Most bubbles you see coming from a mile away. You just don't know how many miles away the actual pop is.

Does the math check out, though? For reference, Nvidia added $17B of non-marketable securities in 2025, and its total revenue was $215B. So, assuming all these equity investments went to GPU purchases, they only amount to 8% of its annual revenue.

Since these firms (neoclouds and AI startups) will get consolidated if Nvidia puts too much money into them, I assume the majority of their funds are coming from elsewhere.

Just like we knew for at least a year already about the sales through Singapore. A lot of people called it for what it is at the time already (see for example: https://www.ft.com/content/6b1ce190-24d4-4f39-a518-ef9dae5fa...). And yet, things unrolled very slowly, then suddenly.

My theory is that once new CEO is found, especially if he comes from the outside, he will be highly incentivized to denounce past sins and disclose as much as possible to start with a clean sheet. I would bet that this is one of the main reasons the stock is tanking. House of cards is about to collapse, and that may be the trigger.

People pointed it out as early as 2023...

We did but people simply keep pretending it’s not happening.

Between the circular financing and behaviour some analysts call “channel-stuffing”, it does seem that with Jensen Huang gone, the music is perhaps about to stop.

Why is Nvidia financing neoclouds to buy Nvidia chips to rent to AI customers instead of owning the DCs themselves? At least it was my understanding that run their own DCs for GeForce Now for example

Cisco did the same circular finance during 1998-2000 dot com bubble and Cisco crashed after that.

I just am unable to understand whether it's a bad thing or not, you could frame it as being circular, but you could also see it as Nvidia simply giving hardware in exchange for startup equity, is that really fundamentally problematic, is it the scale at which it was done, or is it a valid but risky tactic?