Isn't the point that they intentionally glossed over ("We did not model what would happen if data center demand collapses and Meta cannot secure a new tenant. This scenario was excluded for methodological convenience.") a pretty important one? If I understand the explanations on HN, the complaint is that Meta is taking on debt, which would normally affect its credit rating, so they're "hiding" the debt in a LLC witho…
For these datacenters to keep value without the computational demand, you also assume new hardware prices & capability will stagnate.
I still dont see the "total addressable market" being large enough to satisfy even one monopoly.