TLDR

• Applied Materials, Lam Research, and Tokyo Electron received quote requests from Musk’s Terafab initiative
• The venture represents a collaboration between Tesla and SpaceX focused on achieving AI chip independence
• Intel became a participant in the initiative last week
• The planned output target is 1 terawatt of computing power annually
• Equipment suppliers received urgent quote requests, with some contacted during holidays for expedited responses

Elon Musk’s ambitious Terafab initiative has initiated contact with leading semiconductor equipment manufacturers to obtain pricing information and projected delivery schedules. Bloomberg first disclosed this development on April 15, 2026.

The companies receiving outreach include Applied Materials, Lam Research, and Tokyo Electron. Additional reports indicate that Samsung Electronics has also been contacted.

Applied Materials, Inc., AMAT

The Terafab project operates as a collaborative venture between Tesla and SpaceX. Musk publicly revealed the initiative in March 2026.

The primary objective involves establishing complete chip production independence for Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI. According to Musk, the operation will consolidate chip design, manufacturing, lithography, masking, and packaging processes within a single integrated facility.

The annual production target stands at 1 terawatt of computing capacity. This ambitious figure would surpass the aggregate output of most existing global semiconductor manufacturers.

Intel announced its participation in the Terafab project last week. This marks Intel as among the first established semiconductor companies to officially commit to the venture.

Accelerated Timeline Driving Supplier Engagement

According to industry sources, Musk’s team has approached suppliers with notable urgency. Multiple instances show representatives contacting equipment makers during holiday periods with requests for same-week delivery schedules.

Suppliers frequently received limited information regarding the specific products planned for manufacture. This lack of detail has generated questions about how thoroughly the project’s operational plans have been developed.

This rapid approach aligns with Musk’s public commitment to executing the project at what he describes as “lightning speed.”

Terafab’s Strategic Purpose

The semiconductors manufactured at Terafab will support Musk’s artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous vehicle initiatives. These applications span his ventures including Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI.

Establishing independent chip manufacturing capabilities represents Musk’s strategy to eliminate dependency on external suppliers such as Nvidia and TSMC.

The proposed facility would integrate the entire semiconductor production process under one structure. This degree of vertical integration represents an uncommon approach within the semiconductor sector.

Terafab’s geographic location has not been officially disclosed. The project’s completion timeline also remains uncertain given the preliminary nature of current supplier communications.

Applied Materials and Lam Research rank among the world’s foremost providers of semiconductor manufacturing equipment. Their involvement at the quotation phase indicates Terafab remains in preliminary planning rather than active construction.

Tokyo Electron maintains a position as a prominent Japanese equipment manufacturer and critical supplier to semiconductor foundries globally.

Intel’s entry into the project last week represents the most current confirmed milestone in Terafab’s evolution.

The Cato Institute, a prominent US think tank, is urging policymakers to rethink capital gains taxation on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. In a new policy note, researcher Nicholas Anthony argues that removing or reshaping capital gains taxes could unlock cheaper, more competitive money by reducing the tax distortions that currently incentivize long-term holding and heavy reporting requirements.

Anthony suggests the simplest option might be to eliminate capital gains taxes on crypto entirely. As an alternative, he outlines measures that would exempt crypto and foreign currency transactions when used to purchase goods or services, aiming to “take the government’s thumb off the scale and let competition be the true decider of the best money.” He emphasizes that a tax regime that treats everyday crypto spending like ordinary taxable events can undermine the practical use of digital assets as a means of exchange.

Key takeaways

• Policy proposal: The Cato Institute recommends either scrapping capital gains taxes on crypto entirely or exempting crypto transactions used for everyday purchases from CGT to foster competition among money-like assets.
• Tax burden for users: The note highlights how even simple, routine crypto spending can trigger complex tax filings, deterring everyday usage and broader adoption.
• Alternative approaches: A de minimis tax threshold is proposed as another option to limit CGT triggers unless gains exceed a defined amount.
• Adoption signals: Recent data show growing real-world use of crypto for goods and services, underscoring the potential market impact of tax policy reforms.

Rethinking the tax kernel of crypto spending

The policy paper frames capital gains taxes as a friction point for crypto’s evolution from speculative asset to currency. Anthony notes that when individuals buy daily items, such as coffee, with crypto, the IRS-like framework can convert a routine transaction into a complex tax event. He stresses that while Bitcoin and other digital assets have gained practical use, the tax code has not kept pace, creating unnecessary reporting burdens for compliant users.

Anthony’s reasoning aligns with a broader critique circulating among crypto researchers: tax policy should reflect the functional realities of digital currencies as both stores of value and mediums of exchange. By removing or narrowing CGT exposure, proponents argue, the United States could reduce compliance costs for ordinary users, drive greater merchant adoption, and enhance global competitiveness in a landscape where several jurisdictions are actively adjusting crypto tax rules to attract activity and investment.

“Bitcoiners know the frustration of tax season all too well. It’s never been easier to use Bitcoin as money. Yet, at the same time, the tax code puts an incredible burden on law-abiding citizens. Something as simple as buying a cup of coffee every day with Bitcoin can result in more than 100 pages of tax filings.”

The note adds that eliminating CGT entirely would be the most straightforward route, but it also acknowledges practical concerns, such as how to structure exemptions without creating loopholes or excessive compliance challenges. An interim path—removing CGT on crypto purchases of goods and services—could be more politically feasible but would still require robust systems to verify eligible transactions and prevent abuse. A de minimis threshold, where gains are ignored unless they surpass a specific limit, is presented as another approach that could balance simplicity with tax integrity.

Context, costs, and what could change next

The Cato Institute’s position sits within a long-running debate about how best to classify and tax digital assets. The policy note stresses that many Americans already use crypto in everyday life, and the current tax framework often complicates routine spending more than it incentivizes long-term investment. This tension matters not just for individual taxpayers, but for merchants, exchanges, and developers seeking to build crypto-aware ecosystems that function like mainstream payment rails.

Anthony has a track record of engaging lawmakers on crypto policy. The institute has historically argued for policies aimed at reducing unnecessary regulatory frictions, and this latest report continues that stance by centering tax design as a lever for broader crypto adoption. While the note does not propose immediate legislative milestones, it invites policymakers to consider how tax rules could better align with the practical realities of digital money, potentially spurring more competition among payment methods and currencies.

From a market perspective, the implications could be meaningful if tax changes reduce perceived friction around crypto usage. Investors and builders may watch how lawmakers respond to these arguments, particularly in an environment where tax policy remains a primary channel through which government policy shapes crypto activity. The balance to strike is clear: preserve tax integrity while removing unnecessary barriers to use and innovation.

Early signals about real-world crypto usage reinforce the conversation. A 2025 survey from the National Cryptocurrency Association found that 39% of US crypto holders reported using crypto to purchase goods and services. Meanwhile, academic data compiled by Springer Nature indicate roughly 11,000 merchants worldwide accept Bitcoin as payment, illustrating that the flow of crypto into everyday commerce is not merely theoretical. These numbers suggest that any policy shift could have a tangible impact on consumer behavior and merchant acceptance, potentially widening the circle of everyday crypto users.

Beyond the United States, the debate on crypto taxation is part of a broader international trend. Some policymakers argue that tax rules should be simpler and more predictable to reduce compliance costs and uncertainty, while others warn against eroding fiscal bases or creating gaps that could invite abuse. The Cato paper contributes to this ongoing conversation by centering the tax treatment of crypto as a practical driver of adoption and a determinant of how competitive a country’s money system can be.

What to watch as the debate evolves

Readers should monitor potential legislative developments or regulatory proposals that reflect this shift in thinking. If a framework that lightly taxes or exempts crypto transactions gains traction, it could influence not only consumer behavior but also the operating models of wallets, exchanges, and merchants seeking to optimize payment flows. On the flip side, any move to preserve or tighten CGT could sustain the existing friction that incentives buy-and-hold strategies over active use.

As the policy discussion unfolds, market participants and observers will be watching for concrete proposals, transitional rules, and how enforcement and reporting would be handled under new regimes. The central question remains: can tax policy reshape crypto usage in a way that strengthens competition and broadens access without eroding fiscal safeguards?

What remains uncertain is the precise design of any reform and how it would interact with state taxes, international tax agreements, and evolving regulatory views on digital assets. Still, the debate underscores a growing consensus that the tax treatment of crypto is not just about revenues—it’s a lever that could influence the pace of crypto adoption, the behavior of users, and the strategic choices of builders in the ecosystem.

Investors and practitioners should keep a close eye on policymaker statements, study updates from organizations advocating for tax reform, and assess how changes to CGT could affect demand, merchant acceptance, and the broader competitive landscape of money in the digital era.

You can buy a cup of coffee with bitcoin BTC$74,762.35 easily enough in the U.S. — and get a tax headache thrown in for free.

The form-filling burden is enough to deter users from using the largest cryptocurrency to pay for real-world transactions, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank known for its support of free markets, limited government and individual liberty. Abolishing capital gains tax could change that, it said.

“It’s never been easier to use Bitcoin as money,” Nicholas Anthony, a research fellow at the institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, wrote in a report. “Yet, at the same time, the tax code puts an incredible burden on law-abiding citizens. Something as simple as buying a cup of coffee every day with Bitcoin can result in over 100 pages of tax filings.”

That’s because the tax system doesn’t treat bitcoin as cash at the point of payment. Instead, every transaction is treated as if an asset has been sold just at that moment, triggering capital gains calculations. And the calculations aren’t straightforward.

That means figuring out when the bitcoin (or fraction of bitcoin) used in the transaction was originally acquired, how much it cost and the value at the moment it was spent. The difference is then treated as a taxable capital gain or loss.

Then it gets complicated. It’s quite possible the BTC was accumulated in several batches rather than a single purchase. So when you paid for the coffee, the coins could have been acquired at different times, each with its own cost basis and purchase price. Those details need to be retrieved, recorded and reported. Every time.

The headache doesn’t stop there, because there is always a risk of penalty or audit in case you make a mistake in reporting.

The fix

Anthony said the system is broken and Congress can fix it in several ways, including abolishing capital gains tax on bitcoin.

“Doing so would take the government’s thumb off the scale and let competition be the true decider of the best money,” he said.

Another option is to exempt bitcoin from capital gains specifically when used as a payment method. However, this creates the additional hassle of proving that the coins were spent to purchase goods and services.

A third option involves creating a “de minimis tax,” under which capital gains apply only if the transaction exceeds a certain threshold.

He cited the Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act as a potential fix, noting that it could exempt personal crypto transactions from capital gains taxes as long as the gains do not exceed $200. He argued this threshold is too low, and suggested linking it to average household spending, around $80,000, to better reflect real-world consumption.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has warned that China already has the computing power and data center capacity necessary to train an AI model at the same level as Anthropic’s AI model Claude Mythos, which could threaten global cybersecurity.

Huang was asked in an interview on the Dwarkesh Patel podcast on Wednesday whether the Chinese government’s access to chips to train a model like Claude Mythos — which has cyberoffensive capabilities — could be a threat to US national security.

Mythos was trained on a “fairly mundane capacity,” Huang said. 

“The amount of capacity and the type of compute it was trained on is abundantly available in China, so you just have to first realize that chips exist in China.”

Anthropic limited access to its new AI model in April after it identified thousands of software vulnerabilities across major operating systems and browsers, raising concerns about potential misuse in cyberattacks. A Chinese-made AI model with the same capability could wreak havoc if misused. 

Huang said that the amount of compute China has is “enormous.” 

“They have datacenters that are sitting completely empty, fully powered. You know, they have ghost cities, they have ghost datacenters too. They have so much infrastructure capacity. If they wanted to, they [could] just gang up more chips.”

A call for dialogue, not conflict

Huang added that China manufactures 60% of the world’s mainstream chips, has some of the best computer scientists, has 50% of the world’s AI researchers and an abundance of energy. 

“Victimizing them, turning them into an enemy, likely isn’t the best answer,” he said. “They are an adversary.”

“We want the United States to win. But I think having a dialogue and having research dialogue is probably the safest thing to do.”

Related: Anthropic limits access to AI model over cyberattack concerns

On Tuesday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hailed Mythos as a revolutionary step that will keep America ahead of China in the AI race. “This Anthropic Mythos model was a step function change in abilities, learning capabilities,” he said, according to Bloomberg. 

Claude Mythos poses a real threat 

Anthropic released findings on Claude Mythos Preview on April 7, sparking concern that the model could be used in cyberattacks due to its ability to discover and potentially exploit zero-day vulnerabilities. The company also claimed that 99% of the vulnerabilities the model discovered have not been patched yet.

Meanwhile, the AI Security Institute (AISI) evaluated Mythos on April 13, finding that the AI model could  “execute multi-stage attacks on vulnerable networks and discover and exploit vulnerabilities autonomously,” tasks that would take human professionals days of work.

AI-boosted hacks with Mythos could also have dire consequences for banks, which often use decades-old software, Reuters reported on Tuesday. 

Last year, Anthropic reported in November that a “Chinese state-sponsored group” manipulated its Claude Code tool in an attempt to infiltrate about 30 global targets and succeeded in a small number of cases.

Magazine: How AI just dramatically sped up the quantum risk for Bitcoin