Called $MU bullish on Dec 6, 2025: $MU rose 95% in 3 months.
View call →
@citrini
accuracy score 49.7 on MU over 43 MU calls · 391 days of data · rank 26 of 27 MU analysts (top 96.3%) · v20r-multi-sparsepen-strong-ss12m-20261012, computed Nov 11, 2026 · Methodology →
Cite asCryptoQuant has tracked 43 directional calls on MU by @jukan05 on X since Jun 2025: ranked #26 of 27 analysts scored on MU by accuracy (as of Nov 11, 2026).
Other assets covered (30)
Absolute view by default: Jukan states bull / bear plainly (100% of directional calls are outright).
Sentiment timeline shows relative sentiment within this analyst's history. A perma-bull showing 8 bullish : 2 bearish in a bear market sets that as their baseline. If you notice any errors, claim @jukan05 to submit corrections.
Called $MU bullish on Dec 6, 2025: $MU rose 95% in 3 months.
View call →Hover the chart to read the thesis of that period · click a day to pin it
1. The counterargument that deliveries can't be pushed back by a year or two just because the two sides worked together from design through validation becomes meaningless once the demand decline is real. 2. Even if they were involved from the design stage, I don't think we have reached the kind of extreme customization seen in foundry, where Micron couldn't do what Samsung was doing. 3. Joint design also constrains which HBM gets used, but I don't think it settles who carries the inventory burden when accelerator demand misses. Say the production plan is cut from 1 million units to 800,000. Is the customer obligated to take the 200,000 units' worth, or can the memory makers simply push that volume onto them? That needs to be clear. The claim that memory has completely shed its commodity character is, in my view, the most dangerous one. There are still more players than in foundry, where TSMC dominates, and they can substitute for one another.
View original →Apparently, Micron scrapped plans for another fab in Taiwan because its union there was asking for too much in bonuses lol. The fab was supposed to come online in 2028. So that’s less supply hitting the market in 2028. https://t.co/tAG4zwKsi4
View original →South Korean tech outlet The Elec has published a follow-up report on Terafab with some interesting details. Here are the key takeaways: - ACM Research is looking to supply panel-level packaging equipment to Terafab. Although the company generates 99% of its revenue in China, it has also been an Intel supplier. With an Intel veteran now overseeing Terafab, much of Terafab’s supplier base is similar to Intel’s. The project is moving forward with a 700 × 700 mm panel format. - Terafab is reportedly working with Samsung as well as Intel and TSMC. The partnership is not exclusive to Intel. - Micron reportedly declined to participate in Terafab. - Intel is working with Terafab because it sees the company as a customer rather than a competitor. Intel has yet to secure external foundry customers, so it lacks customer references. It needs to put its technology into actual customer products, refine it, and build confidence in its reliability. In that sense, collaborating with Terafab could be a significant opportunity for Intel. - Industry sources have been impressed by Terafab’s drive. The impression is that the team is serious about the project and determined to make it happen, whatever it takes. - SK hynix will eventually end up working with Terafab as well. - Fabs across Texas are reportedly losing substantial numbers of employees to Terafab, with Tesla seen as the most desirable employer in the state. Many employees have left NXP and Samsung for Terafab, and Samsung has been filling those vacancies by hiring from its suppliers, creating a ripple effect of talent losses across the supply chain.
View original →
