This market resolves based on SpaceX’s reported Nameplate Compute Draw as of December 31, 2027, in gigawatts (GW).
“Nameplate Compute Draw” should use SpaceX’s then-current reported definition. As currently defined by SpaceX, it is based on installed GPUs multiplied by their respective all-in power draw and excludes facility-level overhead such as cooling, power-distribution losses, lighting, and security.
The figure should include all qualifying compute capacity owned or operated by SpaceX or xAI, whether:
- terrestrial or space-based;
- used internally; or
- sold, leased, or otherwise provided to third-party customers.
The preferred resolution source is SpaceX’s 2027 Form 10-K or another official SpaceX SEC filing reporting the figure as of December 31, 2027. If SpaceX stops reporting the metric under that exact name, the market should use the closest directly comparable officially reported metric.
1,000https://ir.spacex.com/investors/default.aspx
Q2 earnings call, August 4th 2026:
We ended the second quarter with 1.4 GW of nameplate compute, up from 1 GW in Q1 and 400 MW a year earlier. We expect to end this year at over 2 GW of compute capacity.
We expect to end this year with over 2 gigawatts of compute. And probably our cumulative compute online by the end of next year will be several times higher. It may, let’s say, be closer to 10 gigawatts of compute than 5 gigawatts of compute.
Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley: Elon, first one for you. Just confirming, you said you expect to be closer to 10 GW of nameplate compute by end of ‘27, closer to 10GWnthan 5 GW. Do you have line of sight? How confident is your line of sight on permitting, chips and turbines for that? Then I have a follow-up for
Gwynne.