Unlike sham transactions that invent revenue, investments like Nvidia's into its GPU customers are economically sound. The deciding factor is the massive, verifiable downstream demand for the AI tokens these GPUs produce. This makes the deals a form of strategic credit extension, not fraudulent accounting.
Related Insights
The strongest evidence that corporate AI spending is generating real ROI is that major tech companies are not just re-ordering NVIDIA's chips, but accelerating those orders quarter over quarter. This sustained, growing demand from repeat customers validates the AI trend as a durable boom.
NVIDIA's financing of customers who buy its GPUs is a strategic move to accelerate the creation of AGI, their ultimate market. It also serves a defensive purpose: ensuring the massive capital expenditure cycle doesn't halt, as a market downturn could derail the entire AI infrastructure buildout that their business relies on.
Current AI investment patterns mirror the "round-tripping" seen in the late '90s tech bubble. For example, NVIDIA invests billions in a startup like OpenAI, which then uses that capital to purchase NVIDIA chips. This creates an illusion of demand and inflated valuations, masking the lack of real, external customer revenue.
Seemingly strange deals, like NVIDIA investing in companies that then buy its GPUs, serve a deep strategic purpose. It's not just financial engineering; it's a way to forge co-dependent alliances, secure its central role in the ecosystem, and effectively anoint winners in the AI arms race.
Instead of simple cash transactions, major AI deals are structured circularly. A chipmaker sells to a lab and effectively finances the purchase with stock warrants, betting that the deal announcement itself will inflate their market cap enough to cover the cost, creating a self-fulfilling financial loop.
Martin Shkreli reframes the critique of circular AI investments (e.g., Nvidia invests in OpenAI, which pays Oracle, which buys Nvidia chips). He argues this isn't a flaw but simply an "economy." Its legitimacy is proven not by internal transactions, but by the strong and growing demand from outside users and companies.
NVIDIA's vendor financing isn't a sign of bubble dynamics but a calculated strategy to build a controlled ecosystem, similar to Standard Oil. By funding partners who use its chips, NVIDIA prevents them from becoming competitors and counters the full-stack ambitions of rivals like Google, ensuring its central role in the AI supply chain.
Jensen Huang counters accusations of inflating revenue by investing in customers. He clarifies the investment in OpenAI is a separate, opportunistic financial bet, while chip sales are driven by market demand and funded independently by OpenAI's own capital raising—not by NVIDIA's investment.
A circular economy is forming in AI, where capital flows between major players. NVIDIA invests $100B in OpenAI, which uses the funds to buy compute from Oracle, who in turn buys GPUs from NVIDIA. This self-reinforcing loop concentrates capital and drives up valuations across the ecosystem.
The AI infrastructure boom is a potential house of cards. A single dollar of end-user revenue paid to a company like OpenAI can become $8 of "seeming revenue" as it cascades through the value chain to Microsoft, CoreWeave, and NVIDIA, supporting an unsustainable $100 of equity market value.
