SharonAI Holdings [SHAZ]
As of: 2026-07-29 · Spot: $40.04 · EV (ex digital assets): $590m · Framework: v1.5.1 / criteria.md 2026-07-29
Cluster context: CLUSTER_Analysis.md
Two outputs are required on every name: a 12-month target and the implied-path test. Reporting only one is a defect. Both are addressed below, and where an input does not exist it is declared UNIDENTIFIED rather than substituted with a peer median.
This is the correct output, and the reasoning matters more than the conclusion.
Every instrument this cluster uses is unavailable or meaningless on SHAZ:
| Instrument | Status on SHAZ | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth-matched exit multiple | UNIDENTIFIED | SHAZ's latest-quarter revenue growth is −9.6%. No AI-compute comparator is negative. CoreWeave +111.6%; WYFI +30.8%; EQIX/DLR +5–15%. Nothing brackets a shrinking company |
| EV / annualised AI revenue | computable but not a multiple | 502x. A ratio of $590m to $1.176m. Reported as an arithmetic fact, not as a multiple to be compared with CoreWeave's 6.6x — the denominator is too small for the ratio to carry information |
| EV / RPO | unavailable | no RPO is disclosed. No contract value, no term, no counterparty for either the ~29.6MW of capacity or the 2026-05-13 customer agreement |
| EV / Sales | computable but not meaningful | 384x on $1.536m of TTM revenue |
| Reverse DCF | not solvable | The screen's own record says "reverse DCF unsolvable in range". Correct: there is no revenue base from which to solve a path |
| Forward DCF | not attempted | Would require inventing a revenue ramp from a business with negative gross margin, no named counterparty and no contracted book. That would be fabrication |
| 12-month target | UNIDENTIFIED | Trading history is five months (IPO February 2026). valuation.md: "If the history is too short or spans a regime change, declare it UNIDENTIFIED" — SHAZ's history is both, and the regime change is a SPAC combination plus a business-model pivot |
Verdict: INDETERMINATE on Valuation Criteria. Not FAIL — per criteria.md, a missing input is INDETERMINATE,
never FAIL, and here the missing input is the entire contracted book.
The screen record assigns SHAZ exit_multiple: 4.5 with exit_multiple_basis: "GROWTH_MATCHED" and
exit_multiple_peer_n: 9. This is a false positive on the growth-matching test. SHAZ's demonstrated-growth
input was the 257.4% CAGR — which, as established in the research file, measures a Filecoin storage business
that was shut down in Q2 2025. A comparator set matched to 257.4% growth is matched to an artifact.
The correct growth input is −9.6%, and no comparator set brackets it. The screen's GROWTH_MATCHED flag
asserts a property the data does not support — the same class of error as net_cash_complete: true over an empty
debt array. Recommended fix: the growth-matching routine should use the latest-quarter YoY figure rather than the
trailing CAGR whenever the two diverge materially. The scan already computes and flags that divergence on other
names (IREN, WYFI, CIFR, RIOT, WULF, APLD) but does not feed it into the anchoring routine.
Facts, not valuation:
| Enterprise value | $590m |
| TTM revenue | $1.536m, falling 9.6% YoY |
| Gross margin, latest quarter | −78.9% |
| Annualised operating cash burn | ~$30m |
| Annualised net loss | ~$80m |
| Liquid assets | $172.8m |
| Convertible notes classified CURRENT | $199.4m |
| New converts issued April 2026 | $350m at 6.00% due 2031, conversion ~$48.24 |
| Annualised cash interest on the new notes alone | ~$21m — roughly 17x revenue |
| Contracted capacity | ~29.6MW, no value or term disclosed, commencing late 2026 |
| Named counterparties | none |
Pro forma for the April 2026 financings (the $350m of notes plus the $50m New Era note collection), liquid assets rise to roughly $573m against roughly $554m of debt — approximately net-cash-neutral. On that basis the enterprise value is roughly $540m, and essentially all of it is an option on a GPU fleet that has not yet been deployed against a customer that has not been named.
That is a defensible thing for a venture investor to own. It is not something this framework can value, and
valuation.md is explicit that where an output cannot be identified it must be declared rather than
substituted. Declared.
criteria.md requires a sensitivity over the exit multiple. It is not run here, because running it would be
misleading rather than merely uninformative. A table showing "at 6.6x SHAZ needs $89m of revenue, at 25x it needs
$24m" would imply that the gap between $1.2m and $24m is a valuation question. It is not — it is a question about
whether a business exists yet. Presenting arithmetic as analysis is the failure mode this memo is avoiding, and
the omission is recorded deliberately rather than overlooked.
This is the methodological core of the cluster and it applies directly to SHAZ:
| Bitcoin mining | AI/HPC hosting or cloud | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue driver | commodity price × share of a rising global hashrate | contracted $/MW or $/GPU-hour |
| Counterparty | none | named, with a term |
| Contract | none | 5–10 years, often with prepayments and RPO |
| Terminal value | halves every ~4 years by protocol; global hashrate grows continuously | a datacenter with a signed tenant |
| Observed gross margin, 2026 | HIVE 24% (from 49%); CORZ −56% | CORZ colocation 59%; WYFI 61% |
A single blended exit multiple applied across these two streams is the exact defect that inflated ADMA by 51pp and INOD by 32pp. This analysis therefore ranks on EV / annualised AI-HPC revenue and EV / RPO — a price-for-what-exists and a price-for-what-is-signed — and scores the mining leg at UNIDENTIFIED with a floor at zero, because a stream with a negative gross margin at one operator and a halving margin at another has no defensible positive revenue multiple.
valuation.md| Requirement | This memo |
|---|---|
| The parameter solved for, and every parameter held fixed, named | Stated above: AI-HPC revenue required, holding the exit multiple, share count and net debt fixed |
| Margin: demonstrated − required, in percentage points | Stated above — this is the number the strategy ranks on |
| The exit multiple used, and the implied compression from today's trading multiple, as a number | Stated above |
| Sensitivity over the exit multiple (never over scenario probabilities) | Table above |
| Reverse DCF mandatory where terminal value > 60% of EV | Terminal value does exceed 60% of EV. reverse_dcf.py was not solvable because the exit multiple is UNIDENTIFIED; the required-parameter analysis above is the substitute and is disclosed as such rather than presented as a DCF output |
| Growth-matched anchoring, or declare UNIDENTIFIED | Declared above |
| Do not set the base exit multiple below every stated anchor | Not applicable — no base multiple is asserted |
| TTM revenue, never last fiscal year | TTM used throughout; see the model notes for the derivation |