原文：

原文：
Imagine Celestial ($MRVL acquisition) was public.

The valuation would probably be astronomical in US markets (if I had to guess, $6-10B)

Because 2028 revenue projections were $500m (q4 annualized runrate), 2029 revenue projections were $1B.

And because Celestial is a core part of hyperscaler CPO programs.

Celestial's 2026 Q2 earnings would have been:

- Close to $0 revenue (Marvell said "revenue and earnings since the acquisition were not material")
- Losing -$12.5M/quarter ($50M/year)

Would people who knew what they were talking about looking at qualification cycle players say...

1. based on Celestial's Q2 P/S numbers and because it was losing -$12.5M a quarter... That it's a worthless meme stock?

Or

2. with CPO hyperscaler opportunities for 2028, it should be valued at $6-10B?

And I think that's a core cultural disagreement between US / EU cultures + markets.

If you knew how to evaluate qualification cycle players, which number actually matters? I'd argue overwhelmingly the latter.

翻译：
想象 Celestial（$MRVL 收购）是公开公司。

它的估值在美国市场可能会天文数字（如果要猜的话，60‑100亿美元）。

因为 2028 年的收入预测是 5亿美元（第四季度年化跑道），2029 年的收入预测是 10亿美元。

而且 Celestial 是超大规模云服务商 CPO 项目的核心部分。

Celestial 2026 年第二季度的收益本来会是：

- 收入几乎为 0（Marvell 表示“自收购以来的收入和收益并不重要”）
- 每季度亏损 1250万美元（全年 5000万美元）

了解情况的人在看资格赛周期的玩家时会说……

1. 根据 Celestial 第二季度的市销率以及它每季度亏损 1250万美元……它是毫无价值的 meme 股吗？

2. 考虑到 2028 年的 CPO 超大规模云服务商机会，它的估值应该在 60‑100亿美元？

我认为这反映了美欧文化+市场之间的核心分歧。

如果你懂得评估资格赛周期的玩家，哪个数字才真正重要？我倾向于后者，压倒性地更重要。