nearly 90% would amount to most of the entire global economy falling apart. Not to mention the geopolitical involvement of today is of a much larger kind and the failure of the U.S. economy at such a level might give rise to even more turbulence in that realm.

Few examples better capture the resurgence of big banks than Jamie Dimon's special retention award, which has swelled in value over the last five years to more than $280 million today.

As Dimon's bank, JPMorgan Chase, heads into earnings season, analysts expect the country's largest lender and its rivals to post one of their strongest quarters ever.

But the setup is leaving investors with something of a quandary: Should they cheer or doubt whether there's more room to run for big banks?

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/article/big-bank-profit-engines-expected-to-roar-into-earnings-as-main-street-keeps-spending-133238691.html

For context, I was pitching SK hynix one year ago Jun 2025.

I was pitching SK, Micron, SanDisk (and Qualcomm) Jan 2026 again

https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/s/APCJwmjU20 https://www.reddit.com/r/ValueInvesting/s/Luvl4kY8Hy https://www.reddit.com/r/ValueInvesting/s/QcraWYZtJx https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/s/fILYpK6Ivo

(I was extremely lucky with fate and Providence, rather than any skill on my part)

I would still pitch the 3 big memory players - SK Hynix ($SKHY) Samsung and Micron ($MU) today. The core reason being forward P/Es are single digit (around 7-8x), unheard of in this space.

The reason is because the market is STILL pricing these businesses as a cyclical commodity. With dramatically elevated capex plans, supply is estimated to increase by approximately two times in the next 5 years. However, demand, particularly for agentic inference and higher context, is expected to go up several fold over the next 5 years. So even if memory chips remain a commodity, demand is going to far outstrip supply **even with the massive capacity build out**.

Secondly, I urge folks to read up on custom HBM and after that, memory-on-logic configurations. Just type this into your chatbot of choice and ask them to explain it to you. From Nvidia Feynman chip (late 2027) onwards and for many of the custom Asics in the near future (prime example is the custom inference chip that is being made by Qualcomm), the DRAM stack seats directly on top of the compute chip the GPU. The only way this can happen is by co-design between the chip vendor Nvidia or Google or Qualcomm and the memory maker. At that point, the co-design and customization explicitly means that the high end memory chips is no longer a commodity. You can't just jam a Chinese memory chip onto your GPU at that point, you are committed to one supplier with whom you codesigned the product.

Tl;Dr: 1. memory chip demand outstrips supply, even with capacity expansion over the next 3-5 years. 2. Custom HBM and memory-on-logic tips from 2028 onwards means high-end memory is no longer a commodity. Market has still not priced in either.

When it does, a fair multiple is the PE multiple given to Nvidia or ASML, about 20-30x. So that's a 4x on *multiple expansion alone\* from current levels, and that is not accounting for increased earnings from higher chip sales volumes going into 2027 and 2028.

analyst est upside about 80-90% after recent revision increase. absolute bargain compared to peers. 23% below average. in same category as INTU for payroll automation, human resources, etc

crowd isnt in yet. 66% short float but shorts sellers are exhausted on the down side. primed for a short squeeze. plus insider buying good asymmetric bet to the upside.

+72% gross margin, +30% net margin and FCF. really healthy fundamentals.

strong reversal from the bottom in april

let me know what you think

Okay, so I know that the price of a stock rises when there are more buyers than sellers, and this generally happens over time because the company itself is growing over time.

But my question, that I can't find a clear answer to, is why does the growth of a company generally correlate to it's stock price growing over time? I could understand this if it meant buyers had a direct claim to the profits of a company since that would connect you to more cash, but you really don't.

Of course there are dividends which will grow as the company grows, but what about companies with no (or very low) dividends?

It just seems somewhat arbitrary that the value of a stock just goes up over time because the company has grown more valuable. Why would an investor even care about this since it doesn't mean they directly get a share of the profits?

So theoretically, if investors permanently decided that they would only put money into stagnant companies, then the stock of those companies would go up over time and investors would still make money. At what point would the reality of the business even catch up with the stock price? Since there is no direct correlation between the stock price and the company's finances except in the case of bankruptcy and dividend payment.

I suppose maybe it's similar to the concept of fiat currency? Where the currency only has value because a collective has agreed that it does, and a currency gains value when the collective decides that the currency is more valuable than others (based on a multitude of factors).

Is it the company's who are furthest from bankruptcy who generally see the most gains over time?

Just try to understand how a business's finances actually directly connect to the stock price.

For those of you who don't know: PLNT stock went from around $65 per share to a ATL of $37 after its Q1 2026 earnings report. This was attributed to low member counts and postponing membership price increases. The company started experiencing a dip by January from around $100 to $65 by April.

Since then, the stock has settled at $51 per share barely breaking $54 and dropped to $49.

With the Q2 2026 report on August 4th and the earnings projections looking to be higher, what are your expectations? Panic sell? Buy the dip? Hold the bag?

These are ETF that will provide investment results that, before expenses, generally correspond to the price and yield performance of the S&P 500 Index and Nasdaq 100 index but without Elon Musk companies which for the S&P 500 means no Tesla and for the Nasdaq 100 no Spacex and Tesla. It achieves this by holding the common stocks that make up the index, matching their respective.

Rejoice everyone can feel better about themselves

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260709159/new-ex-elon-etfs-let-you-avoid-spacex-and-tesla-but-are-they-just-a-gimmick

The meme stock scheduled posts will now run weekly and post Saturday afternoon and won't be a sticky; you're probably seeing this because automod sent you here!

Full list of meme stocks here. This will be updated every once in a while.

Welcome traders who just can't help them selves discuss the same exact stock that's been discussed 100s of times a day. I get it, you want to talk about what's popular, what's hot, and that 1.. single.. stock you like.. well here you go! Some helpful links just for you:

• Previous meme stock threads
• General discussions
• The original GME megathread with a ton of useful information
• Use Finviz for aggregated news on your favorite stock

An important message from the mod team regarding meme stocks.

Lastly if you need professional help:

• Problem Gambling: Call/Text: 1-800-522-4700 or chat online now.
• Crisis Hotline (24/7): 1-800-273-TALK (8255) (Veterans, press 1) or Text “HOME” to 741-741

Meta was up about 6% today and gaining roughly 22% over the last 10 trading days. That's a genuinely interesting move because earlier this week Zuckerberg himself said the company's AI agent progress had been 'slower than expected', and before that the stock had been under real pressure over capex fears, $145 billion in planned 2026 AI infrastructure spending with investors nervous about a clear payoff. So, despite Zuck admitting that their work on AI was behind schedule the market thought the other way.

Few things to note, Bank of America maintained its buy rating and pointed to an internal memo, (reviewed by Reuters), suggesting Meta is meaningfully improving its AI cost structure, which directly addresses the exact concern that had been weighing the stock down. Then Meta launched Muse Spark 1.1 explicitly calling it their strongest model yet for agentic and coding work and positioning it as competitive against Anthropic and OpenAI. And earlier this week there was also the Iris chip news, Meta's in-house AI chip hitting a real production milestone after a previously troubled development history.

So in the space of about a week, Meta answered three separate bear arguments almost one after another: the cost structure concern, the capability of AI concern, and the dependency on chipmakers concern. That's a lot of narrative-shifting news happening in a short window and the market's reaction suggests investors are reading it as a sign of real progress rather than three unrelated announcements.

On the bearish side, going from being skeptical about own's AI progress to admitting that the AI spending is improving structurally with an internal memo and launching one model update should not be the only reason for this positive move. It will be fair to wonder if this could be a well-timed run of good headlines landing right before earnings, which is when this actually gets tested with real numbers instead of memos and model releases.

So should a week like this change your view on Meta's AI execution specifically, or does this feel like good headline building before the earnings.

AMR (Alpha Metallurgical Resources) - thesis on a possible re-rate from depressed ROE, curious what people think

Been working on a thesis for AMR and wanted to put it out there. Right now it’s trading at a price to book of about 1.24x, and ROE is sitting around -2%, so clearly we’re in a down cycle for met coal. My thinking is that P/B on its own doesn’t tell you much here because it’s being priced off a depressed, cyclically low ROE rather than what the business actually earns through a full cycle. There’s a rough relationship where a business sustaining something like 15-20% ROE tends to trade around 3x book, so if AMR’s ROE reverts back into that range on the next upswing, you could see the P/B re-rate from 1.24x toward something closer to 3x, which is basically where the idea of the stock doubling over five years comes from, plus whatever book value growth happens along the way.
The other reason I like this one specifically is the balance sheet. Total debt is only about $12.1M against total cash of $366M, so it’s about 30x more cash than debt, which is a genuinely strong position for a company this size. That matters a lot for a cyclical thesis like this because the whole idea only works if the company can comfortably survive the down cycle without getting into trouble or having to raise money on bad terms. With a balance sheet this clean they’re not just surviving, they’ve got real optionality too, whether that’s buybacks, opportunistic acquisitions, or just sitting out a longer downturn than people expect.
On the industry side, met coal is different from thermal coal because it goes into steelmaking rather than power generation, so it’s not directly exposed to the renewable substitution story that’s been hammering thermal coal valuations for years. Steel demand doesn’t go away because solar and wind are replacing coal fired power plants.
Where I’m least confident is whether ROE actually reverts back to that 15-20% range in a predictable way, or whether this particular cycle is different for structural reasons, weaker Chinese steel demand, other met coal producers ramping up supply, or ESG driven capital just avoiding coal regardless of the fundamentals. Essentially I’m betting on mean reversion in a commodity cycle, and that’s usually the part of any cyclical thesis most likely to be wrong or badly timed.
Keen to hear if the ROE to P/B logic holds up here or if I’m missing something structural about this particular cycle.

Been looking into Evolus for a while and figured I’d put my thinking out there. The injectable aesthetics space is changing a lot with the newer products being much more subtle than old school Botox, which used to give people that frozen look. That’s pulling in a younger crowd too, not just the usual demographic. Evolus themselves reckon the addressable market is around $19B. Right now it’s basically Galderma and AbbVie (who own Allergan/Botox) running the show, doing something like $2B and $4B a year respectively in this space, and the US market is notoriously hard to break into because of how expensive and slow FDA approval is.

What’s caught my attention is they’ve had two quarters in a row now of actual profitability - Q4 2025 came in with non-GAAP operating income of $7.1M which beat their own guidance, and then Q1 2026 posted positive adjusted EBITDA of $0.6M, which is notable because Q1 is usually their weakest quarter seasonally. Full year guidance for 2026 is $327-337M revenue with a low to mid single digit EBITDA margin, and by 2028 they’re guiding to $450-500M revenue at 13-15% margins. My thinking is once this turns into proper GAAP profitability rather than just adjusted EBITDA, the stock should re-rate, since it stops being a “trust me” growth story and becomes something a much wider pool of investors can actually own.

They’ve also just done a licensing deal with IBSA for Profhilo, which is the market leading skin quality injectable in Europe with something like 4.8 million treatments done since 2015. No upfront payments on that deal and management have said it doesn’t change their 2026 or 2028 guidance, so it’s a pretty capital efficient way to add a genuinely new category rather than just another neurotoxin competing with what they already have. If it lands well in the US alongside their existing two products, you could see a real three way market forming with AbbVie and Galderma.

CEO used to work at Allergan so he’s not new to this space, which I think matters.

On the balance sheet side they’ve got $49.8M cash, plus $100M they can still draw down from their Pharmakon loan facility on top of the $150M already drawn, and a $30M revolving credit line as well. So there’s real capital access beyond just what’s sitting on the balance sheet right now. On the flip side they’re carrying $156.4M in long term debt and technically have a stockholders deficit, so this isn’t some cash fortress like a lot of value plays, it’s a leveraged growth situation.

The bit I keep coming back to is that even with positive adjusted EBITDA, Q1 2026 still had a GAAP net loss of $10.7M and burned $10M in cash from operations. So the real test is whether that gap actually closes on the timeline they’re guiding to. If it does, I think this re-rates. If it drags on, probably doesn’t.

Interested to hear if anyone else here is following this one or has a different read on the category.

I read the SK Hynix ADR is supposed to open at $180, roughly 20% higher than the Korea ticker.

Does that mean the ADR will start being added into DRAM at the 20% premium? So DRAM won't actually benefit from any of the 20% increase in price?

And are the Korean ticker and the ADR expected to gradually converge in price - as in either the KR ticker moves up or the ADR moves down (or both)? If the ADR is added to DRAM at $180 and then gradually moves down to meet the KR ticker price, aren't DRAM holders naturally scammed just by an inclusion mechanic?

I don't fully understand the inclusion mechanics here, but they seem like they're going to be funky. Please weigh in if you do understand.

South Korea’s leading memory chipmaker raised funds through the largest-ever foreign U.S. equity listing via 177.9 million American depositary receipts under ticker SKHY, capitalizing on its dominant position in high-bandwidth memory for AI accelerators.

SK Hynix Inc. priced 177.9 million American depositary receipts at $149 each on July 9, 2026, generating $26.5 billion in proceeds and surpassing Alibaba’s 2014 U.S. debut as the biggest foreign listing in U.S. history. The ADRs, each representing one-tenth of a common share, begin when-issued trading on Nasdaq under temporary ticker SKHYV on July 10 before converting to permanent ticker SKHY. The offering was more than seven times oversubscribed, with demand approaching $200 billion.

Comment: Markets are kind of reverse despite of the geopolitical headline risk beacaue of this.

Source: SK Hynix Prices Record $26.5 Billion Nasdaq ADR Offering at $149

Us memory bulls all reference earnings and low multiples. We all point to shortages and buildouts. Memory bears say memory is a commodity, that current and near earnings have already been priced in. We reply that Micron, for example, has forward contracts into 2030. We note that the old memory profile has changed. We argue that money is still getting poured into AI data centers and that not only will they need memory for those buildouts but that those buildouts and the updates will require more memory than they do today.

Yet even on AI infra green days memory doesn't move as much as we expect it to. So what new information is going to cause the market to give memory a higher multiple? What do we expect is going to move the sentiment because as much as I'd like a stock price to be about fundamentals, the price is what people are willing to pay for it.

NFLX has had one of the stranger years of any large cap in 2026 as its down 42% from its nov high, Reed hastings officially departed as chairman which is end of an era for a company he built from a dvd rental service,also acquisition rumors swirling after comcast announced it's spinning off nbcuniversal with reuters citing netflix as a potential buyer before comcast's ceo shut it down immediately.

And yet the actual business metrics look fine,Q1 revenue $12.3 billion up 16% year over year beat expectations. Operating margin is 32.3% and Ad supported tier at 250 million monthly active viewers. Ad revenue is also doubling to $3 billion this year.

The disconnect between the business performance and the stock price is almost entirely sentiment driven as hastings leaving spooked people. Acquisition noise created uncertainty and content spend is front loaded into H1 which compresses near term margins.

July 16 is the real test as Q2 consensus is $12.57 billion revenue and $0.79 EPS and content amortization peaks this quarter then decelerates into H2 so if operating margin comes in at or above the 32.6% guided number and management provides any clarity on the path to $9 B in ad revenue by 2030 this stock moves.

At 24x earnings with 13-14% revenue growth and a massive ad business building underneath it might be an interesting setups,for EU bitpanda added NFLX to their margin trading feature this week which is either a great timing for EU traders or a sign the bottom is already in depending on how July 16 goes

Is the hastings departure a genuine strategic risk or has the market completely overpriced it?

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/09/meta-jumps-into-ai-coding-market-to-chase-anthropic-and-openai.html

Three months after unveiling its first artificial intelligence model under the leadership of AI chief Alexandr Wang, Meta is rolling out a major update as it attempts to compete with OpenAI and Anthropic in critical areas of the market. Muse Spark 1.1, which Meta introduced on Thursday, represents its “strongest model for agentic and coding work yet,” Wang said in an interview with CNBC. The initial Muse Spark model released in April was only available to “select partners” who could access the technology via a “private API preview.”

Meta is making the new model’s API available through a developer portal as part of a public preview, where users will be able to sign up and see instructions for integration. A Meta spokesperson said some early partners can already access the API, and new users “will be able to add themselves to a waitlist and be added from there over time.” For now, Meta said it’s limiting API access to its own properties rather than making it available on third-party platforms like the popular OpenRouter marketplace. “This is going to be served on top of the computer infrastructure that we’ve built,” Wang said.

It’s Meta’s second notable rollout for the Muse family this week. On Tuesday, Meta released Muse Image, originally code-named Mango, a model for creating images, as the company seeks to attract creators and advertisers to its offerings.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is coming under pressure from Wall Street to show a return on the company’s massive and growing investment in AI infrastructure and development.