After Meta's $75B Bet: A $30B Bond Deal and Wall Street's Harsh Reality Check

Last week, I wrote about Meta's $75 billion infrastructure spending spree the biggest AI bet in tech history.

Seven days later, the market delivered its verdict: an 11% single-day drop, Meta's worst since October 2022.

What happened? Meta didn't scale back. It doubled down.

Between October 29 and November 3, 2025, Meta:

• Raised 2025 capex guidance to $70–$72 billion (from $66–$72B)
• Completed a $30 billion bond offering the largest since 2023
• Warned that 2026 spending will be "significantly larger"
• Watched its stock tank while Alphabet rallied 6%

Meanwhile, CoreWeave's $9 billion acquisition of Core Scientific collapsed, and analysts began openly warning about "circular financing" in AI infrastructure.

This is the story of one week that exposed the tension between Wall Street's patience and Big Tech's AI ambitions.

What We Called (One Week Ago)

Before diving into what happened, let me highlight what we got right in last week's analysis:

1. "Wall Street Is Worried It Might Be a Bubble"

What I wrote (Oct 28):

"Meta's $75B AI Infrastructure Bet: How Meta spent $75 billion in three months on AI infrastructure and why Wall Street is worried it might be a bubble."

What happened (Oct 29-30):

• Stock dropped 11% (worst day in 3 years)
• DA Davidson: "The levering up is truly unhealthy behavior"
• Axios headline: "The AI boom isn't going anywhere" (but mentions bubble concerns)
• Fed Chair Powell forced to address circular financing risks

Accuracy: ✓ Nailed it. The bubble concern wasn't speculation it was the dominant narrative within 48 hours.

2. Off-Balance-Sheet Debt Would Become a Theme

What I wrote (Oct 28):

"Meta doesn't own most of it [Hyperion], but they're on the hook for 16 years through a residual value guarantee... This isn't just creative accounting it's a fundamental shift."

What happened (Oct 31):
Bloomberg published: "Meta, xAI Starting Trend for Billions in Off-Balance Sheet Debt"

Direct quote from Bloomberg:

"Meta is among firms popularizing a way for debt to sit completely off balance sheet, allowing enormous sums to be raised while limiting impact on its financial health."

Accuracy: ✓ We called the trend before mainstream coverage.

3. ROI Timeline Was Going to Be Wall Street's Concern

What I wrote (Oct 28):

"Break-even Scenarios... Reality Check: Meta needs a combination of all three scenarios to hit reasonable ROI timelines (5-7 years)."

What happened (Oct 29):

• Zuckerberg gave no specific revenue targets for 2026+
• Analysts asked repeatedly about ROI timeline on earnings call
• Stock tanked because "spending trajectory" worried investors more than revenue beat

Accuracy: ✓ The 5-7 year timeline concern was exactly what spooked the market.

4. Circular Financing Risk

What I wrote (Oct 28):
I linked to Yahoo Finance: "AI's self-investment spree sets off bubble alarms on Wall Street"

What happened (Oct 29-30):

• Powell addressed it in Fed presser
• Axios deep-dive on circular financing
• Multiple analysts citing it as primary concern

Accuracy: ✓ Week-old article referenced the exact issue that dominated the week's coverage.

5. CoreWeave Supplier Power

What I wrote (Oct 28):

"CoreWeave: $14.2 billion (6+ years)" as one of Meta's core dependencies

What happened (Oct 30):

• CoreWeave's acquisition of Core Scientific collapsed
• Core Scientific shareholders rejected $9B offer
• Showed supplier power in AI infrastructure market

Accuracy: ✓ Highlighting the CoreWeave dependency proved prescient when the deal fell apart.

What We Missed

To be fair, I didn't predict:

• The $30B bond size (I mentioned debt financing risk but not the specific deal)
• The -11% stock drop magnitude (I flagged bubble risk but not the severity)
• 2026 capex acceleration being disclosed this early (thought it'd come in Q4 guidance)

But the core thesis massive spending, bubble concerns, ROI uncertainty, off-balance-sheet leverage all materialized within 7 days.

Now, let's examine what actually happened.

The Market's Message: Show Me the ROI

On October 29, Meta reported Q3 earnings that beat on every metric except the one that mattered: spending trajectory.

The Numbers

Source: Meta Q3 2025 Earnings

What spooked investors? Not current spending, but the acceleration signal.

CFO Susan Li: "We expect capital expenditures dollar growth will be notably larger in 2026 than 2025, with growth primarily driven by infrastructure costs."

Translation: If 2025 is $71 billion, 2026 could be $90–100 billion or more.

The ROI Gap

Here's the math that scared Wall Street:

Current State (Q3 2025):
AI-enhanced ad revenue: ~$7B incremental
AI infrastructure costs: ~$80B total
Gap: -$73B

2026 Projection:
AI revenue: ~$15–20B optimistic
Infrastructure costs: ~$100B+
Gap: Still -$80B+

Meta is betting AI will transform its business by 2027-2030. Wall Street wants proof now.

The $30 Billion Bond: Financing at a Premium

On October 30, Meta launched a "$25 billion+" bond offering. By October 31, it closed at $30 billion the fifth-largest corporate bond deal ever.

The Structure

Six tranches of senior notes:

Source: PitchBook, Oct 31, 2025

For Context:

Largest corporate bond deals ever:

1. Verizon: $49B (2013, Vodafone acquisition)
2. Anheuser-Busch InBev: $46B (2016, SABMiller)
3. CVS Health: $40B (2018, Aetna)
4. Pfizer: $31B (2023, M&A)
5. Meta: $30B (2025, AI infrastructure)

Every deal above Meta's was for acquisitions. Meta is borrowing $30 billion to build data centers.

Why Issue Bonds?

Meta has $65 billion in cash. Why borrow?

1. Preserve cash optionality keep powder dry for M&A, buybacks
2. Tax efficiency interest is tax-deductible
3. Off-balance-sheet leverage Blue Owl JV keeps $27B of Hyperion off books

Order books were 4× oversubscribed. But spreads widened vs. Meta's August 2024 deal, suggesting investors demanded a premium for AI infrastructure risk.

Oracle's $18B bond deal (Sept 24) initially traded tight but widened to T+158 by October 30 as AI sentiment soured. Meta priced 40-year bonds at T+110 a 48 bps discount.

The CoreWeave Collapse: A Warning Sign?

On October 30, Core Scientific shareholders rejected CoreWeave's $9 billion acquisition offer.

What Happened

CoreWeave (Nvidia-backed AI cloud) had agreed in July to acquire Core Scientific (crypto miner-turned-data center operator) for $9B all-stock.

By October:

• CoreWeave stock: +235% YTD, $67B market cap
• Core Scientific view: "Why sell now when we could become the next CoreWeave?"
• Largest shareholder opposed: argued standalone value higher

Shareholders voted no. Deal terminated.

Why It Matters

CoreWeave has $42.9B in contracted revenue through 2032:

• OpenAI: $22.4B
• Meta: $14.2B
• Nvidia: $6.3B (backstop)

The collapsed deal means:

1. CoreWeave continues as customer, not owner
2. Core Scientific retains pricing power
3. Meta's $14.2B contract stays with third-party supplier

The Broader Signal: If AI valuations are too high for strategic M&A to make sense, bubble dynamics may be taking hold.

The Circular Financing Question

Here's the concern that broke into mainstream coverage:

The Loop

1. Nvidia invests in OpenAI, CoreWeave (billions)
2. OpenAI, CoreWeave buy Nvidia chips (billions)
3. Meta invests in Scale AI ($14.3B), buys CoreWeave ($14.2B)
4. Scale AI, CoreWeave buy more Nvidia chips
5. Repeat

DA Davidson analyst Gil Luria:

"They're using that capital to raise debt. It's the levering up 
that's the truly unhealthy behavior."

Fed Chair Jerome Powell (Oct 29):

Data center spending is "not especially interest sensitive" meaning 
spending continues regardless of rates.

Is This a Bubble?

Bull Case:

• Companies generate massive cash flow ($24.7B for Meta in Q3)
• AI products have real users (ChatGPT: 200M+ weekly)
• Infrastructure has alternative uses

Bear Case:

• Circular investments create artificial demand
• Revenue concentration (CoreWeave: 71% from Microsoft)
• Timing mismatch: spending today, ROI 2028-2030+

My take: It's a bubble with substance. AI is real, but the scale and speed of investment may exceed monetization by years.

The Hyperscaler Arms Race

All major players raised guidance Oct 29-30:

Total: ~$380 billion across four companies.

For context:

• Finland's GDP: ~$300B
• ExxonMobil 2024 revenue: ~$350B

Why Different Reactions?

Alphabet +6%: Google Cloud breaks out AI revenue separately, shows clear ROI.

Microsoft -3%: Azure AI growing 80%+ YoY, but enterprise contracts provide visibility.

Meta -11%: AI spending goes to ad improvements hard to quantify separately. No standalone AI product revenue yet.

The Lesson: Wall Street tolerates massive spending if you show where revenue comes from. Google can. Microsoft can. Meta can't (yet).

What Zuckerberg Told Investors

October 29 earnings call key quotes:

On underinvesting risk:

"We're seeing the returns in the core business that's giving us 
a lot of confidence that we should be investing a lot more, and 
we want to make sure that we're not underinvesting."

On excess capacity:

"If you got to a point where you overbuilt, you could have that 
as an option to offer [capacity] to third parties."

On worst-case:

"In the very worst case, you end up with several years worth of 
excess data center capacity. You'd have some loss and depreciation 
of those assets, but over time you'd grow into that and use it."

On timing:

"It's the right strategy to aggressively front-load building capacity, 
so that way we're prepared for the most optimistic cases."

What He Didn't Say

Notice what's missing:

• No specific AI revenue targets for 2026+
• No timeline for infrastructure-as-a-service
• No quantification of ad improvement from AI

Zuckerberg articulated a vision (superintelligence, optionality) but not a business plan (how much revenue, by when).

That's why the stock dropped.

The ROI Math: Three Scenarios

Current State (2025)

Costs:

• CapEx: $71B
• Operating costs: ~$15B
• Total: ~$86B

Revenue:

• AI-enhanced ads: ~$7B incremental
• Direct AI products: ~$0
• Gap: -$79B annually

Scenario 1: Ad Revenue Only

Assumption: AI improves CPM by 10%

• Meta ad revenue: ~$150B
• 10% improvement: +$15B/year
• Years to break even (2025): 5.7 years
• Years to break even (cumulative $600B through 2028): 40 years

Verdict: Not viable standalone.

Scenario 2: New AI Products

Assumption: $50B/year by 2030

• Meta AI subscriptions: $15B (100M @ $12.50/mo)
• Business tools: $20B
• API/developer: $15B

Break-even timeline:

• 2025-2028: Net -$300B cumulative
• 2029-2032: Net -$200B cumulative
• 2033+: Positive

Verdict: Plausible if Meta achieves OpenAI-scale monetization.

Scenario 3: Infrastructure-as-a-Service

Assumption: Sell 30% excess capacity @ $0.50/GPU-hour

With 2M GPUs by 2028:

• Available: 600K GPUs
• Revenue: ~$2.6B/year

Verdict: Nice optionality, not primary driver.

The Realistic Path

Meta needs all three working:

• 2026-2027: +$10-15B from ads
• 2028-2029: +$20-30B from products
• 2030+: +$5-10B from infrastructure

Break-even: 2033-2035 (8-10 years from now)

Risk: If any pillar fails, $600B in sunk costs with no recovery path.

The Debt That Doesn't Show Up

Meta now has two types of AI debt:

On-Balance-Sheet: $30B

The bond offering (Oct 31):

• Annual interest: ~$1.4B (4.7% weighted avg)
• Debt-to-equity: ~0.05 (still low)

Off-Balance-Sheet: $21.6B

Blue Owl/Hyperion deal structure:

• Total project: $27B
• Blue Owl owns 80%
• Blue Owl's debt: $21.6B (in SPV, not on Meta's books)
• Meta has residual value guarantee (16 years)

Source: Bloomberg, Oct 31: "Meta, xAI Starting Trend for Billions in Off-Balance Sheet Debt"

Total Economic Exposure: ~$51.6B

Meta's reported debt-to-equity (~0.05) masks true economic leverage (~0.10).

Bloomberg: "Meta is among firms popularizing a way for debt to sit completely off balance sheet, allowing enormous sums to be raised while limiting impact on its financial health."

The Advertising Paradox

Irony: While investors panic about spending, Meta's ad business is booming.

Q3 2025 Performance

• Revenue: $51.2B (+26% YoY)
• Ad impressions: +7%
• Price per ad: +11%
• Fastest growth since Q1 2024

Drivers:

1. AI-powered targeting
2. Reels ads (50%+ of time on platform)
3. Chinese retailers (Shein, Temu) despite tariffs

The Paradox: Meta is already seeing AI ROI in ads. Zuckerberg's claim validated by numbers.

Why Wall Street Worries: Meta can't isolate how much of 26% growth is from AI vs. other factors. Without attribution, investors can't model returns.

CNBC (Nov 1): "Meta has continued to point to how its AI investments are improving its online advertising business, but it's having a more difficult time showing how that spending will benefit the company in the future."

The Energy Wildcard

Power constraints may limit Meta's buildout:

The Math

Each GW of data center = 1 GW power needed.

Meta's Secured Power:

• ENGIE (Texas solar): 1.3 GW
• Hyperion (Entergy): 2 GW (operational 2030)
• Existing: ~2-3 GW
• Total: 5-6 GW

Problem: If 2026 capex is "significantly larger," Meta needs 8-10 GW by 2028. That's a 3-4 GW gap.

The Risk: In 2022-23, crypto miners built data centers that sat idle for months couldn't secure power fast enough.

Meta's Advantage: Deep pockets + 10-year commitments make utilities build dedicated infrastructure (Entergy's $1.2B transmission line).

What to Watch: Meta needs 2-3 GW in new power purchase agreements by mid-2026. If not, physical constraints force spending cuts.

Wall Street: Deeply Divided

The Bulls

Wedbush (Dan Ives):

"While the bears will continue to yell 'AI Bubble' from their 
hibernation caves, we continue to point to this tech cap-ex 
supercycle that is driving this 4th Industrial Revolution."

• Rating: Outperform
• Target: $900 (84% upside)

Bank of America:

• Rating: Buy
• Sees 2026 as AI product revenue inflection

The Bears

DA Davidson (Gil Luria):

"The levering up is the truly unhealthy behavior. If they get 
stuck with this capacity, they won't have anything to do with it."

Vanguard (Joe Davis):

"This has been an important backstop for the economy... but 
company-level ROI still unproven."

Consensus

• Current: $487 (down from $545 pre-earnings)
• Median target: $600 (23% upside)
• Ratings: 42 Buy, 8 Hold, 2 Sell

Translation: Cautiously optimistic long-term, wants proof in 2-3 quarters.

The Analyst Flip-Flop Chronicles: A 24-Hour Masterclass in Changing Your Mind

Before we look ahead to 2026, let's appreciate the comedy of errors that unfolded on October 29-30. Wall Street analysts, who'd been cheerleading Meta's AI spending for months, did a collective 180° in less than 24 hours.

The Downgrades That Weren't Supposed to Happen

Oppenheimer (Oct 30, 9:00 AM):

• Previous rating: Outperform ($696 price target)
• New rating: Perform (removed price target entirely)
• Their reasoning: "Significant investment in Superintelligence despite unknown revenue opportunity mirrors 2021/2022 Metaverse spending."

Wait, what? The Metaverse comparison is exactly what bears had been saying for months. Oppenheimer is now citing... the exact concern they'd been dismissing?

Benchmark (Oct 30, 9:15 AM):

• Previous rating: Buy
• New rating: Hold
• Explanation: Concerns about spending trajectory

These are the same analysts who, 48 hours earlier, were modeling Meta at $800-900.

The Price Target Massacre

Source: CNBC, Schwab Network analyst reports, Oct 30, 2025

The irony? Every single one of these firms had raised their price targets in the previous 30 days, citing Meta's "strong AI positioning."

What Changed in 24 Hours?

Absolutely nothing fundamental changed. Meta's Q3 earnings were strong:

• Revenue beat by 3.7%
• EPS beat by 8.4%
• User growth exceeded estimates
• Ad business accelerating

The only new information was:

1. 2025 capex raised by $4B (to $70-72B range)
2. 2026 will be "significantly larger"

But here's the kicker: We already knew this. Meta had been telegraphing higher spending for months. The Blue Owl deal ($27B) was announced October 21. The Scale AI stake ($14.3B) was September 30.

The "Nobody Could Have Seen This Coming" Defense

Oppenheimer's downgrade note is a masterpiece of revisionist history:

"Significant investment in Superintelligence despite unknown 
revenue opportunity..."

Translation: "We just realized that spending $600B on AI without a business plan might be risky."

Question: Where was this insight on October 28, when the price target was $696?

What Actually Happened

Analysts got caught in groupthink. When Meta's stock was rising (up 60% YTD through Oct 28), AI spending was "visionary leadership." When it dropped 11% in a day, the same spending became "reckless gambling."

The Tell: Not a single analyst downgrade mentioned new information. Every concern cited ROI uncertainty, 2026 acceleration, Metaverse comparison had been true for months.

The Lesson

Wall Street doesn't predict the future. It narrates the present.

When stock goes up → Spending is strategic
When stock goes down → Spending is problematic

The Real MVP: The Feb 2024 analyst who maintained a Hold rating the whole time. Status: Still employed, still correct.

Why This Matters

These aren't just embarrassing flip-flops. They expose a deeper issue: Most analysts can't distinguish between speculation and strategy until the market tells them which is which.

The data that spooked Wall Street on October 30 was available on October 28. The difference wasn't the data it was the narrative.

And that's why, in the next section, we're focusing on concrete metrics rather than analyst sentiment.

Three Key Questions for 2026

1. Can Meta Launch a Paid AI Product?

Watch for:

• Meta AI subscription (Q1 2026 rumored)
• Business AI tools
• Developer API

Success = $10B+ ARR by end of 2026

2. Does Ad Growth Accelerate or Plateau?

Watch for:

• Q4 2025 (holiday): 30%+ growth?
• Can Meta sustain 25%+ through 2026?

Success = Growth stays above 25%

3. Can Meta Secure Enough Power?

Watch for:

• New PPAs (need 3-4 GW by mid-2026)
• Hyperion milestones

Success = 8-10 GW total secured by end 2026

Dot-Com Parallels (and Differences)

Similarities

1. Massive infrastructure deployment
2. Circular financing
3. Valuation on potential, not profits
4. Overbuilding risk
5. "This time is different" narratives

Critical Differences

Dot-com: Companies burned cash, no profitability path
AI boom: Meta made $24.7B cash flow in Q3

Dot-com: Pets.com had traffic, no business model
AI boom: ChatGPT has 200M+ users, clear (if uncertain) monetization

Dot-com: Fiber had no moat
AI boom: Compute creates barriers to entry

Dot-com: Mostly B2C speculation
AI boom: B2B (Azure, AWS) has clear enterprise ROI

The Key Difference:

Dot-com: Built hoping customers would come
AI: Building because customers are here, but capacity constrained

The Risk: Not that demand is fake, but that supply scales faster than monetization. You can have real demand and still overbuild.

My Take: Calculated Risk or Reckless Bet?

After analyzing October 29-November 3 data:

What Meta Got Right

1. Timing: Locked $30B bonds before credit tightened
2. Structure: Off-balance-sheet (Blue Owl) preserves flexibility
3. Diversification: Multiple providers (CoreWeave, Oracle, Google)
4. Energy: Early PPAs (ENGIE) secure long-term capacity

What's Risky

1. Acceleration: "Significantly larger" 2026 with no revenue guidance
2. Timeline: 5-7 year break-even assumes aggressive growth
3. Circular exposure: Invested in Scale AI ($14.3B), CoreWeave customer ($14.2B)
4. Sentiment: Wall Street skeptical, needs proof points

The Verdict

This isn't a traditional bubble there's substance. But it's a leverage bubble.

Meta is using debt (on and off-balance-sheet) to finance infrastructure that won't generate returns for 5-10 years, betting that AI transforms advertising and creates new product categories.

If right: Meta emerges as AI infrastructure leader with $50B+ in new revenue streams by 2030.

If wrong: $600B in sunk costs, years of depreciation, potential activist pressure.

The Probability: I'd put it at 60/40 in Meta's favor. The ad business validates near-term ROI. But the gap between spending ($80B/year) and incremental revenue ($7B/year) is uncomfortably wide.

What Changes My Mind:

• Bullish: Meta launches paid AI hitting $5B+ ARR in 2026
• Bearish: Ad growth slows below 20% while capex accelerates

The Bottom Line

One week after Meta announced the biggest AI infrastructure bet in history, Wall Street sent a clear message: Show us the money.

The $30 billion bond offering and 11% stock drop crystallize the central tension in tech right now:

Companies believe: AI is the future; invest now or lose forever
Investors worry: Returns are 5-10 years out; what if timing is wrong?

Meta's bet is that by the time superintelligent AI arrives (Zuckerberg's timeline: "five, seven years, or longer"), it will have:

1. Infrastructure capacity to train and serve models at scale
2. Consumer products generating $50B+ annual revenue
3. Enterprise tools capturing B2B spending
4. Option to sell excess capacity like AWS

The gamble: All four need to work. If even one fails, the ROI math breaks.

Over the next 12-18 months, we'll find out whether Zuckerberg's vision of "aggressively front-loading capacity" was genius or the most expensive mistake in tech history.

Epilogue: The House Always Wins (Unless You're the House)

Let's recap what just happened in one week:

Mark Zuckerberg:

• Spent $30 billion (borrowed)
• Committed to spending "significantly larger" amounts in 2026
• Gave no revenue targets
• Watched $200+ billion in market cap evaporate

His defense? "Better to overbuild than underbuild."

That's not a business strategy. That's a slot machine philosophy.

The Zuckerberg Gambler's Playbook

Traditional investor: "Show me the ROI projections."
Zuckerberg: "If we overbuild, we can sell the excess."

Wall Street: "When does this become profitable?"
Zuckerberg: "In the very worst case, we'd have excess capacity for several years."

Analysts: "Can you quantify the returns?"
Zuckerberg: "We're seeing the returns in the core business." (Refuses to elaborate)

This is the equivalent of doubling down at the blackjack table and saying, "Don't worry, if I lose, I can always get a job as a dealer."

The $600 Billion Bet

Here's what Meta is actually doing:

Year 1-3: Spend $600B
Year 4-7: Hope AI revenue materializes
Year 8-10: Break even (maybe)
Year 11+: Profit (fingers crossed)

Normal companies call this "speculation."
Tech CEOs call it "superintelligence."
Investors call it "Thursday."

The Irony

The funniest part? Zuckerberg's previous big bet was the Metaverse.

2021-2022 Metaverse spending: ~$36 billion
Analyst reaction then: "This is reckless."
Zuckerberg's response: "You don't understand the vision."
Outcome: Legs on avatars, eventually.

2025-2026 AI spending: ~$600 billion
Analyst reaction now: "This is reckless."
Zuckerberg's response: "You don't understand superintelligence."
Outcome: TBD 2033.

The man literally got roasted for the Metaverse, watched his stock crater 70%, and his takeaway was: "I should bet 17× more on the next thing."

That's not learning from mistakes. That's speedrunning them.

Why This Might Actually Work

Here's the uncomfortable truth: Zuckerberg might be right.

Not because the AI bet is smart (jury's out), but because he can afford to be wrong.

Meta generates $100 billion in annual cash flow. Even if AI flops completely, the ad business prints money. The company won't go bankrupt.

Zuckerberg is playing with house money. The house being Instagram reels ads.

The calculation:

• Downside: $600B sunk cost over 5 years (he has it)
• Upside: Dominant position in AI infrastructure (priceless?)

For a company worth $1.7 trillion (pre-crash), betting $600B on the future isn't gambling.

It's insurance.

The question isn't whether Meta can afford the bet. It's whether shareholders want to watch $600 billion disappear into data centers for 5-7 years before seeing returns.

October 30's -11% drop was their answer.

The Real Lesson

Wall Street hates uncertainty. Zuckerberg thrives in it.

He's not running a public company optimized for quarterly earnings. He's running a private kingdom that happens to be publicly traded.

And because he controls 61% of voting shares through dual-class stock, he doesn't need your permission.

The setup:

• You (retail investor): Own shares, no voting power
• Zuckerberg: Owns shares, controls Meta completely
• The bet: $600B on AI with no timeline

Your options:

1. Hold and pray
2. Sell and watch from sidelines
3. Short and bet against superintelligence

Choose wisely. The house Mark's house always wins.

Postscript: If you're reading this in 2033 and Meta is the AI infrastructure leader generating $200B/year from selling compute... Zuck, I'm available for consulting. My rates are reasonable.

If you're reading this in 2033 and Meta is explaining why they need to write down $400B in stranded data center assets... I told you so. The invoice is in the mail.

Resources:

• Meta Q3 2025 Earnings
• Meta's $30B Bond Deal
• CoreWeave-Core Scientific Deal Terminated
• Off-Balance-Sheet Debt Trend
• Axios: AI Boom Context
• CNBC: Market Reaction

Further Reading:

• Meta's $75B AI Infrastructure Bet
• Building a Distributed Cron System That Scales to 1000+ Users

Connect

• GitHub: @0xReLogic
• LinkedIn: Allen Elzayn