$INFQ

Does he own it?

He explicitly states he went long and allocated a small percentage of his book as quantum exposure. In two later portfolio recaps he lists INFQ among his own holdings (a "misc" pick) that is underperforming. First-person buy/hold language plus repeated inclusion in his portfolio confirm a real position, though small and unsized.

His thesis

He frames Infleqtion as the first public pure-play in neutral-atom quantum computing, differentiated from trapped-ion and superconducting peers like IONQ and RGTI. He argues it is less speculative because its quantum-sensing division already has real products (optical clocks, RF receivers, inertial sensors) used by NASA and the US military. He cites national-security stakes and heavy government funding as tailwinds, while admitting quantum names can't be valued on traditional multiples, hence only a small allocation.

How his view evolved

Started as a conviction initiation with a small sizing decision. In later recaps it is demoted to a lower-conviction "misc" holding that is underperforming and not central to his returns, which are driven by semis/photonics and memory names.

Key points

• Long via a deliberately small position as quantum-computing exposure
• Bull case: only public neutral-atom pure-play with real defense/NASA sensing revenue
• Later a lagging, low-concentration misc holding, not a core driver

Derived from a holistic read of his public posts — paraphrased, never quoted. See his actual posts about $INFQ on X ↗