DNA
Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc.
stock NYSE

Scamming is built into India’s cultural DNA. The western world needs to wake up and realize that mass immigration from the subcontinent is terrible for society.

Open a trading terminal from 1985. Open one from 2025. They show the same tools: RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, moving averages. Forty years of market evolution—almost no evolution in indicators. The problem is simple: these indicators were built for a market structure that no longer exists. Crypto now jumps across liquidity cliffs and flash-crash microstructures. FX grinds through slow macro cycles and mean-reverting dispersion. Equities sit in the middle—fragmented liquidity, sudden volatility shocks, constant regime shifts. Yet traders still rely on indicators designed for a smooth, Gaussian, pre-HFT world.

So here’s the real question: if we were designing the perfect indicator today, from scratch… what would it look like? Spoiler: nothing like RSI or MACD. In fact, nothing like anything a human would design. Because the perfect indicator isn’t engineered. It’s discovered! Give evolution millions of architectures to explore. Test each one across billions of datapoints, thousands of assets, and wildly different regimes. Let only the stable, predictive, and robust structures survive. And evolution keeps converging to the same motifs—not because they’re intuitive or simple, but because the physics of modern markets forces them to exist.

Across different markets, the evolution discovers indicators with the same DNA:
🔥 Multi-scale momentum that expands in predictable regimes and shrinks in chaotic ones.
🔥 Entropy awareness — low-entropy = opportunity, high-entropy = danger.
🔥 Volatility-adaptive scaling so the same indicator works on DOGE, EURUSD, and the S&P 500.
🔥 Tail-robust filtering to survive jumps, gaps, and microstructure shocks.
🔥 Regime detection so it can say: “No trade here. Expected value is negative.”
🔥 Non-linear fusion of multiple horizons, not the single-window thinking of classical indicators.

Each asset class evolves its own “style.” Crypto indicators become defensive and entropy-driven to survive sudden jumps. FX indicators smooth out, matching slow macro drift. Equity indicators form hybrids, constantly adapting to fragmented liquidity and volatility shocks. Humans didn’t design these behaviors—markets did. These structures emerged because they’re the only ones that consistently survive real market dynamics, not because they’re elegant or interpretable.

The hard truth: quants can’t design the perfect indicator. The search space is massive. Relationships are nonlinear. Regimes shift too fast. Microstructure destroys intuition. Evolution can handle this. LLMs generate functional building blocks. Cross-market testing pressure-tests every candidate. And the indicators that survive never look like textbook formulas—because they weren’t invented. They were evolved!
**#QuantFinance** **#AlgorithmicTrading** **#AITrading** **#LLMResearch** **#FinancialAI** **#TradingStrategies** **#EvolutionaryAI** **#QuantResearch**

Galleri headlines are everywhere again. Pathfinder-2 reported it detected about seven times more cancers than standard screenings, with around 70 percent of detected cancers lacking routine screening and about half found at stage I–II. Price sits near 950 dollars and broad coverage is still limited. That hype lifts the whole early detection story, but payers often start with organ-specific tests that have clearer economics and existing codes.
That is the lane for a kit-based CRC screen and a pancreas program. Company materials for ColoAlert have cited about 97 percent sensitivity, 97 percent specificity, and 100 percent detection of high-grade precancer. Pooled ASCO data for the next-gen CRC work read CRC sensitivity about 92 percent, advanced adenomas 82 percent, and high-grade dysplasia 95.8 percent. PancAlert feasibility reported 100 percent sensitivity and 95 percent specificity in pancreas. The U.S. corridor already pays for noninvasive CRC screening, with FDA-approved stool DNA and blood tests covered by Medicare.
If targeted tests keep this accuracy and slot into existing CRC coverage, do you expect payers to prioritize them before broad MCED screens on cost grounds?

The EU’s Beating Cancer Plan targets 90% CRC screening coverage in eligible citizens. That is a policy push, not a headline. It means systems are expected to expand programs and close gaps between countries. CRC remains a heavy burden at \~1.9M cases and \~935k deaths each year. Five-year survival is near 90% when localized and falls to the mid-teens when metastatic. A stool DNA + FIT screen that catches high-grade precancer earlier fits that mission.
MYNZ already sells ColoAlert in Europe via partner labs and added new access in 2025: UK registration on 2 Sep 2025 and Swissmedic approval on 13 Aug 2025. A decentralized kit model lets existing labs adopt without big capex. The way to grade this is numeric: ordering clinics added, turnaround time improvements, and steady reorders by region over the next 1–2 quarters.
Which EU market would you expect to show the first step-function increase in orders: UK under new registration or Switzerland under Swissmedic?
Not financial advice. Do your own research.

Pooled results presented for MYNZ combine ColoFuture and eAArly DETECT: colorectal cancer sensitivity about 92 percent, advanced adenomas 82 percent, and high-grade dysplasia 95.8 percent. That profile is competitive on the metrics clinicians care about. For context, Shield, the FDA approved blood test, has reported around 84 percent sensitivity with about 90 percent specificity in average-risk screening. The trade-off is stool DNA plus FIT versus blood, but accuracy drives clinical confidence and guideline adoption.

Two caveats matter. First, cohort sizes and study design influence headline numbers, so the U.S. feasibility read and the 15,000 patient pivotal will be the real referee. Second, payers weigh total test cost and downstream colonoscopy rates, so specificity and workflows count. Still, this is why traders keep MYNZ on screen. The data arc is trending toward what guidelines want to see.

If the U.S. feasibility output matches the pooled figures, do you underwrite adoption on par with covered options, or wait for early real-world data?

Wall Street Institution Evaluates FFAI: Shares Significantly Undervalued, Recommends Buy With a $5 Price Target
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/litchfield-hills-initiates-coverage-faraday-future-intelligent-electric-ffai-buy
Fintel reports that on November 20, 2025, Litchfield Hills initiated coverage of Faraday Future Intelligent Electric (NasdaqCM:FFAI) with a Buy recommendation.

Wall Street Firm Recommends Buying FFAI: $5
The institution finds FF’s current valuation to be “clearly undervalued,” assigning a Buy rating and a $5 price target.

The report highlights FF’s differentiated Co-Creation model, its leading AI + Crypto dual-ecosystem strategy, and its increasingly valuable U.S.–China automotive industry bridge strategy, which together provide substantial potential and long-term growth prospects. The report further emphasizes that this bridge strategy not only significantly optimizes FF’s overall cost structure, but also provides rare strategic resilience amid tariff volatility and other uncertainties.

The analysts view this as an important external validation of FF’s intrinsic value by a professional Wall Street institution. It also signals growing re-evaluation and recognition of FF among institutional investors. According to the report, if FF continues to drive true value realization through improvements in fundamentals and strategic execution, the company will be positioned to maximize shareholder value.
Litchfield states in the report that FF is fundamentally different from traditional EV manufacturers. The firm believes FF has opened a new path in manufacturing and marketing—one that could allow FF to capture meaningful market share in the near term within the high-end segment, and ultimately across the broader EV market.

First, FF’s uniquely user-centric marketing strategy.

Through FF’s Co-Creation model, users participate across the entire FF business process, accelerating product upgrades, technology evolution, brand amplification, and user-driven network effects. The platform is built on partnership philosophy, sharing-economy principles, and an open-ecosystem approach. The report notes that no other automaker has developed such a comprehensive engagement platform.
Second, FF’s U.S.–China dual home, dual DNA strategy minimizes tariff exposure.
FF operates under a “dual home” strategy, leveraging manufacturing strengths in both China (lower cost base) and the United States (higher tariff environment). The company operates a manufacturing facility in California, where vehicles are assembled and painted using components sourced from China.
Third, FF’s valuation is deeply discounted and offers compelling upside.

Looking ahead to 2027, the stock appears undervalued relative to peers. If current average sales multiples (market-cap-to-sales of 3.11x and EV-to-sales of 3.15x) remain in 2026, the stock would be more than 50% undervalued. Litchfield Hills Research believes FF’s growth trajectory will outperform the broader market, and that the shares merit above-average valuation multiples. The firm therefore assigns a Buy rating with a $5 price target.

This is no longer a what-if market. Shield, Guardant’s blood test, is FDA approved as a primary CRC screen for average-risk adults and meets Medicare coverage requirements. Exact’s next-gen Cologuard Plus is FDA approved and slated to launch with Medicare coverage and distribution across 350+ health systems in 2025. Regulators and payers have already normalized at-home and blood-based CRC screening.

Where MYNZ fits: pooled ASCO data from ColoFuture plus eAArly DETECT reported CRC sensitivity about 92 percent, advanced adenomas 82 percent, and high-grade dysplasia near 95.8 percent. Against public Shield figures around 84 percent sensitivity and about 90 percent specificity, MYNZ is pitching a high-accuracy stool DNA plus AI panel into a channel that already reimburses noninvasive CRC tests. The remaining hurdles are scale and proof in average-risk U.S. patients.

In this make believe world, chemtrails do not just float away. They settle, get inhaled, pass through mucosa, and hitch a ride to the GI tract. Cue a wave of imaginary colorectal mutations that would make any public health chart cry. Panic rises, clinics fill, and someone asks the only smart question in the room. Can we catch this early before it becomes a bigger problem.
Enter МYNZ in this parody timeline. ColoAlert is a stool DNA plus FIT screen the company reports at about 97 percent sensitivity and 97 percent specificity with 100 percent detection of high grade precancer. PancAlert feasibility has shown 100 percent sensitivity and 95 percent specificity in pancreas. In our spoof scenario, those tools become the firewall. You screen, you find early changes, you remove lesions with limited surgery, and you avoid the downhill path of late stage disease.
Not medical or financial advice.

ColoAlert In Plain English: How A PCR Stool DNA Test Competes In CRC Screening

People are overreacting to the whole market coupling news honestly. Even the management doesn’t seem much bothered about it if you listen to the latest concall.
And anyway, coupling is only for the DAM(Day Ahead Market) segment for now.
There’s RTM(Real Time Market) segment among other segments, and the funny thing is in the latest quarter RTM earnings were actually higher than DAM.
Worst case scenario, in DAM segment they lose some market share… so what?
They’re at 80%+ market share already today in that segment. Even if that becomes 70 or 60, it’s not the end of the world. And again, this is just one segment we are talking about.
Currently the fees are like 2paisa each on buy/sell side per unit if I am not wrong. That’s like 1% of the entire txn value.
Even if their competitors make it like 1 paisa each or something I don’t see a lot of volumes shifting just like that.
Volumes attract volumes which then attracts even more volumes - that’s how exchanges work.
IEX is very similar to NSE tbh in terms of its DNA. Both of them are innovators, and invest heavily into their technologies making them the market leaders.
Short-term power market where all these exchanges are relevant itself is growing 16–18% YoY while the overall energy market is growing 7–8%. And only around 7% of India’s total power consumption is traded on exchanges right now. Still a huge runway left. (Please recheck these numbers.)
My point is even if IEX loses some market share in DAM segment for now, the earnings growth would eventually catch up to it, and compensate for the lost marketshare.
Besides the management has also made it very clear, they will clear whatever volumes that come to their exchange even if the price in DAM is the same in all the exchanges.
People also forget IEX has a gas exchange IGX which could genuinely become another IEX if things go right according to the management.
Plus they’re building the carbon credits exchange ICX which could be even bigger later.
Not to mention they are also expanding into international territories like Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. As grid connectivity extends, IEX plans to expand its market to other South Asian countries as well.
Cash generation is insane too — like 40% of equity or something. No debtors hence no receivables. It’s a cash printing machine like that.
The only real issue I see is they don’t have alot of reinvestment opportunities. So they just keep doing R&D for innovation, and make their offerings and services better.
At the current price there’s genuinely a lot of value according to my point of view, and if you look at the shareholding, it’s mostly retail that has run away, institutions like Parag Parikh and MIT have actually been buying even after the correction. That by itself says alot.
There’s a saying in SMC, “transfer from weak hands to strong hands". You know what happens next. 🚀
Disclaimer: This is strictly not a financial advice and I am not a SEBI registered analyst. I’m just sharing my views, and analysis. Please do your own research and reverify the numbers. Investing comes with risks and I’m not responsible for anyone’s decisions.

And maximum defence stocks had a sentiment shift and lack the DNA of compounding and people who have invested in late 2024-2025 at the top of cycle will face plateau mode and compression for a very long time. .

Scamming is built into India’s cultural DNA. The western world needs to wake up and realize that mass immigration from the subcontinent is terrible for society.

Open a trading terminal from 1985. Open one from 2025. They show the same tools: RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, moving averages. Forty years of market evolution—almost no evolution in indicators. The problem is simple: these indicators were built for a market structure that no longer exists. Crypto now jumps across liquidity cliffs and flash-crash microstructures. FX grinds through slow macro cycles and mean-reverting dispersion. Equities sit in the middle—fragmented liquidity, sudden volatility shocks, constant regime shifts. Yet traders still rely on indicators designed for a smooth, Gaussian, pre-HFT world.

So here’s the real question: if we were designing the perfect indicator today, from scratch… what would it look like? Spoiler: nothing like RSI or MACD. In fact, nothing like anything a human would design. Because the perfect indicator isn’t engineered. It’s discovered! Give evolution millions of architectures to explore. Test each one across billions of datapoints, thousands of assets, and wildly different regimes. Let only the stable, predictive, and robust structures survive. And evolution keeps converging to the same motifs—not because they’re intuitive or simple, but because the physics of modern markets forces them to exist.

Across different markets, the evolution discovers indicators with the same DNA:
🔥 Multi-scale momentum that expands in predictable regimes and shrinks in chaotic ones.
🔥 Entropy awareness — low-entropy = opportunity, high-entropy = danger.
🔥 Volatility-adaptive scaling so the same indicator works on DOGE, EURUSD, and the S&P 500.
🔥 Tail-robust filtering to survive jumps, gaps, and microstructure shocks.
🔥 Regime detection so it can say: “No trade here. Expected value is negative.”
🔥 Non-linear fusion of multiple horizons, not the single-window thinking of classical indicators.

Each asset class evolves its own “style.” Crypto indicators become defensive and entropy-driven to survive sudden jumps. FX indicators smooth out, matching slow macro drift. Equity indicators form hybrids, constantly adapting to fragmented liquidity and volatility shocks. Humans didn’t design these behaviors—markets did. These structures emerged because they’re the only ones that consistently survive real market dynamics, not because they’re elegant or interpretable.

The hard truth: quants can’t design the perfect indicator. The search space is massive. Relationships are nonlinear. Regimes shift too fast. Microstructure destroys intuition. Evolution can handle this. LLMs generate functional building blocks. Cross-market testing pressure-tests every candidate. And the indicators that survive never look like textbook formulas—because they weren’t invented. They were evolved!
**#QuantFinance** **#AlgorithmicTrading** **#AITrading** **#LLMResearch** **#FinancialAI** **#TradingStrategies** **#EvolutionaryAI** **#QuantResearch**

Galleri headlines are everywhere again. Pathfinder-2 reported it detected about seven times more cancers than standard screenings, with around 70 percent of detected cancers lacking routine screening and about half found at stage I–II. Price sits near 950 dollars and broad coverage is still limited. That hype lifts the whole early detection story, but payers often start with organ-specific tests that have clearer economics and existing codes.
That is the lane for a kit-based CRC screen and a pancreas program. Company materials for ColoAlert have cited about 97 percent sensitivity, 97 percent specificity, and 100 percent detection of high-grade precancer. Pooled ASCO data for the next-gen CRC work read CRC sensitivity about 92 percent, advanced adenomas 82 percent, and high-grade dysplasia 95.8 percent. PancAlert feasibility reported 100 percent sensitivity and 95 percent specificity in pancreas. The U.S. corridor already pays for noninvasive CRC screening, with FDA-approved stool DNA and blood tests covered by Medicare.
If targeted tests keep this accuracy and slot into existing CRC coverage, do you expect payers to prioritize them before broad MCED screens on cost grounds?

The EU’s Beating Cancer Plan targets 90% CRC screening coverage in eligible citizens. That is a policy push, not a headline. It means systems are expected to expand programs and close gaps between countries. CRC remains a heavy burden at \~1.9M cases and \~935k deaths each year. Five-year survival is near 90% when localized and falls to the mid-teens when metastatic. A stool DNA + FIT screen that catches high-grade precancer earlier fits that mission.
MYNZ already sells ColoAlert in Europe via partner labs and added new access in 2025: UK registration on 2 Sep 2025 and Swissmedic approval on 13 Aug 2025. A decentralized kit model lets existing labs adopt without big capex. The way to grade this is numeric: ordering clinics added, turnaround time improvements, and steady reorders by region over the next 1–2 quarters.
Which EU market would you expect to show the first step-function increase in orders: UK under new registration or Switzerland under Swissmedic?
Not financial advice. Do your own research.

Pooled results presented for MYNZ combine ColoFuture and eAArly DETECT: colorectal cancer sensitivity about 92 percent, advanced adenomas 82 percent, and high-grade dysplasia 95.8 percent. That profile is competitive on the metrics clinicians care about. For context, Shield, the FDA approved blood test, has reported around 84 percent sensitivity with about 90 percent specificity in average-risk screening. The trade-off is stool DNA plus FIT versus blood, but accuracy drives clinical confidence and guideline adoption.

Two caveats matter. First, cohort sizes and study design influence headline numbers, so the U.S. feasibility read and the 15,000 patient pivotal will be the real referee. Second, payers weigh total test cost and downstream colonoscopy rates, so specificity and workflows count. Still, this is why traders keep MYNZ on screen. The data arc is trending toward what guidelines want to see.

If the U.S. feasibility output matches the pooled figures, do you underwrite adoption on par with covered options, or wait for early real-world data?

Wall Street Institution Evaluates FFAI: Shares Significantly Undervalued, Recommends Buy With a $5 Price Target
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/litchfield-hills-initiates-coverage-faraday-future-intelligent-electric-ffai-buy
Fintel reports that on November 20, 2025, Litchfield Hills initiated coverage of Faraday Future Intelligent Electric (NasdaqCM:FFAI) with a Buy recommendation.

Wall Street Firm Recommends Buying FFAI: $5
The institution finds FF’s current valuation to be “clearly undervalued,” assigning a Buy rating and a $5 price target.

The report highlights FF’s differentiated Co-Creation model, its leading AI + Crypto dual-ecosystem strategy, and its increasingly valuable U.S.–China automotive industry bridge strategy, which together provide substantial potential and long-term growth prospects. The report further emphasizes that this bridge strategy not only significantly optimizes FF’s overall cost structure, but also provides rare strategic resilience amid tariff volatility and other uncertainties.

The analysts view this as an important external validation of FF’s intrinsic value by a professional Wall Street institution. It also signals growing re-evaluation and recognition of FF among institutional investors. According to the report, if FF continues to drive true value realization through improvements in fundamentals and strategic execution, the company will be positioned to maximize shareholder value.
Litchfield states in the report that FF is fundamentally different from traditional EV manufacturers. The firm believes FF has opened a new path in manufacturing and marketing—one that could allow FF to capture meaningful market share in the near term within the high-end segment, and ultimately across the broader EV market.

First, FF’s uniquely user-centric marketing strategy.

Through FF’s Co-Creation model, users participate across the entire FF business process, accelerating product upgrades, technology evolution, brand amplification, and user-driven network effects. The platform is built on partnership philosophy, sharing-economy principles, and an open-ecosystem approach. The report notes that no other automaker has developed such a comprehensive engagement platform.
Second, FF’s U.S.–China dual home, dual DNA strategy minimizes tariff exposure.
FF operates under a “dual home” strategy, leveraging manufacturing strengths in both China (lower cost base) and the United States (higher tariff environment). The company operates a manufacturing facility in California, where vehicles are assembled and painted using components sourced from China.
Third, FF’s valuation is deeply discounted and offers compelling upside.

Looking ahead to 2027, the stock appears undervalued relative to peers. If current average sales multiples (market-cap-to-sales of 3.11x and EV-to-sales of 3.15x) remain in 2026, the stock would be more than 50% undervalued. Litchfield Hills Research believes FF’s growth trajectory will outperform the broader market, and that the shares merit above-average valuation multiples. The firm therefore assigns a Buy rating with a $5 price target.

This is no longer a what-if market. Shield, Guardant’s blood test, is FDA approved as a primary CRC screen for average-risk adults and meets Medicare coverage requirements. Exact’s next-gen Cologuard Plus is FDA approved and slated to launch with Medicare coverage and distribution across 350+ health systems in 2025. Regulators and payers have already normalized at-home and blood-based CRC screening.

Where MYNZ fits: pooled ASCO data from ColoFuture plus eAArly DETECT reported CRC sensitivity about 92 percent, advanced adenomas 82 percent, and high-grade dysplasia near 95.8 percent. Against public Shield figures around 84 percent sensitivity and about 90 percent specificity, MYNZ is pitching a high-accuracy stool DNA plus AI panel into a channel that already reimburses noninvasive CRC tests. The remaining hurdles are scale and proof in average-risk U.S. patients.

In this make believe world, chemtrails do not just float away. They settle, get inhaled, pass through mucosa, and hitch a ride to the GI tract. Cue a wave of imaginary colorectal mutations that would make any public health chart cry. Panic rises, clinics fill, and someone asks the only smart question in the room. Can we catch this early before it becomes a bigger problem.
Enter МYNZ in this parody timeline. ColoAlert is a stool DNA plus FIT screen the company reports at about 97 percent sensitivity and 97 percent specificity with 100 percent detection of high grade precancer. PancAlert feasibility has shown 100 percent sensitivity and 95 percent specificity in pancreas. In our spoof scenario, those tools become the firewall. You screen, you find early changes, you remove lesions with limited surgery, and you avoid the downhill path of late stage disease.
Not medical or financial advice.

ColoAlert In Plain English: How A PCR Stool DNA Test Competes In CRC Screening