SpaceX’s First Decline After the $60 Billion Acquisition: The Logic Behind Musk’s “Trust Premium” and the Market Test Ahead

A “Faith Rally” Driven by IPO Momentum, AI Acquisition, and Market Sentiment

On June 12, SpaceX completed the largest IPO in history. Just four days later, on June 16, the company announced its first major move as a public company — acquiring Anysphere, the parent company of AI coding platform Cursor, through an all-stock transaction valued at $60 billion. On the day of the announcement, SpaceX shares surged more than 16% intraday, briefly pushing its market capitalization above $2.94 trillion, surpassing Microsoft. By the close of trading, SpaceX had overtaken Amazon and ranked as the fourth-largest company in the U.S. stock market by market value.

Meanwhile, another shift in wealth rankings also attracted market attention: as SpaceX shares climbed above $200, Elon Musk’s personal net worth rose to approximately $1.32 trillion, exceeding Bitcoin’s total market capitalization of around $1.29 trillion at the time.

Taken together, these three developments point to the same underlying logic: the market is repricing SpaceX through a framework that differs from traditional financial valuation methods. In the past, a company’s value was primarily determined by revenue, profitability, and market share. Today, however, SpaceX’s valuation is increasingly built on another system — investors’ confidence in Musk’s future vision, execution capabilities, and commercial potential. This is what the market refers to as the “trust premium.”

The Six-Day Honeymoon Ends: Macro Shifts Force the Market to Reassess SpaceX’s Valuation Logic

If the story had ended on June 16, it would have been a typical “faith-driven rally.” However, the market did not continue following that script.

On June 18, newly appointed Federal Reserve Chair Waugh held his first press conference after taking office. The dot plot showed that 9 out of 18 officials expected at least one additional rate hike before the end of the year. At the same time, Waugh announced the abandonment of forward guidance, meaning the market lost the “Fed roadmap” it had relied on for the past decade. On that day, the S&P 500 fell 1.21%, the Nasdaq declined 1.34%, and SpaceX shares dropped approximately 5%, closing at $191 — marking the company’s first decline since going public.

In just six days, SpaceX moved from a market-favored “faith asset” into its first real valuation test. However, it is worth noting that the market was not experiencing a broad-based sell-off. On the same day, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index rose 1.38% against the broader trend, while equipment stocks including Applied Materials, Lam Research, and Arm all gained.

Capital flows are beginning to diverge: some investors are moving away from highly valued software companies and growth stocks dependent on a low-interest-rate environment, shifting instead toward AI computing infrastructure. SpaceX is positioned directly at the center of this redistribution of AI-related valuations.

The $60 Billion Anysphere Acquisition: SpaceX Is Not Simply Betting on an AI Company

To understand why the market is willing to assign SpaceX such a high valuation, it is necessary to first revisit the acquisition itself. Cursor is currently one of the most popular AI coding tools, serving 60% of Fortune 500 companies. Its annualized revenue grew from $100 million to $4 billion in just over one year.

However, behind this rapid growth, there are also clear challenges. According to Ramp data, Cursor’s market share declined from 41% in June 2025 to approximately 26% in May 2026. At the same time, Anthropic’s own Claude Code has captured nearly half of the AI coding market. More importantly, approximately 40%–50% of Cursor’s previous revenue depended on licensing Anthropic’s models.

Therefore, the deeper logic behind this $60 billion acquisition is becoming increasingly clear: Cursor lacks computing power, while SpaceX lacks an AI ecosystem entry point. SpaceX’s Colossus supercomputer, powered by hundreds of thousands of advanced NVIDIA chips, could provide the computing resources needed for Cursor to develop proprietary AI models. Meanwhile, Musk’s Grok AI system has previously acknowledged limitations in coding capabilities and requires Cursor’s influence among developers to strengthen its ecosystem.

Rather than a traditional acquisition, this transaction is better viewed as an exchange of “computing power for distribution access.” However, the deal is expected to close in the third quarter of 2026 and still requires regulatory approval. The progress of approval, the effectiveness of integration, and Cursor’s future market performance will all become important variables in determining whether the market continues to validate this thesis.

The Core Variable Behind Valuation: The Market Is Not Only Pricing SpaceX, but Also Elon Musk Himself

While the logic of “computing power for distribution access” explains the strategic rationale of the deal, it still does not fully answer a key question: why is the market willing to assign a $60 billion valuation to Cursor in the first place? This is precisely where skepticism among analysts has begun to emerge.

On June 18, Dan Taylor of Man Group noted that SpaceX’s current valuation does not fully reflect broader AI sector performance. Instead, it appears to be a bet on Elon Musk himself rather than a pure valuation of the AI business. He argued that SpaceX is unlikely to achieve Musk’s long-term target of $1 trillion in annual revenue by 2030, but investors continue to assign an exceptionally high level of confidence based on Musk’s historical execution record. This portion of valuation that extends beyond fundamentals is what markets define as the “trust premium.”

From a financial perspective, this premium is clearly visible. SpaceX generated $18.67 billion in revenue in 2025, while posting a net loss of $4.94 billion. In Q1 2026, the company continued to report a loss of $4.27 billion. By comparison, Microsoft generates over $100 billion in annual profit, and Amazon produces more than $700 billion in annual revenue. Yet a company with persistent losses and sub-$20 billion revenue has reached a valuation exceeding these global tech giants.

Based on estimated annualized revenue of $20 billion, SpaceX’s price-to-sales ratio approaches 90x, higher than any constituent in the S&P 500. Clearly, this valuation is not derived from traditional profitability-based models.

When Markets Begin Creating Price: Float, Options, and Index Flows Amplify Valuation

If fundamentals alone cannot fully explain pricing, market structure becomes the next critical variable. At the time of listing, only approximately 4.2%–4.9% of SpaceX’s total shares were freely tradable, creating an extremely tight float that naturally amplified volatility.

As bullish options activity surged, market makers were forced to purchase underlying shares for hedging purposes. Rising share prices, in turn, attracted additional options demand, forming a reinforcing feedback loop. On the first trading day alone, options volume exceeded 1.6 million contracts, while after-hours valuation briefly surpassed $3 trillion. Within a single day, SpaceX added roughly $650 billion in market capitalization — an amount larger than the annual GDP of many countries.

When a company’s valuation is increasingly driven by options positioning, passive inflows, and liquidity constraints, market price no longer simply reflects intrinsic value. Instead, price itself begins to shape perceived value.

SpaceX Is Not an Isolated Case: The “Great Melt-Up” Is Reshaping U.S. Equities

SpaceX’s extreme valuation behavior is only a microcosm of a broader market transformation. More broadly, it reflects a shift in the underlying narrative driving U.S. equities.

A widely discussed thesis suggests that the United States’ $40 trillion debt burden and approximately $2 trillion annual fiscal deficit may ultimately be addressed through sustained inflation. As the purchasing power of the dollar declines, dollar-denominated equities and real assets would continue to rise in nominal terms. This framework is often referred to as the “Great Melt-Up.”

Supporting this view is the fact that the current U.S. CAPE ratio has approached 40, a level seen only once in the past 140 years — during the peak of the 1999 internet bubble. However, historical precedents also offer cautionary examples. Between 1918 and 1922, German equities collapsed by 97% before hyperinflation peaked. Zimbabwe’s stock market rose exponentially in nominal terms, yet the currency lost approximately 99.8% of its value against the U.S. dollar. Rising asset prices do not necessarily translate into real wealth creation.

A more realistic scenario may resemble prolonged financial repression in the U.S., where inflation remains slightly above interest rates, eroding cash purchasing power over time while asset prices continue to rise nominally, but real returns remain subdued compared to the past decade. From this perspective, SpaceX becomes an extreme representation of this narrative, where liquidity, sentiment, and trust in Musk collectively replace the role traditionally played by fundamentals.

Bitcoin’s Role as the “Largest Speculative Asset” Is Being Replaced: Capital Seeks a New Narrative Anchor

Another important shift is reflected in the fact that Elon Musk’s personal wealth has surpassed Bitcoin’s total market capitalization — not merely as a ranking change, but as a signal of shifting speculative preferences.

Bitcoin has long been one of the most prominent high-volatility assets globally. However, in the current cycle, the crypto market has undergone a correction, and capital has begun searching for new growth narratives. Over the past year, total cryptocurrency market capitalization declined from approximately $4.21 trillion to $2.23 trillion, while Bitcoin fell more than 50% from its late-2025 peak of around $126,000.

At the same time, SpaceX’s IPO attracted substantial inflows. South Korean retail investors purchased approximately $796 million in shares, exceeding their net purchases of Micron Technology and Nasdaq 100 ETFs over the previous three months. A 2x leveraged ETF tracking SpaceX also saw trading volume exceeding $3 billion at peak levels.

These figures do not imply that Bitcoin has lost its value. Rather, they indicate that speculative capital is shifting its destination. Capital has not disappeared; it is migrating toward new narrative vehicles, including large-cap technology equities, private-market proxy assets, and newly listed growth stories. SpaceX has emerged as one of the most attractive destinations in this rotation.

In other words, the position of “the largest speculative trade” has temporarily shifted from crypto assets to a rocket company. Capital is not loyal to any single asset class — it gravitates toward wherever trust, narrative, and liquidity are most effectively combined.

The Five Key Time Nodes That Will Determine SpaceX’s Valuation Logic

Ultimately, belief, market structure, and macro conditions must be validated through concrete events. Over the coming months, whether SpaceX can sustain its valuation framework will depend on the following five critical milestones.

1. Index Inclusion Window (Late June to July 7): Can Passive Flows Continue to Support Prices?

The initial phase of post-IPO support comes from passive inflows driven by index inclusion. The CRSP total market index is expected to take effect in June. FTSE Russell’s Russell 3000/1000 inclusion will be effective after the June 26 close, with related tracking assets estimated at approximately $3.2 trillion. MSCI USA and MSCI ACWI are expected to be implemented after the June 29 close, covering approximately $5.79 trillion in tracked assets globally.

The Nasdaq-100 inclusion requires 15 trading days after listing and is expected around July 7, potentially triggering $9.1–16 billion in passive buying demand.

This implies that even if hawkish macro signals temporarily disrupt momentum, passive flows may continue to provide technical support into early July. However, such support is driven by index mechanics rather than fundamental reassessment.

2. Lock-Up Expiration Cycle (Late July to December 9): Float Scarcity Will Gradually Disappear

A key early advantage of SpaceX’s IPO has been its extremely limited free float. However, this will change as lock-up periods expire.

After Q2 earnings (late July to early August), approximately 10%–20% of total shares held by insiders will become eligible for phased release. From late August through October, five additional unlock events will occur, each releasing around 7% of total shares. After Q3 earnings, another 28% of shares will become eligible for trading. Finally, after the 180-day lock-up ends on December 9, the majority of remaining shares will enter circulation. Musk’s personal holdings, however, are expected to remain locked until June 2027.

This transition marks a shift from “scarcity-driven pricing” toward a structurally more balanced supply-demand environment, with true price discovery likely only emerging after year-end.

3. S&P 500 Inclusion Threshold (Post-June 2027): The Largest Passive Capital Pool Remains Closed

Compared with Nasdaq, Russell, and MSCI, which provide faster inclusion pathways for large IPOs, the S&P Dow Jones methodology remains stricter.

SpaceX would need to meet multiple requirements, including 12 months of trading history, four consecutive quarters of positive GAAP net income, and at least 10% public float. At present, SpaceX does not satisfy these conditions, making inclusion in 2026 highly unlikely. The earliest possible entry would be after June 2027, and potentially as late as 2028.

This means that one of the largest passive capital pools globally, estimated at $7–8 trillion, remains inaccessible in the near term. Until then, valuation will continue to depend on sentiment, growth expectations, and investor confidence in Musk.

4. Cursor Integration Outcome (Q3 2026): Can the $60 Billion Acquisition Deliver Synergies?

The acquisition is expected to close in Q3 2026, but regulatory approval is only the first step. The real test lies in post-integration performance.

If Cursor successfully integrates into SpaceX’s Colossus compute infrastructure and leverages it to regain market share, the deal may validate the “compute-for-distribution” thesis. However, if integration is slow or Cursor fails to reverse its market share decline from 41% to around 26%, investor confidence in the acquisition could weaken.

For SpaceX, Musk’s historical execution track record remains a key foundation supporting the current trust premium.

5. Waugh’s Next Policy Signal (Second Half of 2026): Will Rate Repricing Pressure Intensify?

The final variable is macro policy. The latest dot plot suggests that the expected policy rate at the end of 2026 has risen from 3.4% in March to 3.8%, reflecting growing expectations that the easing cycle may have ended.

Markets have already begun pricing in the possibility of further tightening before October, making September a key observation point. With forward guidance removed, each Federal Reserve meeting becomes a major repricing event for risk assets.

For a company like SpaceX — whose valuation far exceeds current profitability — interest rates affect not only financing conditions but also discount rates applied to future cash flows. In simple terms: the higher the rate environment, the lower the valuation multiple investors are willing to assign to long-duration growth assets.

Three Layers of Interpretation, Not a Simple Price Forecast

By connecting these five milestones, the analysis can be structured into three distinct horizons rather than a binary up-or-down prediction.

In the short term (late June to early July), passive inflows from index inclusion may continue to provide technical support, allowing for potential stabilization or rebound. However, this is driven by liquidity structure rather than fundamental improvement.

In the medium term (August to October), lock-up expirations, macro rate repricing, and valuation normalization may converge, creating a more meaningful stress test. This is the period where supply expansion and liquidity tightening could jointly pressure valuations.

In the long term (post-2027), only if Cursor integration succeeds, profitability improves, S&P 500 inclusion becomes feasible, and Musk’s lock-up restrictions gradually expire, can the market move toward a valuation more aligned with fundamentals.

Ultimately, the “trust premium” may persist in the near term. However, its durability will not be determined solely by narrative — it will be tested through index flows, unlock schedules, AI commercialization progress, and monetary policy direction.

The “faith-driven ritual” of recent days will ultimately face a market verdict: whether belief can be transformed into a balance sheet that withstands real-world scrutiny.

Risk Disclosure

The data, timelines, and analyst commentary regarding SpaceX and Cursor referenced in this article are compiled from publicly available sources and are intended solely for informational and analytical purposes. They do not constitute investment advice and do not represent the official position of WEEX.

Actual event timing, unlock schedules, and acquisition progress may change based on regulatory decisions and official announcements. Uncertainty remains inherent.

U.S. equities and crypto assets are highly volatile, and historical performance does not guarantee future results. Options and leveraged instruments carry additional risks.

Readers should independently assess their risk tolerance, exercise caution in decision-making, and consult professional financial advisors where appropriate. Neither the author nor the platform assumes responsibility for investment outcomes based on this content.