Of course. Here is the feature article, written in the persona of Nate Ryder.
*
The Next Nvidia? Give Me a Break.
Every few years, Wall Street needs a new story to sell. A new, shiny object to dangle in front of everyone who missed out on the last gold rush. For a while it was crypto, then it was the metaverse, then it was AI everything. Now, get ready for the next fairy tale: quantum computing.
I’m seeing it everywhere. Breathless articles about how stocks like IonQ (`IONQ`), Rigetti (`RGTI`), and D-Wave (`QBTS`) are the "next Nvidia." They’re pushing this narrative, claiming to have found 3 Quantum Computing Stocks That Could Make a Millionaire, just like a $10,000 bet on `NVDA stock` a decade ago. It’s a seductive story. It’s also complete and utter nonsense.
Comparing the current state of `ionq stock` or the `rgti stock price` to an early Nvidia is a fundamentally broken analogy. It’s like comparing a guy holding a lottery ticket to the guy who owns the lottery machine. When Nvidia was starting its meteoric rise, it had a tangible product—graphics cards—with a massive, real-world market: video gamers. The AI boom was just gasoline on an already roaring fire.
These quantum companies? They have… what, exactly? A handful of research contracts and a promise of solving problems that most of us can’t even comprehend. They’re selling a concept, a dream wrapped in advanced physics. Are we really supposed to believe that one of these three tiny companies, burning through cash with negative margins, will magically become the next trillion-dollar behemoth? It's a fantasy. A dangerous one.
A High-Stakes Game of Three-Card Monte
Let’s be real about what you’re buying here. You’re not investing in a business with a proven model. You’re betting on a science experiment. The articles will tell you about their different "approaches"—IonQ uses "trapped-ion," Rigetti uses "superconducting," and D-Wave has its "quantum annealing." It all sounds very impressive, very technical.
But it’s just dressing. It’s the equivalent of the dealer in a three-card monte game telling you about the high-quality card stock he uses. It’s a distraction from the fact that the game is rigged. Nobody—not the CEOs of these companies, not the PhDs in their labs, and offcourse not the analysts writing these articles—knows which of these technologies, if any, will actually work at a commercial scale.
This is a bad bet. No, "bad" doesn't cover it—this is a five-alarm dumpster fire of a financial decision for the average person. The source articles even admit, in their fine print, that if these companies fail, the stock "will go to zero." They call it risk. I call it the most probable outcome.
We’ve seen this playbook before, haven't we? This is the same hype cycle that fueled the dot-com bubble, the same FOMO that got people buying digital apes. It's the same story they sold about `PLTR` being the next Oracle or `OKLO` being the future of energy. Wall Street finds a complex, futuristic-sounding technology, wraps it in a "get in on the ground floor" narrative, and pumps it to retail investors who are desperate for a win. They’re selling you on the idea of a new paradigm, but they’re just using the same old tricks, and honestly... it’s exhausting to watch people fall for it again. This ain't a revolution; it's a product launch.
The House Always Wins
So, could one of these quantum stocks make you a millionaire? Sure. And I could get struck by lightning while cashing in a winning Powerball ticket. The odds are about the same.
The people getting rich off this quantum hype are the same people who always get rich: the founders, the early venture capitalists, and the investment banks that take these companies public. They’re the house. For everyone else, this isn’t an investment strategy. It’s a prayer. It’s a hope that your lottery ticket is the lucky one, even when you know, deep down, that the game is designed for you to lose. Don't let them sell you a dream when what you're actually buying is a ghost.
