1/9: We believe $SUPX is a textbook China Hustle: Their stock has been ripping after announcing “new” servers, we found that these were logo-swapped products, we also found multiple undisclosed related-party deals, and a CEO with a history of regulatory trouble. Full report on our website.
Shoutout to @JCap_Research for getting to this before us.
2/9: Our research found that SUPX engaged in multiple undisclosed related-party transactions. On August 27, 2024, SUPX claimed that its Australian subsidiary, ASPAC AI, was going to partner with PanaAI to build a $200 million data center. Not mentioned was that Yan Chen was both PanaAI director & ASPAC secretary, and that PanaAI, ASPAC, and Yan Chen all listed the same luxury home as their address.
3/9: We believe $SUPX’s $3m payment to PanaAI’s parent entity in September 2024 was an attempt by insiders to funnel money out of the company. The deal was announced as a “service fee” for a purported $100m “AI superfactory.” However, we have found no evidence of this project advancing.
4/9: $SUPX had also claimed that PanaAI had NVIDIA partner status; the NVIDIA partner search also came up empty for “PanaAI”.
5/9: We believe $SUPX’s acquisition of Mindenergy AI (Now SUPERX Industries) in 2025 was another undisclosed related party transaction. Singaporean entity filings revealed that Mindenergy shared directors, Zheng Jiamei and Guan Xinxin, with PanaAI, the same “partner” that had already received $3m for the “AI superfactory”. We believe this deal was just another way for insiders to funnel money out of the company.
6/9: We believe $SUPX is passing off third-party hardware as its own. The company’s “servers” appear identical to products from actual NVIDIA OEM partner Nationgate, with descriptions copied nearly word-for-word. On Aug 7, 2025, $SUPX even announced a “Workstation” that looks to be just a rebranded Phanteks Enthoo tower.
7/9: The $SUPX AI pivot was led by CEO Ho Wai “Howard” Tang. Tang previously ran Ample Capital, which was fined $5.5m by Hong Kong financial regulators in 2016-2017 for failing to conduct adequate due diligence, and Tang was suspended for 17 months. These facts were conveniently omitted from his $SUPX biography, Howard has since been fired and has not been replaced. We also found that $SUPX CFO Hing Wah “Raymond” Tong overlapped with Tang at Ample, where he served as “VP of Transaction Risk Management”.
8/9: $SUPX appears to be jumping from one shady auditor to another. SUPX has had three auditors in the last 3 years. The most recent auditor (KD & Co - HK-based, hired this year) only registered with the PCAOB in 2024. SUPX’s prior auditor (CT International - hired 2024, fired 2025) had registered with the PCAOB in 2023. CT International operates out of a strip mall in San Francisco, where it is sandwiched between a massage parlor and a hair salon. Enough Said.
9/9: We believe $SUPX is a classic China Hustle: misleading press releases, multiple undisclosed related party transactions, a chairman/CEO who was sanctioned by regulators, and a weak auditor. We don't see any reason why $SUPX should be listed on the Nasdaq, and believe it likely won't be in the near future.
1/x Round 2 of this because the first post bugged out on us, Recap: not a short report, we are short some shares but there will be no formal writeup: On October 6, 2025, OneMedNet Corp. ($ONMD) issued a press release announcing a relationship with Palantir Technologies ($PLTR), which coincided with a sharp surge in $ONMD’s share price. The announcement framed the relationship as a strategic collaboration designed to “revolutionize our ability to deliver high-quality, regulatory-compliant data at remarkable speed. This positions us to power breakthroughs in clinical research and AI-driven healthcare solutions.”
2/x: Upon closer review, however, we found that the substance of the announcement appears far less consequential than the market reaction suggested. Based on the Company’s own disclosures, $ONMD merely agreed to use $PLTR software as a customer. There is no indication that $PLTR is acting as a partner, reseller, or co-developer, nor that Palantir has made any commercial or strategic commitment to $ONMD beyond providing software
3/x: Additional concerns emerge when reviewing OneMedNet’s management structure. Public professional records indicate that the Company’s CEO works remotely and is based in Canada. While remote work is not inherently problematic, we note the limited transparency around executive presence and operational oversight at a company of $ONMD size, particularly given its apparent operational fragility and financial distress.
1/4: The YouTube channel that interviewed the CEO of $HOVR decided to attempt a rebuttal of our report. We watched the video and found it laughably filled with inaccuracies and omissions of certain sections of our report. They ask for our “human analysis.” Well, here’s an unedited line: New Horizon is by far one of the Worst and one of the most prospectless companies I have seen in my career. The executives continue to try and screw shareholders by taking massive compensation packages bordering on absurd. They are selling shareholders dreams that, in our opinion, are blatantly misrepresented; they are preying on the unsophisticated investor to fund their science project. It is my belief that this company will no longer be around within 10 years. The diligence conducted was significant and thorough, which I 100% believe, throughout this video, they chose to attack me and my company personally. In a very simple answer, if I’m wrong, I’m answerable to my bank account.
2/4: They attempt to dismiss our findings about the two supposed facilities by hand-waving everything as “R&D stage,” even leaning on a vague claim from the CEO that there are “other undisclosed sites.” This is the same pattern they use to undermine our on-site investigation, mocking us for speaking with waitstaff while conveniently omitting the informed statement made on location: the airport manager’s acknowledgment that “it’s only an experimental thing they’re doing right now.”
3/4: They then stumble into our section on insider sales and dilution, managing to misunderstand both the chart and the basic mechanics of their own argument. Calling the chart of insider sales a timeline of “dilution events”, this is not only incorrect, it perfectly illustrates the level of financial incompetence we’re dealing with. To be very clear: the dilution that has occurred is a major reason the stock has cratered, BUT it is not the chart displayed.