Nuclear startup Deep Fission says it’s going public, again, and I have questions
Nuclear startup Deep Fission says it’s going public, again, and I have questions
核能初创公司 Deep Fission 宣布再次上市，我对此存疑
One news headline this week had a whiff of déjà vu about it. Nuclear startup Deep Fission announced that it was going public, hoping to garner investor support to build subterranean reactors to power AI data centers. Wait, didn’t I already write that story? I could have sworn that I did. Oh right, I did. 本周的一条新闻标题让人有一种似曾相识的感觉。核能初创公司 Deep Fission 宣布将上市，希望获得投资者支持，以建造地下反应堆为人工智能数据中心供电。等等，我不是已经写过这个故事了吗？我敢肯定我写过。哦，对了，确实写过。
Last September, Deep Fission said that it had gone public via a reverse merger with Surfside Acquisition, a Delaware shell company, a transaction in which a private company acquires an existing publicly listed entity to gain a stock market listing — raising $30 million in a concurrent private placement at $3 a share. Now it’s seeking $157 million in a Nasdaq IPO at $24 to $26 a share. You can see my confusion. 去年 9 月，Deep Fission 曾表示通过与特拉华州空壳公司 Surfside Acquisition 进行反向并购实现了上市。这是一种私人公司收购现有上市公司以获得股票市场挂牌资格的交易，当时通过每股 3 美元的私募融资筹集了 3000 万美元。而现在，它正寻求以每股 24 至 26 美元的价格在纳斯达克进行首次公开募股（IPO），目标融资额为 1.57 亿美元。你可以理解我为什么会感到困惑。
Turns out the previous public listing was public in name only. The reverse merger with Surfside was completed, making Deep Fission a reporting company with SEC obligations, but its stock never actually traded. The company had said it intended to list on the OTCQB, a marketplace for developing companies that don’t meet the listing requirements of major exchanges like the NYSE or Nasdaq. But searches for Deep Fission on OTCQB don’t return any results, and the company, in its S-1, denied that its stock had ever been publicly traded. In response to questions from TechCrunch, Deep Fission declined to comment, citing the quiet period before its IPO. 事实证明，之前的上市只是名义上的。与 Surfside 的反向并购虽然完成了，使 Deep Fission 成为了一家有美国证券交易委员会（SEC）披露义务的报告公司，但其股票从未真正进行过交易。该公司曾表示打算在 OTCQB（针对不符合纽交所或纳斯达克等主要交易所上市要求的成长型公司的市场）挂牌。但在 OTCQB 上搜索 Deep Fission 却没有任何结果，且该公司在 S-1 注册文件中否认其股票曾公开交易过。针对 TechCrunch 的提问，Deep Fission 以 IPO 前的静默期为由拒绝置评。
Deep Fission’s new public offering on Nasdaq is following the more traditional IPO route, with an offering that would value the company at up to $1.66 billion. It’s a sizable figure for a company that one year ago was struggling to raise a $15 million funding round. Stranger still, the picture painted in the S-1 filed on May 20 is arguably bleaker than the one outlined in the December filing with the SEC. Its timeline for turning on its first reactor has slipped. Further, back in December, it had hoped to achieve criticality — the point at which a nuclear chain reaction becomes self-sustaining — by July 2026. Now, it won’t provide an estimate. Deep Fission 在纳斯达克的新一轮公开发行走的是更传统的 IPO 路线，此次发行对该公司的估值最高可达 16.6 亿美元。对于一家一年前还在为筹集 1500 万美元融资而苦苦挣扎的公司来说，这是一个相当大的数字。更奇怪的是，5 月 20 日提交的 S-1 文件中所描绘的前景，甚至比 12 月提交给 SEC 的文件还要黯淡。其启动首个反应堆的时间表已经推迟。此外，去年 12 月时，它曾希望在 2026 年 7 月前实现临界状态（即核链式反应变得自我维持的临界点），而现在，它已不再提供任何预估时间。
Deep Fission does point out that it is drilling a test well. It has also lost a lot of money. One thing that hasn’t changed: The new S-1 statement contains the same “going concern” warning present in December. If Deep Fission doesn’t complete the IPO, it could run out of money in the next 12 months. In fact, the startup’s financial position has worsened in recent months. As of March, its deficit had grown to $88.1 million from $56.2 million. In the last month and a half, the company’s cash and cash equivalents declined by $6.4 million, or about 7%. Deep Fission 确实指出它正在钻探一口测试井。同时，它也亏损严重。有一点没有改变：新的 S-1 声明中包含了与 12 月份相同的“持续经营”警告。如果 Deep Fission 不能完成 IPO，它可能会在未来 12 个月内耗尽资金。事实上，这家初创公司的财务状况在近几个月内进一步恶化。截至 3 月，其赤字已从 5620 万美元增加到 8810 万美元。在过去的一个半月里，公司的现金及现金等价物减少了 640 万美元，降幅约为 7%。
On the technical front, Deep Fission says it is now prioritizing drilling, perhaps a tacit admission that making holes in the ground isn’t as easy as it sounds. The company says it started drilling the first of three test wells in March. The well will be used to collect data “up to 6,000 feet deep.” At eight inches in diameter, it’s quite a bit smaller than will be needed at commercial scale. The challenges in moving from a test well to commercial scale are likely to be significant. Deep Fission says it will need boreholes 30 to 50 inches in diameter and a mile deep, though it hasn’t settled on a specific dimension yet. Even at the low end, its boreholes will be larger than what’s typically used in the oil and gas industry. And until Deep Fission knows how large of a hole it can drill, it’ll have a hard time finalizing its reactor design. 在技术方面，Deep Fission 表示现在优先考虑钻探工作，这或许是一种默认：在地下钻孔并不像听起来那么容易。该公司称，已于 3 月开始钻探三口测试井中的第一口。该井将用于收集“深达 6000 英尺”的数据。其直径为 8 英寸，远小于商业规模所需的大小。从测试井过渡到商业规模的挑战可能会非常巨大。Deep Fission 表示，它将需要直径 30 到 50 英寸、深达一英里的钻孔，尽管目前尚未确定具体尺寸。即使按最低标准计算，其钻孔也将比石油和天然气行业通常使用的钻孔更大。在 Deep Fission 确定能钻多大的孔之前，它将很难最终确定其反应堆设计。
So what has changed since December that would spur a bigger offering at a nine-figure valuation? The company did receive an $80 million equity investment, including $20 million from data center developer Blue Owl, which also signed a non-binding MOU for future power plants. Still, that wasn’t enough to stave off the going concern warning. It’s possible that Deep Fission is sitting on some positive information that it omitted from the S-1, though that’s hard to believe given what’s riding on the IPO. It’s more likely that the company and its backers are seeking to capitalize on investor excitement over fission power. 那么，自 12 月以来发生了什么变化，促使该公司以九位数的估值进行更大规模的发行？该公司确实获得了 8000 万美元的股权投资，其中包括来自数据中心开发商 Blue Owl 的 2000 万美元，后者还签署了一份关于未来发电厂的非约束性谅解备忘录（MOU）。尽管如此，这仍不足以消除“持续经营”的警告。Deep Fission 有可能掌握了一些在 S-1 中省略的利好信息，但考虑到 IPO 的重要性，这一点很难让人相信。更有可能的是，该公司及其支持者正试图利用投资者对核裂变能源的热情来获利。
Just last month, nuclear fission startup X-energy went public in an upsized IPO. But unlike Deep Fission, X-energy is generating revenue and is significantly farther along in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process — a contrast that serves as a useful reminder that in a sector where enthusiasm can run well ahead of technical and regulatory reality, valuation and progress aren’t the same thing. It isn’t exactly clear what factors are driving Deep Fission toward its IPO, but technological or commercial progress doesn’t seem to be among them. 就在上个月，核裂变初创公司 X-energy 通过扩大规模的 IPO 上市。但与 Deep Fission 不同的是，X-energy 已经产生了收入，并且在核管理委员会（NRC）的许可流程中进展显著——这种对比提醒我们，在一个热情往往远超技术和监管现实的行业中，估值和进展并不是一回事。目前尚不清楚是什么因素在推动 Deep Fission 进行 IPO，但技术或商业上的进展似乎并不在其中。