If Lithium was a low growth commodity you would be 100% correct...

If Lithium was a low growth commodity you would be 100% correct that the prudent position would be to conserve cash because it can take a long time for a supply overhang to clear if growth rates are 1-5% pa (or even negative).

Pretty much every report, chart, indication and forecast I've seen has lithium demand growing at 20%+. This sort of growth rate clears any supply overhang quickly. Even massive projects like LTR's KV and Leo's project when fully ramped up each represent under 6 months LCE supply growth requirements. Reports like GS's manage to continue showing a supply overhang but appear to only achieve that by few or no stalled projects, minimal commissioning delays and robust growth in high-cost sources of Chinese supply. That last assumption is interesting because many commentators put the cost of that Chinese hard rock supply above current prices. That would require expansion of a loss making project. Because the losses are due to grade / unit processing costs not scale inefficiencies, its not something fixed by becoming bigger.

If there is to be a good increase in supply in 2025 and into 2026, those FID decisions need to be happening soon, if not now. At least by Australian companies, those FID decisions aren't happening because the previous cycle cleared almost all FID ready projects and got them underway. The next wave of projects at scoping studies like DLI, LRS, GL1, GT1 & LMP aren't yet FID ready. You probably want to be near the lead of this pack, not the last one in the group. While uncomfortable, its still prudent to continue good speed development of the projects (not speed at any cost, just a good pace).