The mismatch between new technology companies and old markets is widening.

The most important but not directly observable change in the current market is the fragmentation of interpretation systems. Traditional capital markets rely on a relatively unified logic: revenue, profit, growth rate, cash flow. This system remains effective in stable industries and has formed the basis of market pricing over the past few decades.

But in the new technology cycle, another interpretation system is operating simultaneously. This system no longer relies solely on financial metrics, but focuses more on technology embedding capabilities, infrastructure attributes, and systemic impact scope. For example, AI models are not just products, but productivity interfaces; commercial aerospace companies are not merely manufacturing enterprises, but nodes in communication and space infrastructure.

When two interpretation systems act on the same asset simultaneously, the market naturally experiences differences in understanding. These differences do not disappear immediately but accumulate continuously.

The Structural Complexity of New Technology Companies Is Accelerating

In the past, corporate structures were relatively clear: there was a strong correspondence between products, markets, and revenue sources. But the new generation of tech companies is breaking this structure. AI companies often simultaneously possess model capabilities, data capabilities, and platform capabilities; aerospace companies simultaneously possess manufacturing attributes and infrastructure attributes; and some tech companies even participate in the construction of software, hardware, and network layers simultaneously.

The direct result of this structural change is that companies are no longer single-function entities but multi-layer system aggregates.

When a company possesses multiple attributes simultaneously, its "classification" in the market becomes unstable. Traditional industry classification systems cannot fully cover its true structure, which is one of the fundamental reasons for the widening misalignment.

SpaceX (SPCX): A Sample Priced by Multiple Logics Simultaneously

After SpaceX (SPCX) entered the public market, its pricing mechanism exhibited obvious multi-layer structural characteristics. From a trading perspective, short-term price fluctuations are affected by market sentiment, liquidity changes, and capital structure adjustments. But in the medium term, the market has gradually begun to regard it as a "space infrastructure node," rather than just a single aerospace company.

This cognitive change leads to an important phenomenon: the same asset is priced by different logics on different time scales.

Short-term driven by trading logic, medium-term driven by capital structure, and long-term driven by system value. This multi-layer pricing mechanism makes price behavior more complex and harder to explain with a single model.

Therefore, SpaceX is not a simple listing case, but a typical sample where multiple interpretation systems act simultaneously.

Why Traditional Valuation Frameworks Are Beginning to Show Interpretation Deviations

Traditional valuation frameworks are built on three core assumptions: clear corporate boundaries, stable revenue structure, and linear growth path. But new technology companies are gradually breaking these assumptions.

• Corporate boundaries are becoming blurred. AI capabilities can be reused across industries, and infrastructure can be expanded across scenarios.
• Revenue structure becomes unstable, with the contribution ratio of different businesses potentially changing rapidly.
• Growth paths are no longer linear but show stage jumps.

When these three points occur simultaneously, traditional models cannot fully capture the true state of the enterprise, leading to gradually widening pricing deviations. This deviation does not mean the model is invalid, but that the model needs to be expanded.

The Real Source Behind the Misalignment: Inconsistent Time Structures

If we further deconstruct the source of misalignment, we find that the core issue is not just structural differences, but inconsistent time structures. The speed of technological evolution is usually faster than the adjustment speed of market pricing mechanisms. Improvements in AI model capabilities may occur on a monthly basis, while market perception updates often occur on a quarterly or longer cycle.

The development cycle of commercial aerospace is even longer, but once a key node is broken through, its impact may be released intensively in a short period.

This time asynchrony means that at any given point in time, the market cannot fully and accurately reflect the true state of the asset, thus forming a persistent misalignment.

How IPO Access Changes the Participation Path

In this structural context, market participation methods are also changing. Gate's IPO Access provides a new mechanism that allows investors to submit intent to subscribe before a company goes public, and after final allocation, receive shares and enter the public trading system.

Taking SpaceX (SPCX) as an example, as the first phase project, it has completed stock distribution and entered the market trading stage.

The key significance of this mechanism is that it changes the time structure of the participation position, moving investors from "result participants" to "process participants." Although it does not change the market pricing mechanism itself, it changes the location where participation occurs.

Long-term Impact of Misalignment: The Market Is Entering the "Multi-layer Interpretation Era"

When misalignment becomes a long-term phenomenon, the market itself will undergo adaptive changes. The most obvious change is that a single interpretation system is becoming ineffective, and the market is gradually entering a stage of "coexistence of multiple interpretation layers."

The same asset may be understood by different logics simultaneously: short-term trading logic, medium-term capital logic, and long-term structural logic coexist. This state will not lead to market chaos, but means that the market is becoming more complex and layered. The market no longer seeks a single interpretation, but simultaneously accommodates multiple interpretations.

Conclusion: Misalignment Is Not an Anomaly, but Part of System Evolution

The misalignment between new technology companies and the old market is widening. This phenomenon itself is not a problem, but an inevitable stage in the process of structural evolution. When the speed of change in the technology system exceeds the update speed of the market interpretation system, misalignment will persist. However, as mechanisms evolve, such as IPO process optimization, increased information transparency, and improved trading structures, this misalignment will gradually be compressed, rather than disappear.

SpaceX (SPCX) is just one sample in this process, and IPO Access provides an observation entry point. From a longer-term perspective, the market is not eliminating misalignment, but is constantly learning how to coexist with it, and in this coexistence, gradually upgrade its own structural capabilities.

FAQs

Why are new technology companies more prone to "misalignment" with traditional markets?

Because the operating logics themselves are different. Traditional markets rely on clear revenue models and linear growth structures, while new technology companies often have multiple business attributes simultaneously, such as a superposition of platform, infrastructure, and ecosystem structures. This complexity makes it difficult for a single valuation model to fully explain them when they enter public markets, thus forming pricing deviations over time.

Does the volatility of SpaceX (SPCX) indicate a failure in market pricing?

Not necessarily. Volatility reflects more that "the pricing process has not yet been completed" rather than pricing errors. For assets with long-term infrastructure attributes, the early trading stage typically experiences information reassessment and capital redistribution, which is a normal phase after new assets enter public markets, not an anomaly.

Why is it said that IPOs are becoming a process of "entry moving forward"?

Because the participation position of investors is moving earlier. It has gradually expanded from the traditional "post-listing trading" to a continuous process of "pre-listing subscription + post-listing trading." Taking Gate's IPO Access as an example, users can participate in subscriptions before a company officially goes public, and after final allocation, enter the secondary market. This makes IPOs no longer a single point event, but a continuous structure.

What does "widening misalignment" mean for investors?

Misalignment itself means there is a time gap between information and pricing. In this phase, the market may experience understanding divergences, amplified volatility, and periodic revaluations. But at the same time, this misalignment also means that new assets are still in a structural formation period, their prices are not fully stabilized, so the market is still continuously "learning and adjusting" to them.

Will this misalignment persist?

In the new technology cycle, this misalignment is difficult to completely disappear because the speed of technological evolution is usually faster than the adjustment speed of the financial system. However, as market mechanisms evolve, such as IPO structure optimization, improvement of trading tools, and increased information transparency, this misalignment will gradually shrink, but will not completely disappear. It is more like a long-term dynamic state.