The speed at which SpaceX brings terrestrial AI data centers online — as fast as 122 days, faster than anyone else — is one of the two most important levers for its valuation, because speed directly translates into lower cost and faster monetization.
Gavin Baker identifies data-center buildout speed as one of two critical variables for the SpaceX IPO, noting Elon Musk's 122-day construction cadence turns time into direct cost savings and monetization advantage. ✦ AI generated
Gavin Baker · BG2 Pod · 2026-06-11 · original ↗
starts at this moment · 3:34
“What are the key levers that we ought to be thinking about that you're thinking about over the course of the next few years?”
We do know from Jensen that uh Elon brings data centers up faster than anyone 122 days. Speed is literally cost because every day you're paying electricians and plumbers. That's cost. And they're now monetizing them at arguably the highest rate. And so I think, you know, everybody should run their own math on that, but that is a massive variable.
verbatim transcript · starts at 3:34
3:347, 8% and invest in something with a 55% ARR, I'm not the most sophisticated thinker, but that math maths. >> Right. >> And so I think the most important variable, one of the two most important, is how quickly they bring on terrestrial data centers. >> Mhm. >> We do know from Jensen that uh Elon brings data centers up faster than anyone 122 days. Speed is literally cost
3:57because every day you're paying electricians and plumbers. That's cost. And they're now monetizing them at arguably the highest rate. And so I think, you know, everybody should run their own math on that, but that is a massive variable. >> Yes. >> Truly massive variable. The second thing is, you know, we have a chart and it's wildly out of date now. It's kind of freaking amazing. This chart is I think
4:21is this chart from 10 days ago? But it like the 10 or 12 days since this chart since we made this chart which shows the Pareto curves for Opus 4.7 for coding for Codex from OpenAI. And now we've had Opus 4.8. It was already out of date. And now we have Fable >> Totally. >> and Mythos, which is freaking wild. In 10 days >> Yes. >> like we would have had to update the
4:44chart twice. >> Right. >> But what the Pareto curve sure shows is how much intelligence you can get for a given amount of cost. And I do think being all revenue will accrue to the Pareto curve. All at least kind of frontier model revenue will accrue to the Pareto curve. And this is Pareto curve for code coding. And what I think is so impressive is that you can see in the chart that Composer 2
5:07was Pareto dominant or, you know, at the lowest level of intelligence with very little training. This just reflects, and I know you know Cursor well. I think you know Cursor [ __ ] a lot better than I do. A vast amount better than I do. [laughter] But my understanding is that Cursor and Anthropic have more tokens of proprietary coding data than anyone else. And they have more tokens of
5:30proprietary coding data than exist on the public internet. And so they fed Cursor fed um used ChemK 0.25, used their own private data, did some RL, some supervised fine-tuning and they got a really good model. And then they spent 3 weeks in the Colossus 2 cluster and they got a model that 12 days ago was Pareto dominant with Composer 2.5. That's on their own benchmark. Um Cursor bench, so maybe take it with a