The Information : SpaceX Overhauls Data Center Build-Out, Potentially Slowing Ex

SpaceX Overhauls Data Center Build-Out, Potentially Slowing Expansion

The Takeaway
  • SpaceX’s new data center strategy prioritizes reliability over rapid build-out.
  • Frequent outages plagued xAI’s initial fast-built data centers.
  • Rocket engineers now lead data center team, replacing veteran staff.

Elon Musk is famous for his “move fast” management philosophy, which he demonstrated most starkly when he built new data centers for his AI startup in record time two years ago. But a new team of rocket engineers Musk recently installed to run his data centers is taking a very different approach.

SpaceX is changing how it builds the giant facilities that house AI servers in a way that might slow the building of new campuses, according to people familiar with the situation. The new management team is looking to install more backup systems for power and cooling, and to more thoroughly test those systems before the data centers start operating, instead of adding them later on, as the AI company was doing, two of the people said. SpaceX also wants to reduce the use of temporary power and cooling systems in its data centers, one person said.

In some cases, the new management is redesigning portions of existing data centers, the people said.

The new approach marks a shift from the one xAI—Musk’s AI company, now part of SpaceX—took when it initially began building its giant Tennessee data center campus, Colossus, in 2024. At the time, Musk chose to prioritize speed and computing capacity over building out the infrastructure needed to increase reliability, the people said.

But in late June, Musk shook up the management of SpaceX’s data center team, replacing data center veterans with people from SpaceX’s rocket launch team. (SpaceX acquired Musk’s xAI startup earlier this year.)

The new management of the data center team told some staff when they took over this summer that SpaceX engineers had been brought in to improve reliability at the company’s facilities in Tennessee and Mississippi, two people said.

Early on, frequent outages forced the company’s AI researchers to put projects on hold for hours at a time and lose some training progress, one person said. Reliability may be even more important for SpaceX now that it is renting out computing capacity to other companies, such as Anthropic and Google.

Reliability had improved earlier this year but there are signs the management overhaul could be causing new problems. Construction work affected a power line and caused a high-profile outage at one of SpaceX’s massive data centers in Memphis, Tenn. last week, according to a person familiar with the situation. The outage knocked some of SpaceXAI’s Grok models offline and had ripple effects also hurting some of its compute customers, SpaceX said.

A spokesperson for SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.

Slower Build-Out

Musk appears to support the new policy. In recent months, he has visited the facilities in Memphis on a nearly weekly basis, stopping by most Sundays, two people said. He most recently visited the site this past Sunday, they said.

In the past, he repeatedly touted his company’s ability to rapidly build data centers as a key advantage in the AI race. SpaceX, which acquired Musk’s xAI startup earlier this year, even cited the speed factor in its initial public offering paperwork in June.

SpaceX has said the AI unit brought its first data center online with 100,000 graphics processing units in just 122 days—an unprecedented timeline in the industry, where it can take years to build a data center of that size. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has praised the team’s efforts as “superhuman” and “unbelievable.”

To move quickly, xAI brought on thousands of contractors and built different parts of the facility in parallel, with crews installing cooling pipes, pulling electrical and networking cable, and carrying out other work simultaneously, often in the same areas of the facility, rather than waiting for completion of one task before starting the next phase, the people said.

But the speed has come with some trade-offs. Many big cloud firms set up their data centers in phases to ensure things go smoothly and the center can operate reliably, one person said.

SpaceXAI’s process included bringing the minimum power and cooling infrastructure for the data center online before finishing backup systems, and then adding some of those backups months later, people familiar with the matter said. The company has relied on temporary power and cooling systems, such as dozens of gas turbines, since the data centers opened, one person said.

When they first came online, the company’s first two data centers had only a fraction of the redundancy of data centers other hyperscalers operated, the person familiar with the design said. That left them vulnerable to outages, because a single equipment failure could take entire clusters offline, the person said.

Individuals on the data center team also had the authority to approve changes to construction plans and equipment, and they could buy equipment as needed rather than optimizing for costs, the people said. At times, that meant that there was a mix of different parts used in the data centers, rather than a uniform supply of racks and servers, one person said. That could also undermine reliability, another person familiar with the situation said.

To be sure, while building backup systems earlier and doing more testing is likely to slow the construction process, SpaceX probably won’t abandon xAI’s accelerated construction model entirely, one person said.

Data Center Exodus

SpaceX completed its acquisition of xAI in February, at a time when the startup was heavily burning cash. A few months after the deal closed, SpaceX leaders held information-gathering meetings with members of the data center team, one of the people said. (SpaceX held similar meetings at xAI’s office in Palo Alto, Calif., shortly before dozens of engineers left the startup.)

Over the past few weeks, more than a dozen leaders on the data center project have left the team, replaced with SpaceX engineers and leaders with manufacturing and operations backgrounds outside data center construction.

The exits came shortly after SpaceX’s Wesley Salandro took over leadership of the team from Dan Rowland, who had led the infrastructure engineering and at one point had reported directly to Musk. Salandro has worked at SpaceX for more than seven years and was vice president of production for the Falcon and Dragon rockets. Rowland, a leader on Tesla’s Dojo supercomputer project before he joined xAI in 2024, left shortly after Salandro took over.

Along with Salandro, SpaceX leadership issued a call for some of its rocket and Starlink engineers in Bastrop, Texas and Cape Canaveral, Florida to volunteer to help with the data centers for six to eight week rotations, two people said. More than 1,300 engineers volunteered and over 300 SpaceX engineers have joined the data center project over the past month, they said.

Within a few weeks, Jake Palmer, who led physical infrastructure for SpaceXAI, left. So did Logan Beach, head of security for data centers; Tiffany Wilson, head of procurement for data centers; and Pablo Mendoza, head of data center finance. Aakash Verma, SpaceXAI’s project engineer for its Duke Energy site also left to join OpenAI in August, along with Brent Mayo, who was the manager of site builds at SpaceXAI. Liz Balke, who helped design the data centers, now works on the infrastructure team at Anthropic.

SpaceX leaders have also added more middle managers in recent months to what was once a relatively flat organizational structure, two people said. This means workers have less autonomy to approve equipment orders or make decisions onsite which can slow down the build process, the people said.

There could be more shake-ups to come. After last week’s data center outage, Musk wrote on X that the company was “taking corrective action to ensure this does not happen again.”

FT : British man admits inventing fake takeover bid for Canadian oil explorer

British man admits inventing fake takeover bid for Canadian oil explorer
Christopher Woolcott used false identities and forged documents in hope of benefiting from rise in Touchstone Exploration shares, says regulator

The British creator of a fake takeover bid for a Canadian oil exploration company listed in London and Toronto pleaded guilty on Thursday to four counts of fraud and forgery. 

Christopher Woolcott has admitted inventing a takeover bid for Touchstone Exploration, using multiple false identities and forged documents, the Financial Conduct Authority said.

The UK financial regulator, which has been investigating Woolcott since 2025, said he stood to benefit financially from any upward move in Touchstone’s share price if the sham bid had been announced to the market.

Woolcott, 44, from Greenwich in London, pleaded guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court to one count of fraud by false representation and three counts of making a false instrument. He is due to be sentenced at a later date.

Isaac Mirza, a lawyer representing Woolcott, did not respond to a request for comment.

Touchstone, which discovered the bid was a fake and informed the FCA, is a Calgary-based oil and gas exploration and production company with most of its operations in Trinidad and Tobago. 

The FCA said it was not investigating Touchstone, which is listed on London’s Aim market and on the Toronto Stock Exchange, in connection with the case. Touchstone did not respond to a request for comment.

“Fake bids, forged documents and false identities have no place in our markets,” said Steve Smart, the authority’s executive director of enforcement and market oversight. “Investors must be able to trust information that affects share prices. The FCA will take action against those who use deception and threaten that trust.”

The UK regulator warned in a newsletter in April that it was concerned about an increase in small listed companies “being targeted directly as part of potentially manipulative schemes to affect those issuers’ share prices”. 

There is a long history of fake takeover bids for companies.

One of the best-known examples was an $8.2bn tender offer for Avon by a company called PTG Capital Partners that sent shares in the US cosmetics seller sharply higher after it was filed via the SEC website.

US prosecutors later charged Nedko Nedev, a Bulgarian citizen, with market manipulation over the Avon bid, alleging he filed a “sham tender offer” to “enrich himself and mitigate trading losses”. US authorities found PTG Capital had been a fictitious UK entity.

False bids have also surfaced in recent years for other well-known companies, such as Twitter and Fitbit, seemingly part of attempts by traders looking to profit from moves in their share prices.

WSJ : Defending Ukraine Is Getting More Expensive, and Europe Is Struggling to F

Defending Ukraine Is Getting More Expensive, and Europe Is Struggling to Foot the Bill
Behind the scenes, officials attempt to bridge a widening funding gap

  • Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says his government needs tens of billions of additional dollars to keep fighting and pay bills.
  • Ukrainian officials said they lack funding for $27 billion worth of defense needs through the rest of 2026 and early 2027.
  • European officials privately warn they might not be able to foot the bill for everything Ukraine wants as political opposition rises.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says his government needs tens of billions of additional dollars to keep fighting and pay bills through the end of the year.

The request couldn’t come at a worse time for European governments, the main donors to Kyiv’s defense against Russia. European officials privately warn they might not be able to foot the bill for everything Ukraine wants.

Last weekend, the hard-right Alternative for Germany party, known as AfD, stormed to victory in the Saxony-Anhalt state elections on a platform of ending assistance for Ukraine and restoring energy ties with Moscow.

In France, the leading candidate in next year’s presidential race, Marine Le Pen, says Paris can’t afford to keep supporting Ukraine. Her National Rally party voted against a big loan the European Union made to Ukraine this spring.

The message from incumbent European leaders is resolute, to a point. They will provide Ukraine the help promised, which includes the $105 billion loan through 2027, but won’t commit to give more.

On Sept. 1, Zelensky said that Ukraine has to lock down money for the winter for defense and basic social services. The cash, he said, will “ensure the normal functioning of our state, despite everything.”

Ukrainian officials said in early September that they lack funding for $27 billion worth of defense needs through the rest of 2026 and early 2027. Rising war costs, including increased drone demand, additional air-defense funding and salaries for soldiers created the deficit, Ukraine’s prime minister said.

Officials say as much as $10 billion of that is needed for advance purchases of weapons for next year and nearly $20 billion for military salaries, payments to families of killed soldiers and other expenditures.

At the heart of Ukraine’s budget problems is that the war is becoming increasingly expensive, Ukrainian and Western analysts say, just as Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities have intensified and become more deadly because of a lack of air defense. Russia’s campaign to wipe out Ukrainian shipping in the Black Sea has hampered a key grain-export route for Ukraine.

The military is expanding, and the number of veterans to take care of is piling up, said Oleksandra Myronenko, economist at Ukraine’s Centre for Economic Strategy.

Political gridlock is also playing a role. Prime Minister Serhii Koretskyi said that the government needs to pass 44 resolutions by Nov. 1 and that parliament must pass 43 laws in order to unlock some funding. That includes everything from charging tax on small packages to judicial reforms.

But the problems aren’t just domestic. At a summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in July, Ukraine’s backers pledged to provide it with military support of $81 billion this year. So far, allies have earmarked only $72 billion, the Ukrainian defense ministry said.

Over the summer, European officials based in Kyiv have been parsing the budget data with the government there to make their own assessment of what is missing.

Some believe the $27 billion Ukrainian figure is significantly inflated, although EU officials had warned member states back in the spring that Ukraine’s needs would likely be billions of euros higher than initially estimated.

Under the EU loan package, Ukraine is due to receive $52 billion in 2026 and the same amount next year. Two-thirds of the funding is for defense.

Non-EU member states and international financial institutions were supposed to contribute another $52 billion in loans for 2026-27, which Ukraine is currently factoring in. Only Norway has so far committed to the fund although officials say Canada is likely to do so soon, European officials say.

So far, the EU has paid out $13.5 billion to Ukraine from its loan. This week, the Commission will approve another $7 billion, part of which Ukraine can use to buy crucial products for Patriot air-defense systems to resist the intense Russian barrage of drones and missiles against the country, officials say.

For now, the EU is trying to avoid reopening discussions over new money, knowing the political blowback that could generate. The official line has been that officials are still working through numbers and have no new estimate for Ukraine’s needs.

Privately, European officials say that they may not be able to match everything Ukraine is asking for this year. They warn that new money will almost certainly be needed next year.

Behind the scenes, discussions have already begun about how to fill the gap. All the options have drawbacks.

Ukraine has asked the EU to bring forward loan payments to fill the 2026 gap. Doing so would make it clear that the EU will probably need to find more money next year, a particularly perilous move ahead of the French presidential elections next April.

Nonetheless, Ireland’s foreign minister, Helen McEntee, said after a meeting with her EU counterparts in Dublin on Sept. 1 that “a significant ⁠number of member states” were willing to speed up some payments.

A second option would be to effectively borrow money from the next EU multiyear budget, which begins in 2028. That earmarks 100 billion euros for Ukraine’s recovery, but the spending plan hasn’t been approved. Nonetheless, there are ways some of that money could be brought forward.

There is a third push from a group of member states to reopen discussion on tapping some $200 billion in frozen Russian assets for Ukraine. Doing so is currently seen as a last resort.

Belgium, where most of the money lies in a clearinghouse, remains vehemently opposed to tapping Russian assets because of the legal and financial risks Belgian officials argue it would expose them to. Even governments who strongly backed the plan last year, like Germany, don’t want to reopen the discussion only for it to be blocked again, officials say.

WSJ : Cheap Biologic Drug Alternatives Stall, Threatening U.S. Healthcare Saving

Cheap Biologic Drug Alternatives Stall, Threatening U.S. Healthcare Savings
New report shows 90% of major brand-name biologic drugs losing exclusivity over next decade have no low-cost competitors in development

  • An Association for Accessible Medicines report says 90% of biologic drugs losing patent protection by 2034 have no biosimilars in development.
  • The lack of low-cost alternatives could cost Americans nearly $200 billion in healthcare savings over the next decade.
  • The dispensing rate of available biosimilars over brand-name drugs fell to 23% in 2025, down from about 40% in 2024.

Ninety percent of the expensive, widely used biologic drugs facing patent expiration by 2034 have no lower-cost alternatives in development, according to a new report by the Association for Accessible Medicines, a trade group representing generic drugmakers.

This means Americans could miss out on nearly $200 billion in healthcare savings over the next decade with 118 popular biologic drugs going off patent, according to the association’s estimates. These drugs are highly complex medicines manufactured inside living cells and often end up being multibillion-dollar blockbusters for drug companies.

Market uptake for newly launched biosimilars—lower-cost copycat versions—has suffered a steep decline in recent years, dimming companies’ excitement about developing them. The rate at which available biosimilars are actually dispensed to patients over brand-name counterparts fell to 23% in 2025, down from about 40% in 2024.

That is partly because pharmacy-benefit managers, the middlemen that decide which drugs people are steered to through their insurance plans, often place brand-name drugs over cheaper biosimilars, AAM said.

PBMs receive rebates calculated as a percentage of a drug’s list price, meaning higher-priced brand drugs yield larger payments.

AAM said brand-name drugmakers exploit this system by offering PBMs massive rebates on high-price original drugs. Drugmakers can use that leverage to discourage coverage of cheaper biosimilar competitors.

“The payment and reimbursement systems out there are built to favor higher-priced brand products,” said Alex Keeton, executive director of the AAM’s biosimilars division. “That lack of predictability leaves a biosimilar manufacturer asking: ‘I can bring value, but is that market going to be there?’”

A spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which represents PBMs, said that drugmakers’ “abuse of the patent system far too often blocks biosimilars from the market,” adding that PBMs are working to make biosimilars the primary option for patients.

A spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents drugmakers, said the lack of biosimilars under development is the fault of PBMs. “If policymakers want lower costs and faster competition, they should focus on insurer-PBM conglomerates—not the IP system that has delivered more than 900 new medicines since 2000,” he said.

Used to treat serious conditions such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes, biologic drugs account for a growing portion of U.S. drug spending.

Several big drugmakers, including Pfizer and Amgen, are also large biosimilar manufacturers.

Bringing a biosimilar to market requires immense capital, costing at times hundreds of millions of dollars, much more than a standard generic pill. Manufacturers that invest those sums then encounter “patent thickets,” where brand-name drugmakers pile up dozens or hundreds of overlapping patents to delay competition and launch legal attacks.

Drugmakers facing biosimilar competition have increasingly turned to reformulating their own drugs into modified versions filed as newly branded biologics rather than biosimilars, which builds a fresh estate of patents around a new formulation.

AAM is lobbying Congress on several bills that it said aim to speed up biosimilar development and curb the brand-name patent practices its report criticizes.

FT : Stanley Druckenmiller says US borrowing costs still ‘a little low’ despite

Stanley Druckenmiller says US borrowing costs still ‘a little low’ despite surge in yields
Close ally of Kevin Warsh says Federal Reserve officials who argue rates are restrictive are ‘just ridiculous’

Stanley Druckenmiller, a close ally of Federal Reserve chair Kevin Warsh, told a private Wall Street audience that US borrowing costs remained a “little low” and central bankers who thought monetary policy was restrictive were “ridiculous”.

The macro hedge fund manager, a longtime mentor of Treasury secretary Scott Bessent and Warsh, said in a closed-door meeting on Thursday that rate cuts “are no longer needed”.

“Committee members on the Fed who keep saying fed funds rates are restrictive are just ridiculous,” he told a packed crowd of hundreds of Wall Street investors on Thursday morning at a conference hosted by Piper Sandler in New York, according to a transcript seen by the FT and multiple people familiar with the matter.

“I believe in common sense, and all you have to do is look at asset prices around the world,” Druckenmiller said.

His views on US monetary policy have taken on increased significance because of his longstanding relationship with Warsh. Druckenmiller said he is no longer allowed to speak to Warsh, but described him as one of his “closest friends” and called him a “great Fed chair”.

Druckenmiller’s comments came amid a sell-off in Treasuries, which has been sparked by the jolt of inflation caused by President Donald Trump’s Iran war, the US’s spiralling public debt and huge issuance of bonds by AI companies.

His remarks on Thursday came after the hedge fund manager criticised Bessent’s attempt to prop up the US Treasury market with an expanded bond buyback programme in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last month.

The upsized buyback scheme, launched this week with plans for a $6bn operation, has disappointed many Wall Street investors with yields pushing higher in recent days.

The 30-year US bond yield jumped as much as 0.06 percentage points on Thursday to 5.35 per cent, its highest level since 2007, while the 10-year yield is approaching 5 per cent. Short-term yields have also risen as markets have priced in a Fed rate increase next week.

“Given what’s going on in the economy and the capital spending boom and the war for capital, if anything, [bond yields seem] a little low,” Druckenmiller said. “It’s just been like a slow, fundamentally driven march upward in yields. But I don’t find it alarming at all.”

Investors have long viewed Druckenmiller as one of the brightest economic thinkers on Wall Street. He worked for George Soros in the 1990s during the hedge fund manager’s historic bet against the British pound, and has made a fortune at his own family office, Duquesne Capital, where Warsh worked as a partner before he was confirmed as Fed chair earlier this year.

Duquesne has also been an early investor in AI companies. He admitted his understanding of the technology came from young analysts for his firm who are “embedded in the network of AI research lab kids”.

Most of Duquesne’s recent profits have come from bets on AI instead of traditional macro investments such as currency or bond wagers. But Druckenmuller said that while the firm was bullish on AI companies, it had cut its investments in the industry to 20 per cent of what they were six months ago.

“It’s been an incredible ride on the whole AI thing,” he said. “I think we’re getting late enough in the build-out that one has to start to worry a little.”

He said the narrative on Wall Street that has irked him recently is that high earnings are going to help the market rise higher indefinitely.

“There’s a good chance we’re in an earnings bubble because this [AI] build-out is going to end at some point, and let’s face it, banks are also [on the] AI trade,” he said. “I mean, these guys are making hundreds of millions of dollars when they bring these companies public.”

He said he was “afraid to short the dollar” because of the US’s huge advantage globally in AI development, which he said Europe was “nowhere” on.

Druckenmiller added he has been betting against the euro and the pound since the start of the year, positions that he clarified were much smaller than he has taken in currencies historically, at times making bets that were double the value of his net assets.

FT : Apple’s big goal after foldable iPhone The first critical step for new CEO

Apple’s big goal after foldable iPhone
The first critical step for new CEO John Ternus will be to make AI an everyday reality on its devices

It says something about a significant new product announcement when the thing that Wall Street is most anticipating is not the thing itself but the price tag.

Early reactions to the first foldable iPhone, which was unveiled this week, suggest Apple can still inspire the sort of gadget fetishism that made it the doyen of consumer electronics. But for John Ternus, who has just taken over as CEO, the launch — along with decisions about how much to charge for other models of the iPhone — has presented a more basic business test.

One reason for this has been the sharp increase in memory chip prices caused by the data centre boom. Some suppliers grumble privately that Apple itself did much to create this problem, using its considerable market power to hold prices down at an earlier part of the cycle and starving chipmakers of the investment needed to boost capacity. Soaring component costs will mean 14 per cent fewer smartphones are sold this year than in 2025, according to Counterpoint Research.

As significant as the memory crunch for pricing is the pressure on Apple to maintain affordability as it tries to persuade customers to keep paying up for a product that will hit its 20th anniversary next year, an aeon in tech terms.

Apple is estimated to have sold a record 250mn or so iPhones last year, accounting for half of its sales. But that is not so different from the 231mn smartphones it sold back in 2015, after the launch of the iPhone 6. The trick is to find new ways to keep users paying up for replacement devices, while also parting with ever larger amounts to maintain Apple’s margins as the bill of materials rises.


So it is somewhat ironic that, 19 years after the launch of the iPhone and 16 years after the iPad, Apple’s hot new product is a cross between the two. A passport-sized smartphone that unfolds to create a screen only slightly smaller than an iPad mini, the Duo is a premium gadget that could nudge up the company’s average selling prices, though it will first have to prove that a hybrid can fill more than a small niche.

For Apple’s new CEO, there is something to be said for turning to the iPhone for his coming-out party. The company’s first big bets in the AI era have underwhelmed. A new and more capable Siri, the centrepiece of Apple Intelligence, is 18 months behind schedule and still in beta. That AI flub came a year after the Vision Pro, a technically impressive headset that failed to find much of a market.

By contrast, adding a new variation to the main product line feels like a low-risk starting point for the new boss. He also used it to send a message: the prevalence of the iPhone means Apple is guaranteed to have a central role in shaping many people’s first experiences of AI.


In the event, Ternus’ first big decision has been to temper the price increases. The starting price for the Duo will be just under $2,000 and iPhone prices have gone up $100 across the board to account for higher memory costs, less than many analysts had been expecting.

Risking pressure on profit margins to keep up volume makes sense. Services make up more than a quarter of Apple’s total and have accounted for the lion’s share of growth. The most important question now is not what the latest iPhones look like, but what they can do for you.

This is where Apple’s new CEO faces his first real test. A Siri that can live up to the promise of guiding users more smoothly through everyday actions on their phone would be as significant as the advent of mobile apps was in the first place.

It will be as much about product design and user education as it is about mastering a new technology. Apple gave a glimpse of the potential at its big product event this week: a new feature for its Watch that will enable the device to listen to a wearer’s conversations and deliver brief, high-level notes of what was said, without making an actual audio recording, according to the company. The trick will be to make features like this genuinely useful without creating a new form of digital surveillance.

If Ternus’ tenure comes even close to matching the 15 years of predecessor Tim Cook, there are likely to be plenty of attempts at groundbreaking new devices to come. But the first step will be to make AI an everyday reality. Now, it is all about guiding the users of an estimated 1.5bn iPhones into the AI era.

TechCrunch : Bending Spoons to buy collaboration tools maker Miro for $1.36B, 90

Bending Spoons to buy collaboration tools maker Miro for $1.36B, 90% less than its 2022 valuation

Bending Spoons is continuing its trend of buying once-sought-after software companies for pennies on the dollar. This time, the Italian company is buying Miro for $1.36 billion in cash (equity value of $1.79 billion), a mighty dip in valuation for the once-hot workplace collaboration startup that was awarded a price tag of $17.5 billion in late 2021.

Founded in 2011 as a whiteboarding tool called RealtimeBoard, Miro found great fortune during the COVID-19 pandemic, when companies moved to remote work en masse and found their employees wanting to replicate the experience of collaborating on a physical whiteboard.

Miro quickly capitalized on that momentum by building a platform that could integrate with more than 250 apps and struck partnerships with Atlassian, Cisco, Microsoft, and Zoom. The company also started letting its users build integrations with common tools and customize the base product to meet their needs. Today, it calls itself an “AI innovation workspace” that offers AI assistants for its whiteboard tools, AI workflows, prototyping tools, and AI connectors that pull context from various platforms like GitHub, Jira, and Slack.

By 2022, Miro had grown from 5 million to about 30 million users within a scant two years, and its paying customer base had expanded by 550% — factors that likely contributed to its immense valuation at the time.

By all indications, the company has continued growing, though not at that blistering pace. Today, Miro has more than 4 million paying users and 100 million total users. Bending Spoons said Miro now has about $600 million in annual recurring revenue, of which 90% comes from businesses and enterprises. The company also has about $435 million in net cash and is profitable.

Still, the 92% dip in Miro’s valuation illustrates just how much software-as-a-service (SaaS) multiples have unwound since its heyday in 2021. By 2022, the dying pandemic tailwinds spurred companies to tighten spending by cutting down on duplicate apps and licenses. Miro, competing with much-better funded rivals such as Canva, Figma, and Microsoft in the workplace collaboration space, likely found itself shoved aside as businesses started preferring suites of various products instead of individual collaboration tools.

Miro, which had about 1,200 employees in 2022, cut jobs twice, laying off 119 staff in February 2023 and reportedly another 275 people in October 2024.

Bending Spoons, however, is probably happy it is able to snap up a company that’s been doing quite well for a smidgen of its former, arguably inflated, value. In that way, Miro is pretty similar to Airtable, which was valued at over $11 billion in the boom days of 2021 but sold to Bending Spoons for $1.28 billion last month.

The Italian serial acquirer of software companies seems to be exploiting a specific change: large, recognizable SaaS companies that were priced in 2021 as if they’d become software giants, but matured into slower-growing but still substantial businesses with decent recurring revenue and established user bases.

Still, it’s curious why Miro’s board and investors agreed to sell at that price now, especially seeing that the company didn’t apparently need the cash. Has confidence in SaaS companies being able to go public or find a comparable exit really plummeted that low?

TechCrunch : Defense tech Mach Industries doubles valuation to $3.7B in 3 months

Defense tech Mach Industries doubles valuation to $3.7B in 3 months

Defense tech startup Mach Industries has raised a fresh $600 million in capital in a Series C extension round that has doubled its valuation to $3.7 billion, the company announced on Thursday. It announced the original Series C in June, which was $300 million at a $1.8 billion valuation. Investors in both tranches include Ribbit Capital, Infinite Capital, Bedrock Capital, and Sequoia.

That means that this raise represents a two-fold jump in just three months. The previous round was also a big increase: quadruple the valuation of a $100 million round at a $470 million valuation, announced in June 2025.

Mach manufactures a variety of unmanned military vehicles and weapons, including vertical takeoff and landing drones, systems intended for long-range strikes, and counter-drone systems. It operates a 115,000-square-foot manufacturing facility at its headquarters in Huntington Beach, California, with additional facilities located across the state.

Its pitch is that it builds highly integrated systems that cost less than those from incumbent defense contractors. To that end, it acquired solid rocket motor (SRM) startup Exquadrum in a $50 million cash-and-equity deal in May, beating out at least eight other potential buyers, the startup said.

The rise of drones has created a shortage of SRMs in a market largely controlled by two incumbents. Exquadrum was Mach’s answer to that bottleneck. The acquisition has since become the basis for a new line of business for the company called Mach Energetics, which produces SRMs and energetic systems for others. A unit called Mach Propulsion is also working on jet engine manufacturing in the hopes of addressing a similar bottleneck for those types of engines.

Mach, founded and run by 22-year-old Ethan Thornton, is a quintessential example of the kind of defense tech startup that classic Silicon Valley VCs are spending big on. Thornton dropped out of MIT at age 19 to work on Mach and soon landed Sequoia’s Stephanie Zhan and Shaun Maguire as investors, marking the first defense tech investment for the venerable venture firm.

After landing a U.S. Army contract earlier this year, the company also caught the attention of Ribbit Capital, once best known as a fintech investor but more recently involved in a string of high-profile AI deals, ranging from coding startups like Cognition to neoclouds like Crusoe.

NYT : Anthropic Says It Blocked Possible Efforts to Build Biological Weapons In

Anthropic Says It Blocked Possible Efforts to Build Biological Weapons
In a new report, the A.I. start-up added that it could not determine if the research was legitimate or nefarious, leading the company to shut down the work.

Anthropic said it had disrupted several potential plots this year by scientists who used its leading artificial intelligence models to conduct research that could have helped develop biological weapons.

In a report describing misuses of its A.I. models, Anthropic said it could not determine whether the research served a legitimate or nefarious purpose because valid biological inquiry — the kind that can lead to breakthroughs like vaccines — can also help engineer dangerous pathogens. In the face of that uncertainty, Anthropic said it erred on the side of caution because the consequences of missing malicious activity could be severe.

“You are not seeing someone in a comic book kind of way say, ‘Hey, I want to build a biological weapon to kill everybody,’” Jacob Klein, the head of threat intelligence at Anthropic, said in an interview. “It’s an incredibly nuanced situation.”

The potential for cutting-edge A.I. models to facilitate the development of known or entirely new biological pathogens is among the gravest concerns experts have about a technology that is developing so rapidly that even its leading architects doubt whether humans will be able to fully control it.

Compared with the threat of catastrophic cyberattacks or A.I. agents that fail to align with human intentions, biological misuse has gained less attention as an existential risk of A.I., in part because past examples have generally been shown only in research settings rather than in the real world.

Andrew Weber, a senior fellow on the Council on Strategic Risks who reviewed Anthropic’s report before its release, said the findings were “chilling examples of state-sponsored biological weapons developers tapping into the rapidly advancing capabilities” of leading A.I. models.

The lengthy report Anthropic published on Thursday cataloged a litany of misuses of its A.I. models, including the chatbot Claude, over the past eight months. Some examples were similar to past disclosures from Anthropic and other A.I. labs, including suspected Chinese and Iranian government-linked actors targeting dissident and diaspora communities for surveillance.

The report also highlighted cases of Russian state media using Claude to generate online propaganda masquerading as independent reporting, including fabricated claims about an election in Moldova.

Anthropic documented another genre of abuse it said was new: attempts to use Claude to develop software for conventional weapons design and development, including firearms, missiles, armed drones and bombs. It detailed three cases in China, two in Russia and one in Yemen.

The report does not identify by name which parties were involved in the Yemeni case, but the context makes clear that it is referring to the Iran-backed Houthi militia. A.I. use by terrorist networks is a growing concern among U.S. security officials.

But among all the categories of threats shared in the report, none may be as worrisome as the biological research cases. Anthropic did not disclose the names of researchers or institutions that it blocked, their countries of affiliation or the specific biological agents at issue, in part because of its uncertainty about their aims.

Still, Anthropic said the scientists circumvented its controls intended to prevent users from blocked regions from gaining access to its A.I. models and worked to “obfuscate the purpose of their research to evade our safeguards.” The company banned accounts associated with the research.

In one example from May, a scientist sought Claude’s help with writing a grant application for funding to conduct research intended to experiment on the chikungunya virus, a mosquito-borne malady that can lead to months of severe pain and other symptoms. Such research, known as gain of function, can be legitimate and lead to vaccine development, but it can also create superbug versions of viruses. In this instance, the scientist wanted to engineer mutations to the virus that would make it more harmful as it repeatedly infected live animals.

Anthropic said it believed the particular research was worrisome in part because it could discern that the work was intended to be performed at a military research institute.

“What we don’t know is if the research was meant to be weaponized,” Mr. Klein said. “But a military institution doing gain-of-function research is concerning.”

Anthropic said evaluations from last year of its older models demonstrated that they were not yet able to meaningfully assist in conducting dangerous biological research. Its current models are more able to complete complex scientific research, the company said, which spurred tighter safeguards intended to restrict access to a wide range of dual-use biological research queries.

Susan Monarez, a microbiologist and public health expert who oversaw a review of national biosecurity preparedness in the Obama administration, also reviewed the Anthropic report before its publication. She said the findings provided real-world evidence to support concerns that bad actors were trying to covertly use advanced A.I. “to improve their chances of building biological pathogens that could cause significant harm.”

Dr. Monarez, who briefly served as the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year, said A.I. held enormous promise to usher in an era of medical breakthroughs that save and extend lives. But the same abilities that make that possible, she added, could also “let bad actors hide in plain sight, using seemingly legitimate research to create pathogens we may not see coming and may not be able to stop once released.”

Mr. Weber of the Council on Strategic Risks, who also served as the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs during the Obama administration, called for limiting access to A.I. tools capable of this level of biological research to trusted researchers only.

“The fact that Russia, China and North Korea continue to develop prohibited biological weapons makes it imperative that we deny their researchers access to these extraordinarily capable models,” he said.

>>> US Research Calls

Research Calls I
  • Upgrades:
    • Block (XYZ) upgraded to Buy from Hold at StoneX, tgt $105
    • Casey's General Stores (CASY) upgraded to Outperform from Market Perform at Raymond James, tgt $750
    • DT Midstream (DTM) upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Morgan Stanley, tgt $170
    • Herc Holdings (HRI) upgraded to Overweight from Neutral at JPMorgan, tgt $175
    • Kymera Therapeutics (KYMR) upgraded to Outperform from Peer Perform at Wolfe Research, tgt $180
    • Meta Platforms (META) upgraded to Overweight from Neutral at JPMorgan, tgt $820
    • Novartis (NVS) upgraded to Hold from Reduce at HSBC
    • Orchestra BioMed (OBIO) upgraded to Buy from Neutral at BTIG, tgt $10
    • PACCAR (PCAR) upgraded to Outperform from Sector Perform at RBC Capital, tgt $150
    • Simmons First National (SFNC) upgraded to Outperform from Market Perform at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, tgt $26
    • Synopsys (SNPS) upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Wells Fargo, tgt $475
    • Yum! Brands (YUM) upgraded to Overweight from Equal Weight at Wells Fargo, tgt $175
  • Downgrades:
    • AngloGold Ashanti (AU) downgraded to Market Perform from Outperform at BMO Capital, tgt $115
    • BioCryst Pharmaceuticals (BCRX) downgraded to Sector Perform from Outperform at RBC Capital, tgt $11
    • Bowhead Specialty (BOW) downgraded to Market Perform from Outperform at Citizens
    • Chewy (CHWY) downgraded to In Line from Outperform at Evercore ISI, tgt $25
    • Cooper Companies (COO) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at BofA, tgt $65
    • Cooper Companies (COO) downgraded to Neutral from Outperform at Robert W. Baird, tgt $61
    • Cooper Companies (COO) downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at Piper Sandler, tgt $59
    • Uber (UBER) downgraded to Neutral from Buy at Arete, tgt $74
    • United Rentals (URI) downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at JPMorgan, tgt $1,170
  • Others:
    • 908 Devices (MASS) initiated with a Buy at Canaccord, tgt $13.50
    • Adagene (ADAG) initiated with a Buy at Chardan, tgt $9
    • Adlai Nortye (ANL) initiated with a Buy at Jefferies, tg
    • Aehr Test Systems (AEHR) initiated with an Outperform at Oppenheimer, tgt $120
    • Amer Sports (AS) initiated with a Buy at BTIG, tgt $42
    • Amer Sports (AS) resumed with an Equal Weight at Morgan Stanley, tgt $31
    • AMD (AMD) initiated with an Overweight at Piper Sandler, tgt $600
    • Antero Resources (AR) resumed with a Hold at Stifel, tgt $42
    • APA Corp. (APA) initiated with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $62
    • Arm Holdings (ARM) initiated with an Overweight at Piper Sandler, tgt $320
    • Broadcom (AVGO) initiated with an Overweight at Piper Sandler, tgt $460
    • California Resources (CRC) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $68
    • CareTrust REIT (CTRE) initiated with an Outperform at Huntington, tgt $44
    • Chiron Real Estate (XRN) initiated with a Market Perform at Huntington, tgt $37
    • Chord Energy (CHRD) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $182
    • Clean Harbors (CLH) initiated with an Outperform at William Blair
    • Coinbase (COIN) initiated with an Equal Weight at Morgan Stanley, tgt $250
    • Diamondback Energy (FANG) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $259
    • Devon Energy (DVN) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $61
    • Driven Brands (DRVN) resumed with an Underperform at BofA, tgt $12
    • Energy Transfer (ET) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $25
    • EOG Resources (EOG) resumed with a Hold at Stifel, tgt $158
    • Enterprise Products (EPD) resumed with a Hold at Stifel, tgt $40
    • FatPipe (FATN) initiated with a Buy at Roth Capital, tgt $8
    • FedEx Freight (FDXF) initiated with a Market Perform at Bernstein, tgt $133
    • Fervo Energy (FRVO) initiated with an Outperform at Northland, tgt $27
    • Gulfport Energy (GPOR) initiated with a Hold at Stifel, tgt $193
    • Intel (INTC) initiated with a Neutral at Piper Sandler, tgt $110
    • Janus Living (JAN) initiated with an Outperform at Huntington, tgt $36
    • Kinder Morgan (KMI) resumed with a Hold at Stifel, tgt $35
    • Knight-Swift (KNX) initiated with an Outperform at Bernstein, tgt $91
    • LTC Properties (LTC) initiated with an Outperform at Huntington, tgt $47
    • Mach Natural Resources (MNR) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $15
    • Marvell Technology (MRVL) initiated with an Overweight at Piper Sandler, tgt $270
    • MPLX (MPLX) resumed with a Hold at Stifel, tgt $65
    • National Health Investors (NHI) initiated with an Outperform at Huntington, tgt $79
    • Nebius Group (NBIS) initiated with a Buy at Truist, tgt $355
    • Nike (NKE) resumed with an Underweight at Morgan Stanley, tgt $31
    • NVIDIA (NVDA) initiated with an Overweight at Piper Sandler, tgt $300
    • Old Dominion (ODFL) initiated with a Market Perform at Bernstein, tgt $200
    • ONEOK (OKE) resumed with a Hold at Stifel, tgt $105
    • On Holding (ONON) resumed with an Overweight at Morgan Stanley, tgt $39
    • Ovintiv (OVV) initiated with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $92
    • Permian Resources (PR) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $30
    • Qualcomm (QCOM) initiated with a Neutral at Piper Sandler, tgt $190
    • Range Resources (RRC) resumed with a Hold at Stifel, tgt $46
    • RELX (RELX) initiated with a Buy at TD Cowen
    • Revolution Medicines (RVMD) initiated with an Overweight at Morgan Stanley, tgt $255
    • Sabra Healthcare REIT (SBRA) initiated with an Outperform at Huntington, tgt $23
    • Saia (SAIA) initiated with an Outperform at Bernstein, tgt $439
    • SK Hynix (SKHY) initiated with an Overweight at JPMorgan, tgt $245
    • StepStone Group (STEP) initiated with an Outperform at RBC Capital, tgt $65
    • Strawberry Fields REIT (STRW) initiated with a Market Perform at Huntington, tgt $15
    • Targa Resources (TRGP) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $340
    • TXO Partners (TXO) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $17
    • Under Armour (UAA) resumed with an Equal Weight at Morgan Stanley, tgt $4
    • Western Midstream Partners (WES) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $55
    • WhiteHawk Minerals (WHK) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $32
    • Williams Companies (WMB) resumed with a Buy at Stifel, tgt $85
    • XPO (XPO) initiated with an Outperform at Bernstein, tgt $244